New Stanek WND column: "Italian abortion mafia"

wnd_logo.gif

One of the best scenes in the Godfather movie trilogy was in "Godfather II," when Kay Corleone (Diane Keaton) told her husband Michael (Al Pacino) she was taking their two children and leaving him. The dialogue:

Michael: Do you expect me to let you take my children from me?.... Don't you know that's an impossibility, that that could never happen, that I'd use all my power to keep something like that from ever happening?.... I know you blame me for losing the baby. Yes. I know what that meant to you. Kay. I swear I'll make it up to you.... I'll change. And you'll forget about this miscarriage, and we'll have another child, and we'll go on, you and I, we'll go on.

kay.jpgKay: Oh - oh, Michael, Michael, you are blind. It wasn't a miscarriage. It was an abortion, an abortion, Michael! Just like our marriage is an abortion, something that's unholy and evil. I didn't want your son, Michael! I wouldn't bring another one of your sons into this world! It was an abortion, Michael. It was a son, a son, and I had it killed, because this must all end. I know now that it's over. I knew it then. There would be no way, Michael, no way you could ever forgive me, not with this Sicilian thing that's been going on for 2,000 years....

SLAP.

Michael: You won't take my family!

And she doesn't.

That spontaneous slap was the reaction of a real man who a woman had just told she aborted his baby. Compare that to the modern day cowardly male response, "It's your choice. Whatever you decide, I'll support you." Or worse, his threat to abandon her if she does not abort.

It was this fierce devotion to family that strangely endeared us to the Corleone men despite their otherwise heinous behavior.

In fact, Mafiosos aside, the Italian culture has always evoked thoughts of large, loving families.

No longer. Legalized abortion has poisoned Italy.

According to several foreign or Christian news reports like this one in SperoNews.com:

A 13-year-old girl is in the psychiatric unit of an Italian hospital after a forced abortion....

Continue reading my WorldNetDaily.com column today, "Italian abortion mafia."


Comments:

I appreciate what you do, and your voice against evil. But I suggest that your opening illustration does not sit well in making your point. The reader is forced to side with the mafioso in hating abortion.

Posted by: W. G. at March 1, 2007 7:52 AM


The point is, even the evil mafia hates abortion.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 1, 2007 7:54 AM


I appreciate very much your devotion to the prolife cause. I do wish you'd chosen a better vehicle than this one to make your point, which is a good one.

Men who slap women are cowards whether or not it's "spontaneous." It's hard to think that a man devoted to his family, which includes his wife, shows it by physical violence, or by having his own brother murdered. A lot of us aren't endeared to the Corleone men for any reason.

Posted by: Janet at March 1, 2007 7:55 AM


I appreciate your thought and respectfully disagree. If a man has just been told a woman has killed his child, I do not fault him for responding with a slap. I can't think of anything that would more qualify for righteous indignation.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 1, 2007 7:56 AM


Great lead up to a pointed article.

I had just finished Mark Steyn's book America Alone and so the data didn't surprise me – always good to have anecdotal ammunition though.

Posted by: Jerry at March 1, 2007 8:29 AM


Great article, Jill! I loved how you used that scene from The Godfather to create interest and an emotional response that encourages readers to finish reading the article. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Josh at March 1, 2007 9:02 AM


Keep telling them. The power to overturn this evil lies in the hands of the women's story. It's how Jesus wants his victory to be won, through His loving and complete mercy!

Posted by: Helene at March 1, 2007 11:12 AM


I am one of your admirers in the pro-life movement. I am a dedicated volunteer at our local crisis pregnancy center, and I am head of the Respect Life Ministry at my parish. I am also Italian, specifically, I am Sicilian.

In your column today, I found your title, "Italian Abortion Mafia," to be highly offensive. Your title seemed to imply that the mafia has something to do with the abortion laws in Italy, but nowhere in your article did you make that case. Also, your example of a fictional wife-beating, murdering mafia don as somehow being representative of an Italian "culture of life" was outrageous.

I, too, am shocked and dismayed at what has occurred in Italy regarding abortion, contraception, and a general movement away from the teachings of the Church, but to characterize the abortion laws in Italy as somehow being connected to the mafia will only continue to stigmatize my Sicilian ancestors and relatives whom I love dearly. Unfortunately, the Culture of Death that has overtaken Italy is the same one that has infected the rest of Europe and the United States. It has NOTHING to do with the mafia.

I hope that you will consider printing an apology to all life-loving people of Italian and Sicilian heritage. Believe it or not, Ms. Stanek, we are not all in the mafia.

Sincerely,
Granddaughter of Rosario and Maria V. from San Giuseppe Jato, Sicily

Posted by: Valerie M. at March 1, 2007 11:42 AM


For me personally, your recent article on Italy's forced abortion law hit home. Simply, it is an evil, satanic law that needs to be repealed along with all and any other worldwide laws that either allow or promote abortion of any kind.

While I am not or ever have been in the Mafia, I am 100% Sicilian and 100% pro-family. In fact, my dad was born in Palermo, Sicily and my mom in Agrigento. If my daughter ever got pregnant, she would have the baby and, if the male did not step up to the plate to support her and the new human being, I would. Of course, the offending party would answer to me as well.

I don't think the Michael Corleone devotion to family is a Mafia thing, however, I do believe it's a Sicilian thing. In the book of Acts where Paul was bit by a poisonous viper on the Island of Malta where they had shipwrecked, comments are made about how hospitable the people were, even back then. So I think the family connection in Malta/Sicily is a historical fact. I too am totally devoted to my family, as was my father and mother. Their grandchildren and my kids are proof of that. The "black hand" had its roots in Sicily where families were forced to pay for protection against criminals to private individuals because the government structure had failed to do so. Of course, while the original intent was good it evolved into this evil now called the Mafia.

Isn't it ironic that when the government fails to do the right thing great evil results? In the case of abortion, the US government passed Roe v. Wade, and our society has murdered nearly 50,000,000 innocent children since. Shame on those Christians who fail to see the connection and as a result allow the dark side to thrive unchallenged. The Lord is not happy with their failure to be salt and light.

Back to your statement about Michael Corleone being a real man. Well, in the sense that he understood the sanctity of family he was, on the other hand, he was intensely evil. His wife, in playing God and murdering their child as an act of justification, was no better. How did she know that that child wouldn't have been a force for good? Point is, in her arrogance and ignorance, she didn't know but acted as if she did know. She acted as a god in her self-worship.

However, I blame almost the entire abortion era on males. Males allowed Roe V. Wade to become law. Males get women pregnant and then abandon them forcing them into a corner where abortion looks like an easy way out. I can't think of a more cowardly act for a male to not act like a man and support a women and their child. The Lord thinks the same way when He says that a man that does not support his family is worse than a non-believer.

To the extent that males have abandoned their God-given mandate to be loving, bold, and moral servant-leaders in their homes, the church, and in the marketplace, they are not men.

So, a word to males from a real man. If you're not seeking the Lord and His ways, you're not on your way to becoming a real man, but simply a human being with male genitals. Jesus Christ was the ultimate man and we should all seek to follow Him and that means to be willing to lay down your life for others.

Posted by: Philip at March 1, 2007 11:43 AM


Ms. Stanek, REAL men don't slap or beat their women, and for you to state that is DESPICABLE!

And contrary to opinion, NOT all Italian families are LOVING. I grew up with 100% Italian parents. My Mother was right off the boat. The physical and emotional abuse that we their kids suffered at their hands was astounding and left us with permanent scars.

I don't advocate abortion, but I can tell you how my parents would have treated me if I had gotten pregnant as a teenager. I would have been ridiculed on a daily basis, and they would have told every person that would sit still long enough what trash I was. Not one day would have gone by where they didn't throw up to my face what a BIG sin I had committed by having a baby out of wedlock. They would have treated my child the same way.

When I did get pregnant at the age of 36 and married, they acted like I had just told them I had an abortion because they did not like my husband. They were not happy at all. My Mother also had the audacity to say to my sister RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY SON that she wished I never married his father, to which my son replied, "Then I guess you wish I was never born, Grandma." This hurt my son and I very, very much.

Thankfully both of these monsters are dead.

Posted by: A. H. at March 1, 2007 11:52 AM


A,

First, let me express sorrow for your upbringing.

As I responded earlier, my point was if a man has just been told a woman has killed his child, I would not fault him for responding with a slap. I cannot think of a better reason for righteous indignation.

The "real man" comparison was to that of a coward or someone who would threaten to leave a woman if she doesn't kill his baby.

I'm not saying a slap in the a fit of anger is Scriptural. Jesus turned over tables but didn't hit people. But I do understand, and in my opinion the man who has that reaction is more of a man than the other two.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 1, 2007 11:55 AM


How many abortion-minded Catholics today and same-sex marriage Catholics feel they are being 'nice and tolerant' toward others who opt for this life style by being SILENT, but are literally paving their way to hell with such a diabolical tolerance.

It is all about "false charity" within and without the Church which is destroying the West, one of Satan's most cunning of weapons. There is much more on this--false charity!

Posted by: J. Hughes Dunphy at March 1, 2007 12:04 PM


Phillip thinks you can't be a "real man" without accepting "jesus." I disagree. In the spirit of being as inoffensive as possible, I'll leave it at that.

Posted by: Hal at March 1, 2007 12:05 PM


Italy has lost her moral compass, as have the rest of Europe. That is why her indigenous population is declining as are the others.

Not surprisingly, the second largest religion in the land of the Church of Rome is Jehovah's Witnesses; nearly a quarter of a million. The waters of Christendom are drying up. [Re 17:1-6] Sadly, the USA had a head start in the slaughter of the innocents, so don't be too hard on Italy. The USA has no claim to sainthood. [Re 16:13]

Posted by: Tony at March 1, 2007 12:27 PM


I still disagree if he doesn't like it he should divorce her not slap her.

Posted by: A.H at March 1, 2007 1:19 PM


I don't think our generation will ever know for certain just how horrific "legalized" abortion is. I continue to believe that future generations will view our own with as much disdain as do the generations of Germans that suffer the "legacy of ethnic guilt" created by the Holocaust.

I suspect that very same "legacy of guilt" will someday be borne by future generations of women who will come to realize just how evil the cult of "pro-choice" was.

Posted by: R. M. at March 1, 2007 3:36 PM


Hal,

That's Philip, not Phillip. What you call me is important.

By the way, you wouldn't be disagreeing with me about the definition of a real man but with the Holy Spirit and the inspired authors of 66 books compiled into 1 book over 4,000 years called the Bible.

If you were a betting male, seems to me it would be pretty stupid to bet the outcome of your eternal soul against that mountain of evidence.

Besides, the real issue is about how males have been major contributors to the abortion holocaust and very simply, had they been following Jesus Christ, would have never allowed this to happen.

It's amazing that you took this so personally in this male centered world. Where's the concern for the unborn millions of human beings that are being slaughtered each year? Many of them are males and I bet they're really offended and scream to their Creator in agony and bewilderment as they are being torn apart in what should be the second most safe place in the universe next to heaven, their mother's womb. He does hear and He will make it right.

Posted by: Phil at March 1, 2007 4:36 PM


I admire your work and always read your columns. I loved this one but was sad for Italy and that little girl, who knew right from wrong. The scene you describe is one of the most powerful in motion-pictures making. The look on Michael's face as his wife gives him the news is anger that only an Italian can summon. I know. I'm Italian back at least 5 centuries.

Unfortunately, the figure you cite for population growth is true of all European cities and American whites and even blacks. True to Margaret Sanger's purpose, they get abortions more than any other "group" and we can see it in numbers now. Miss Sanger would be happy. It's so awful that folks do not know the true purpose of these "founders" or "researchers" like the horribly perverted Kinsey. If you have not read Intellectual Morons, by Daniel J. Flynn, do so soon. It is a series of short biographies of these people so honored by the left, or the ignorant.Whoops, I was repetitive.

But I digress. The only people having families of 5 and 6 children are Mexican (illegal aliens) and Muslims. And with a president that wants no borders, thus a North American Union, the future will be a strange place. According to any Buchanan book and Ann Coulter's last book, we will be outnumbered before 2050, which my children will live to see.

My husband and I are lawyers. I quit when my first of three sons was laid in arms --anyone can do reverse triangular mergers but only I can inculcate my children with our morals and love of God. This spring they turn 21, 18, and 16 and I knew 21 years ago I would have to choose the right college because of the Left's stranglehold. My oldest is at Auburn and the others will follow.

Both my husband and I quit our membership in the American Bar Association 20 years ago when they took a stance for abortion. The ABA is not to express an opinion on any topic. We wrote a well reasoned letter advancing that view and our opinions. We received the nastiest letter in return, telling us that we were small minded, bigoted, probably religious people that just could not understand these matters.

The problem is, they really don't approve of "'choice." God bless you in your work.

A proud Italian, small minded bigoted religious person,

P.J.

Posted by: P. J. at March 1, 2007 7:13 PM


P. J.,

As an Italian I am proud of you and you can bet the Lord is as well.

Well done, good and faithful servant are words I am sure you will hear some day from One in a white, dazzling robe.

Keep your chin up friend. Your mind is as vast as the universe because it is open to the only One who really matters.

Phil

Posted by: Phil at March 1, 2007 9:41 PM


As an American-Irish man, married to an American-Italian wife, I think most of the criticisms for using a fictional, albeit well-known, Mafia character in Jill's column to illustrate a point worth making, are mis-placed.

There is no "right to choose" to kill an unborn baby. NONE. Even the idiots who sat on the Supreme Court when they "legalized" murder, after pretending they could not determine when life begins, qualified their decision by saying the moment life begins, abortion becomes illegal.

Well, the first image in EVERY baby book for the last decade is the sono-gram image taken in mom's womb.

In any event, I suspect Jill was making the observation the decision to have an "abortion" ought not be left to a woman alone. After all, "it" is not "HER BODY", it is 'THEIR CHILD".

Posted by: Bob Moffitt at March 2, 2007 4:44 AM


That was a good reference about the "Godfather" movies. I have only seen the first one when it aired in the 70's. It shows how far Hollywood has fallen since then when even a Mafia movie had a pro-life message concerning abortion.

What is happening in Italy and much of the world concerning abortion is very sad. The world must be in the last generation as there is no way God will permit things like this to go on indefinitely.

Posted by: Clay B. at March 2, 2007 9:02 AM


Clay, you should see Godfather II. It was as good as Godfather I. You're right. I've wondered if that abortion scene would be portrayed today as it was when the movie was made in 1974, before abortion became a cause celeb for Hollywood left-wingers.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 2, 2007 9:04 AM


"That spontaneous slap was the reaction of a real man who a woman had just told she aborted his baby. Compare that to the modern day cowardly male response...."

Jill, that was an awesome comparison/contrast. Please keep up the great work.

Posted by: Carl at March 2, 2007 9:42 AM


"enough, enough you two!" We are ALL more than a little frustrated that human beings could be so callous as to dispose of their own children as if they were waste.

How then can pro-lifer's cause other people (pro-aborts) to change their reasoning process (even if it is illogical)? Or must we continue to wipe-up the spilt blood (after the deed is done)?

Can we shift the focus from 'rights' .... (where whims define humanity) to 'responsibilities' ... (where duties of protecting define 'growing-up')?

Posted by: John McDonell at March 2, 2007 11:16 AM


Jill, I am so pleased to see the strength in your last column! The emphasis you have placed on the word "family" is great to see and hear from your heart. I hope more people have the pleasure to read it. Great job.

Posted by: Terry at March 2, 2007 11:31 AM


John, you're right. I'm deleting all the back and forths and letting Valerie's original post stand on its own.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 2, 2007 11:35 AM


Brava Valerie! As a ROMAN Catholic and ITALO Americana, I am sick of the images of Mafiosi being used to sell everything from pizza to Pepsi and now the pro-life message. The young girl in question could have been in ANY European country. Like a lot of stranieri parents, Valentina's parents could not be bothered to counter the messages of the oversexualized culture and teach their daughter chastity so they resorted to abortion.
As for the character of "Kay" well that's what we get when we marry a straniero/a (non-Italian). She's not the only bride that deserved to be slapped but since Diane Keaton is such an annoying actress it is fun to see her get it.

As for you Mr. Moffitt, your wife's poor taste in spouses is not a credential for any IRISHman passing judgment on how hurtful the stereotype of Mafia is.

Posted by: Bev C at March 2, 2007 2:13 PM


Regarding Kay the unworthy marrying Michael, in words that any Irishman could understand:
NEVER MIX, NEVER WORRY.

Posted by: BevC at March 2, 2007 2:19 PM


My Irish grandmother would have loved you Bev. When I brought my Italian wife-to-be home to visit my family for the first time, my Irish grandmother told her to get out of her house. We left. My reception in my future's Italian household was not much better received.

Ah, but then there were the grandchildren. Not surprisingly, both families, Irish and Italian, share the same love for their grandchildren.

It is too bad the "old" intolerance seems to have found new believers.

May the wind be always at your back, Bev.

Posted by: Bob Moffitt at March 2, 2007 3:23 PM


One should never tolerate the intolerable whether it is abortion or the destruction of one's culture.

Posted by: BevC at March 2, 2007 3:28 PM


My last word. What in God's name did I say that threatened your Italian culture? That I married an Italian woman?

May the road rise up to meet you......

Posted by: Bob Moffitt at March 2, 2007 4:57 PM


I've had 7 abortions and I turned out ok.

Posted by: Brandine at March 2, 2007 7:47 PM


Brandine,

You should listen to Yvonne tell her story about having 5 abortions and now she heads Project Rachael. It's a great story. Go to 2-17-06 to listen to her story...

http://www2.catholic.com/radio/calendar.php?type=month&calendar=1&category=0&month=01&year=2006

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 2, 2007 10:37 PM


Nah, it's ok, I just like killing babies and whatnot.

Posted by: Brandine at March 3, 2007 10:12 AM


Brandine,

You say that you've had 7 abortions and turned out OK? Well, just being able to say that so callously means that you aren't OK.

Keep in mind that your race isn't over yet and you have yet to meet your Creator at the finish line. Don't let the devil steal your destiny by allowing yourself to be deceived into thinking that everything is fine and do nothing. It's not and I tell you this because, even though I don't know you, it saddens my heart that you are so self-deceived and heading for disaster.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom is a statement in the Book of Proverbs. To God, ignorance is not bliss, it's inexcusable. Abortion is murder and while we have all sinned and fall short of God's glory, your statement is an indication that you have not even come close to realizing the true condition of your soul and therefore, have not approached the only One in the universe who can make even the 7 murders you committed as if they never happened. He will forgive you if you ask.

If I had killed 7 human beings and thought the same way you do without repentance, I'd be afraid; very, very afraid....of meeting the One who doesn't want to but because of His perfect holiness, would throw me into hell forever due to an unrepentant heart.

Avoidance and denial is not a solution to what you have done. Honesty, integrity, love for yourself and surrender to He who died for you and your 7 children is. Please see the error of your way and beg for forgiveness now. Jesus Christ is the answer. It's very simple.

Please say this to God:

Lord Jesus Christ, I admit that I have sinned against you. Lord, I believe that you loved me so much that you gave yourself for me to satisfy a debt I could never repay and I now turn away from my sins to follow you for the rest of my life. I open the door of my heart to you so please come in. As your Word states, you will in no way cast any out and you will never leave or forsake us. Thank you Lord for forgiving me. Help me to spread the word. In the name of Jesus, Amen.

Now, if you said that prayer, find a good church that preaches and glorifies Christ and get baptized as a public witness to your confession. Your new life will be the greatest you could ever live.

www.WhatMustIDoToBeSaved.com

Phil

Posted by: Phil at March 3, 2007 11:00 AM


How very Christian of you to advocate domestic violence.

"This story creates dilemmas for abortion proponents, not the least of which is abortion can cause a mother to crack up."

You're conveniently forgetting that this girl was forced to abort. That she had no choice in the matter is as atrocious to pro-choicers as it is to you. Pro-choicers aren't proponents of abortion; we're proponents of allowing women to make reproductive choices for themselves.

Posted by: Ruth at March 3, 2007 3:57 PM


Brandine,

Abortion kills more than a baby! There are over 750 Abortion Risks listed in Medical Literature. For more information, contact...

The Rutherford Institute
P.O. Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
1-804-978-3888

and request "Major Articles and Books Concerning the Detrimental Effects of Abortion."

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10117

What other medical procedure is "legal" and has over 750 risks to the mother/female? I won't even bring up the surgery is lethal to the unborn baby.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 3, 2007 4:22 PM


Pro-choicers aren't proponents of abortion; we're proponents of allowing women to make reproductive choices for themselves.

Ruth,

The problem is your "choice" looks like this...

http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm#galleries

Hopefully someday Pro-Aborts will catch up with the rest of us and discover there's a better alternative called "Adoption"!

Mike (Pro-Life & Pro God's Choice)

Posted by: Mike at March 3, 2007 4:41 PM


It's ok, Phil. I don't really need to ask your imaginary friend for anything.

Posted by: Brandine at March 3, 2007 7:38 PM


Mike--

Adoption is nice, but sometimes it's really not an option (e.g., when the pregnant woman has an ectopic pregnancy or develops pre-eclampsia). Many women don't feel comfortable putting a child in a system that's already overloaded with unwanted children. There are additional reasons women have abortions, but the point is, women (and men) should be free to make their own reproductive choices without getting harangued.

As far as your link goes, what's your point, exactly? That every abortion is a D&X? Fifty-nine percent of abortions occur in the first trimester, when the abortion pill is the preferred treatment. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html, http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/facts_mifepristone.html) And if your point is that abortion kills fetuses, I knew that already. If there were some way for women to get rid of unwanted pregnancies without killing the fetus, I would be in favor of it. However, no such technology exists.

P.S. I'm not a Christian, so what God thinks (or doesn't think) doesn't matter to me. I am, however, all for the reduction of human suffering, and my opinion is that being able to have an abortion rather than being forced to carry an unwanted or medically unfeasible pregnancy definitely reduces the suffering of women. (Stories like the ones linked below are why I'm pro-choice.)

http://www.cbctrust.com/nochoice/begin.html

Posted by: Ruth at March 4, 2007 12:42 AM


Hi Ruth,

Ah, I love it when Doris Anderson is quoted - you will read very little from her that is anything but stimulating for the emotions. Whether a situation is resolved by these incursions has never been discussed and (for her) it needs to be 'felt' not solved.

The fact than pregnancy does indeed cause emotional turmoil is without question ... this turmoil in rare cases may even be physical! However, abortion does not 'solve' this suffering of women, because the child is not the cause of the problem.

During the physical development of all human beings, there are 4 periods where they use an unusually high amount of zinc. Two of these periods are during pregnancy, the 3rd is immediately following pregnancy and the 4th is the onslaught of puberty. These periods exactly coincide with depressive states. The first two are not very well recognized since pregnancy is assumed to be a period of elation ... or at least a period of neutral-emotions.

Abortion is not a solution because a)to physically heal from the abortion procedure requires zinc, so this is added to an already zinc-deficient status; b) a awful lot of very new processes have begun in any pregnant woman. Just by removal of her babe does not make her un-pregnant chemically. The processes themselves are in place to allow the human to mature. Is there consequences at 'snubbing' these processes?

Please note, that there is no link to any divinity. I am wondering why we treat a depressive state by killing?

[There are two other things here to learn: that the 3rd period is the famous postpartum depression experienced by many women; and, that anyone going through teen years ... PMS etc... is a shoe-in for depression during and after pregnancy.]

Now ... the ball is in your court. Will anyone even try this 'remedy' or do you remain fixated by the slogan ... 'Choice'?

Posted by: John McDonell at March 4, 2007 12:41 PM


Adoption is nice, but sometimes it's really not an option (e.g., when the pregnant woman has an ectopic pregnancy)

Ruth,

I think you should read this. Is Abortion ever medically necessary?

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10216

Many women don't feel comfortable putting a child in a system that's already overloaded with unwanted children.

Right now we have American parents going to other countries just to find a baby to adopt. Even if your premise was right -- So you think it's better to play the role of God and kill the unborn baby? Hmmm.

There are additional reasons women have abortions

Like what? Over 99+% of abortions are done for no other reason than "convenience".

women (and men) should be free to make their own reproductive choices without getting harangued.

Ruth,

Let's get things straight. Pro-Lifers are Pro-Reproduction. It's the Pro-Aborts who are Anti-Reproduction to a tune of 45,000,000+ times since 1973.

Fifty-nine percent of abortions occur in the first trimester, when the abortion pill is the preferred treatment.

Life begins at conception. Once conceived, the unborn baby needs to be carried to term.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 4, 2007 1:38 PM


I challenge you to adopt the unwanted child of a 13-year-old in Detroit if you're so gung-ho about adoption.

Posted by: Molly at March 4, 2007 7:10 PM


Frankly, I would like to see some cold, hard, honest evidence against abortion from some non-biased sources. That means, no religious websites, no conservative websites, etc. I want medical sources, non-profit organization sources.

How can you expect anyone to respect your arguments when you can't back them up with objetive truth?

Posted by: Megan at March 4, 2007 7:11 PM


Hi Megan,

for many, many years I thought as you did ... read my post re zinc above. It comes from the biochemistry text called: 'Zinc and Copper in Medicine' eds Sarper and Karcioglu. Never once do they mention abortion, but they do assume that there is a continuum of life pre- and post- birth. It is strange (at least I find it so) that pro-aborts claim it is not killing (ending the life) of a human child ... all medicine that is any good and even newer 4-D ultrasound imaging backs up the notion that there is indeed a living human being in the womb of a pregnant woman.

There have been several posts that concede this, but still either 'like killing babies' [... the poster said that she 'turned out OK'] or reasoned that because they were atheists that the pro-life movement was a religion sham ... [I want objective truth! .... sound familiar?] So if medicine and biology are not objective enough, what is? Then perhaps psychology, philosophy, ethics, law ... pick one or pick them all ... anything but fantasy [must concede that Hollywood is better here].

Even in religion: truth is not a what, but a who ... and His name is Jesus. We willingly mock and kill truth and pretend He lives no more!

Posted by: John McDonell at March 4, 2007 8:08 PM


By "objective proof" I should have said honesty. I am tired of reading articles that lie about abortion. (ex: It causes cancer - not only does correlation not imply causation but the American Cancer Institute declared this highly unlikely, I can find the source if you'd like). It frustrates me to see the lack of knowledge on the subject.. (I've had many pro-life people claim that a heartbeat begins at conception, that a fetus can feel pain before 20 weeks, none of which is true). I wish people would be informed.

While it is true that the more we use science the more clearly we can see a zygote or embryo's development that does not influence my belief that women have a right to privacy and control over their own bodies.

What I find interesting is that your beliefs seem to be rooted in religion. Question: do you feel that abortion is just wrong or that it should be illegal, no one should be able to get one? Follow up: How do you feel about seperation between Church and state? Should congress legislate according to one's religious beliefs?

Posted by: Megan at March 4, 2007 8:15 PM


Hi Megan,

thank you for you clear articulation. The abortion-cancer thing is called the ABC Link and just last week I was reading about this very topic ... there have been some 26 academic studies re. this and 19 of the 26 claim that such a link exists. The authors could not understand why the American Cancer Society said that no such link existed. But besides that, it defies logic to claim that the hormone profile of a woman is drastically altered by any pregnancy. And that this unique metabolic structure would just go away ... with no consequences at all. Let's say ... you were in an accident and one of your eyes destroyed ... would you live exactly as before with no consequences?

The claim over 'their own bodies' does have merit until you realize another (developing and dependant) living human is there, too. Or, is it OK to shoot at a moving car's wheels? I can hear the plea now: "but Judge, I wasn't trying to kill four people ... I was just shooting at some tires!'

Abortion is illegal .... according to natural law ... a civil law usually attempts to align themselves with 'natural law'. Most politicians have not heard of this ... the usual phrase is 'the common good'... so, there is no natural law besides gravity, and physics and medicine and law and ... All sciences have an intrinsic rationale or logic. Our legal system used to be based on rights and responsibilities. But abortion negates this (finding life is of no consequence). Rules (obligations) are made-up as you go.

Separation of church and state is fraught with all sorts of misunderstanding these days. Just as all my history classes in school, the people who are my friends, my family, etc defines much of the way I think, my faith is going to be one of those considered elements. If a person parks his/her faith at-the-door, we are robbed not only of that traditions' wisdom [that would be 5000 years + in some cases], but we are robbed of the very thing we elected them for .... to be 100% real .... not 100%-(whatever is out/not-cool)

Posted by: John McDonell at March 4, 2007 9:38 PM


Molly wrote:
"I challenge you to adopt the unwanted child of a 13-year-old in Detroit if you're so gung-ho about adoption."

OK, Molly. I'm in. I'll raise that baby as if she grew in my own belly!! My husband and I have 4 adopted boys. Two boys we adopted in Chicago when they were infants and two boys we adopted when they were ages 8 and 2. Each of our children is black (we are white).

There are people lining up for the "unwanted child" of a 13-year-old from Detriot. I'm not sure why you are so negative that people don't want these children. They are all precious in God's eyes. Every single one of them. Even the aborted children. God bless you.

Posted by: Julie at March 4, 2007 10:22 PM


First of all, about the studies, there are many that indicate correlational connection. Many that do not indicate a correlational connection. IE: It is extremely hard to decide either way. Although, once again, anyone who knows anything about research knows that correlation does not imply causation. I am a researcher, so I have access to many different scientific papers/research/journals/etc. I have also taken many statistics classes. The reason why the cancer association came to this conclusion is because most studies that indicate a correlation between breast cancer and abortion either have a very low n value or little power. These studies are small and of little strength. Once you add more subjects to the study (larger n value) or eradicate extraneous variables (increase power) the correlation virtually disappears. See, that's a big problem, because understanding the truth requires a person to have a familiarity with statistics... which most people do not. But, if you have access to the actual research article (not the report on its findings) and if you note the different levels of power and n values, it becomes clear that the significance of these studies drops down. Statistics is tricky business, if you're interested, the book "Lying With Statistics" is a great read. It tells you all about how you can manipulate numbers to prove your point.

Second of all, it is true there is an embryo growing inside of the woman. However, this embryo is not a person. I do not believe an embryo has the same rights as a person, or any rights at all, frankly, unless the woman deems it so. Its body cannot function on its own, it is not a separate entity. I'd suggest that we not start debating personhood, though, because the argument always ends up being circular in my experience.

I find it frightening that you take the separation between church and state so lightly. This has nothing to do with popularity (or coolness). Theocracies are disasterous. Our founding fathers were quite aware of the dangers of mixing religious belief and government legislation. I'm not saying that every politician should "park their beliefs at the door"... I'm saying that it is not okay to apply one's personal religious beliefs to anyone else. Most anti-choice sentiment comes from religious beliefs... (I've yet to hear a coherent, secular argument against choice). If you don't believe in abortion, if it is against your belief, do not get one (or do not have a relationship with a pro-choice woman). Do not apply this belief to everyone else. That is where the problem lies, in my opinion.

Posted by: Megan at March 4, 2007 10:33 PM


Mike,

Okay, so I've been looking up medical journals all over the place... I'd suggest checking out this link: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16562329

(I hope that you'll be able to get to it, I'm not sure if you have to be on the University internet to gain access)

It is an extremely long and in-depth medical journal summary with regards to the issue of abortion and breat cancer. It mentions the problems with the "ABC-link"

It is very long, I recommend reading the conclusion, and the paragraph above the conclusion (it is about today's research, which is more relevent).

To sum it up: Over time, with better and better use of statistics and research design, it has come quite clear that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.

Posted by: Megan at March 4, 2007 10:47 PM


Megan,

Karen Malec explains the link between Abortion/Breast Cancer at this link. Go to 1-20-06...

http://www2.catholic.com/radio/calendar.php?type=month&calendar=1&category=0&month=01&year=2006

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 4, 2007 10:47 PM


Mike, that's a catholic website. We talked about this... please no website with a religious slant!

Above your post, I've given you an awesome resource! A medical journal detailing the entire issue... from a research instituion. This is simply the numbers. Please read it!

Posted by: Megan at March 4, 2007 10:48 PM


Here is something else you might find interesting...

How National Cancer Institute Scientists Betrayed Women, Abortion and Breast Cancer: The Scientific Debate That Never Happened...

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/3661/CWA/life/

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 4, 2007 10:51 PM


Mike, I'm no fool. Please, you offend me. Concerned Women for America? When I went to their "about" page... guess what I got? Prayer!!! Once again you can't provide me a medical journal to prove my point otherwise. I've won :)

What is depressing is that I went out of my way to get you that medical journal. Written by scientists. People who understand disease and illness.

You clearly didn't read it (how depressing) If you had read it, you'd realize there is very little medical evidence to suggest that abortion causes breast cancer.

i don't understand how you an argue with a medical journal's findings on this issue. Who better to publish honest breast cancer research than a medical institution? Unless you believe that medicine (like reality) has a liberal bias? You think you're religion-slanted websites provide better evidence of breast cancer then a peer-reviewed medical journal? That is laughable... lets be realistic.

If that is how you think... I have nothing more to say. It would be a waste of breath.

We're talking science here, Mike. My domain. Nothing holds up except peer-edited review and articles. Hard evidence. When it comes to cancer and issues like this, your religious websites can't hold a candle to real medicine.

However, you must not believe in doctors or medicine, because if you did, you'd know that there is very little evidence to suggest that breast cancer as a link to abortion.

Posted by: Megan at March 4, 2007 11:23 PM


Megan... that journal entry had a laundry list of sources at the bottom, many of which came from medical journals or Ph.D's.

Posted by: anonymous at March 4, 2007 11:36 PM


What part of an abortion would induce breast cancer anyway? Shouldn't logic follow that all women with miscarriages have the same increased risk? Physiologically, they are the same abrupt ending of a pregnancy. Typically, miscarriages happen on the fetus' terms, being genetic malformations that cause cells to die and lose hold on the uterine lining. So, logic would also follow that these women's bodies who have miscarriages had literally no control over the spontaneous abortion and still have the same chemical problems, like the zinc mentioned earlier. Does no one else realize this?
Zinc levels or breast cancer, miscarraiges and abortions are physiologically no different. These are not reasons to make abortion illegal. The whole "abortions hurt women" argument is crap.

Posted by: Jen at March 4, 2007 11:47 PM


-Sigh-

"Megan... that journal entry had a laundry list of sources at the bottom, many of which came from medical journals or Ph.D's. "

Yes... Mike... you see... you can find any yahoo expert to report any claim (IE: the moon landings were faked, etc.) But a peer-reviewed documented journal on a medical website is considered to be the best of the best on top-notch research. Many people with phd's will disagree, that is why peer-review exists in science. I have linked you to an amazing resource that chronicles the entire issue and takes all the peer reviewed issues into account. A medical website would have no reason to be biased when it comes to cancer.

I like how you've made no comment whatsoever about the fact that I have handpicked the best resource on this issue for you... a collaboration and analysis of the issue from a research institution... You ignore the fact that I've proven you to be, quite wrong.

Posted by: Megan at March 4, 2007 11:53 PM


Jen, you're completely right. Not only has it been shown by SCIENCE (that's right, science people, not jesus) that there is no connection... it also does not make much common sense for a connection to exist.

Posted by: Megan at March 4, 2007 11:55 PM


Sickening. If you were a true Christian you would NOT advocate violence against others. What is wrong with you? Is a zygote so important that you should take away the dignity of life -- one of the most important things taught by Jesus? Or is sustaining life the only important part, not the quality of it?

Posted by: Jess at March 5, 2007 12:03 AM


What part of an abortion would induce breast cancer anyway? Shouldn't logic follow that all women with miscarriages have the same increased risk?

Jen,

The smoking gun is "estrogen". If you listen to the link on my post on March 4th at 10:47PM I believe Karen Malec explains the difference between what happens to the estrogen in a miscarriage and abortion.

The difference between the two is a miscarriage is a natural reaction from the body & a abortion is initiated by the abortionist and is not a natural action from the human body. Therefore estrogen reacts differently in these two cases.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 5, 2007 12:06 AM


Mike, you do realize that many abortions are performed with saline solution, correct? Saline solution is salt water. That's it.

Posted by: Jess at March 5, 2007 12:12 AM


Mike, you do realize that many abortions are performed with saline solution, correct? Saline solution is salt water. That's it.

Posted by: Jess at March 5, 2007 12:12 AM


Mike, there are problems with your statement.
If you read my post thoroughly, you would notice that some miscarraiges are very unnatural. Some (not all) are a result of genetic malformations in the fetus that cause the cells to stop multiplying and lose hold of the uterus. The mother's body has ABSOLUTELY NO control over this, nor can the woman's body detect this in any way. The fetus dies and is expelled because it is no longer multiplying or attatched to the uterus. This is the same as an abortion. The fetus is surgically removed in the same way (remember, the woman's body has no control or say over it) as the genetic malformation miscarriage. They are physiologically the same.
So shouldn't women with miscarraiges be getting breast cancer too? Since they aren't, it's crap that abortions would somehow magically cause it anyway.

Posted by: Jen at March 5, 2007 12:12 AM


Megan,

On my post from March 3rd at 4:22PM I stated you can get a list of over 750 Abortion Risks listed in Medical Literature/Journals from the Rutherford Institute.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 5, 2007 12:14 AM


Mike, there are problems with your statement.
If you read my post thoroughly, you would notice that some miscarraiges are very unnatural. Some (not all) are a result of genetic malformations in the fetus that cause the cells to stop multiplying and lose hold of the uterus. The mother's body has ABSOLUTELY NO control over this, nor can the woman's body detect this in any way. The fetus dies and is expelled because it is no longer multiplying or attatched to the uterus. This is the same as an abortion. The fetus is surgically removed in the same way (remember, the woman's body has no control or say over it) as the genetic malformation miscarriage. They are physiologically the same.
So shouldn't women with miscarraiges be getting breast cancer too? Since they aren't, it's crap that abortions would somehow magically cause it anyway.
I believe Megan answered your source well. Can you find us a peer-reviewed source? If not, tough luck.
And grow up. The term for a doctor who performs abortions is an OB/GYN, or Doctor, as they are commonly referred to in the MEDICAL world. Sorry, the term "abortionist" is not a scientific or AMA approved term. So if you are going to play with the big dogs and cite scientific studies, grow up and use scientific terms.

Posted by: Jen at March 5, 2007 12:15 AM


Sorry it posted twice. Refer to the latter for the more complete post.

Posted by: Jen at March 5, 2007 12:17 AM


Wow. Just... wow. You don't believe in science unless it supports your claims, do you?

No matter how prestigious, how peer-reviewed, nonprofit, an organization is... no matter how relevant an organization is (It is a medical research institution!) you refuse to acknowledge my article. Instead you keep pointing out different things... in some sad attempt to refute the fact that I have provided you with the best, top-notch, to-date, detailed journal on the whole situation.

Let's review from the beginning, shall we?

Most of the research that indicates a correlation between breast cancer and abortion was done with serious design problems (low n, low power, etc.)
Today's research (which does not indicate a connection) is much better designed, with larger n's (millions of women in these studies).

I'm done. I'm not going to listen to anymore pointless posts on this topc. If you're ready to actually read the peer-reviewed medical journal I provided (instead of just dancing around it) let me know.. otherwise... I've got nothing to say.. and apparantly you don't know how research works.

Posted by: Megan at March 5, 2007 12:21 AM


OMG, Mike. one more thing. I actually looked at your "peer-reviewed medical sources" from the cwa link... and many of them were from a website dedicated to proving the connection between breast cancer and abortion! *dies laughing*

My, my, my... you've been pwnd.

Posted by: Megan at March 5, 2007 12:39 AM


Hi, I've read through a couple of responses, and read the article. Firstly, I'm shocked that you were unable to find a more convincing example of a man to be a "real" man. Slapping a woman for aborting, makes Michael a real man, and a "good" Christian, never mind the people he has killed. Oh and lets not forget the Godfather III, where Kate watches her own daughter get killed because of Michael. I must say, this is a very very poor example to use to support pro-life.

Also, since when do individuals have the right, like god, to pass judgement? I would never have an abortion, but as a Christian it is also not my right, and it would be arrogant to think it was, to pass judgement on a woman that would, or any other person that chooses an alternative lifestyle.

Oh and in response to Mike, while legal safe abortions may have several risk factors, the risk factors were much more dangerous before Roe vs Wade. We can try to deny the fact that abortions took place before they were legalized, but we would be doing ourselves an injustice. Each year, especially near college campuses, health care professionals saw hundreds of botch abortions, and the women often died. Not only then do you lose the life of the child, but you also lose the life of the mother, who could have reformed herself. Luckily now, if and when a botched abortion comes into the ER, doctors can't recognize it as quickly. Instead of attacking abortion and the people who have them, maybe we should try to create programs that teach girls and boys how NOT to get into those situations. Unfortunately abstinence only and virginity pledges also do not work. Basically, we need to stop lying to ourselves, and our children. I'm convinced that if you do your job right as a parent early on, by the time your chidren are young adults, you can teach them alternative options, and trust that they will make the right choice.

Posted by: Laura at March 5, 2007 7:57 AM


Hi Megan and Jen,

just now got-up and read your posts ... thanks for your profound faith in the peer-review system of orthodox medical journals. These are definitely suspect in a big way, but the field that exposes this best is alternative medicine (Ralph Moss MD)of nutrition-base (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php) or, the magnetic-energy-base. Very few people are aware of such bias (ie. Dr. Robert O. Becker 'Cross Currents' says "research follows the golden rule: he who has the gold sets the rules!")

You have definitely not 'won' this argumentation round. I proposed two separate reasons for there to be a causation ... a link if you will. Jen is quite correct when she notes that there is no physiological difference between zinc-deficiency, breast cancer, miscarriage and abortion ... on the surface, but are there any attached ensuing problems? Her conclusion that all this is bogus is indeed strange. Mike's posting of some 750 negative consequences of abortion in entirely in keeping with the multifaceted role zinc has in human metabolic functions (cancer is but one). I am just surprised there are not more.

The zinc-deficient status is exacerbated by any kind of operation ... abortion as a medical operation procedure lowers already deficient zinc levels. [Other kinds of abortion techniques also lower this already-low amount.] Hurt women? - BIG time!

Why doesn't this appear starkly? .... maybe because (in our age) symptoms of extreme zinc-deficiency is so common, that it has been labeled 'normal'. ABC-link is weak because cancer in young women is rare anyways ... great repair mechanisms. So perhaps look to fertility problems to show a greater impact.

Beware the word 'wanted'. When I was a child, there used to be 'WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE' posters. Is this the 'wanted' that pro-aborts wish for?

Now Megan, who is playing with semantic distinctions. The word person is primarily a philosophic/legal/religious term used to denote a living human being .... a scientific term. We are talking about the same phenomenon only using different terminology. If you wish to play scientist ... don't escape to a supposed 'safer' realm called person-hood.

The founders knew that the existence of God was a philosophic reality .... the whole notion of 'rights' and laws are based on this. The separation of which you speak is after this. A religion is not a philosophy but often uses philosophic arguments to justify itself. So, the thrust to maintain the divine is a philosophic (not religious) concept. No god = no rights for anyone = no constitution = no laws. Perhaps, you know a better way?

Posted by: John McDonell at March 5, 2007 8:43 AM


Brandine,

My "imaginary friend" as you call Him, was born, lived, was crucified, and resurrected. The evidence for this is overwhelming. You can read secular accounts of Jesus Christ in books written by Josephus. Any competent and honest lawyer looking at the case for Christ would tell you that if this were tried in court, the evidence would be more than sufficient to "prove" it.

However, since faith is the evidence of things not seen and the substance of things hoped for, you will never have proof, if that's what you're looking for. For it is impossible to please God without faith.

My "imaginary friend", gave me a beautiful wife, 5 great children, a beautiful home, 3 businesses, and thousands of friends. Yet, even if that were all taken away, and He kill me, I would still love Him, because He is more important than all of those gifts.

If I am wrong about Him (and I am not), no harm, no foul. If you are wrong......you lose the only thing of value that you have...your eternal soul.

I believe that He is the Son of God, died on the cross for your and my sins and the sins of everyone, was raised and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.

This is the amazing part. While He has no obligation to do so, He allows us to continue to live and breath and have our being. Allows us to sin without immendiate judgement while we blaspheme His name by denying his existence, killing his intended creation, etc. Why does He do this? Only because of His kindness in not wanting to see any of us perish and Him gracioulsy giving us time to change. The amount of time allowed, however, is not known and the choice is ours. The stakes are unimagineable.

Hopefully, you will "see" this soon.

I pray that my "imaginary friend" who really is more real than the chair you're sitting on, the keybaord you're tapping on, the computer screen you're viewing, the building you so mercifully occupy, will reveal Himself to you so there won't be any question in your mind. I pray that He, who knows you better than you know yourself, will fill you with His love and heal your wounded heart. In His perfect time, He will answer that prayer. The question really is, will you be able to recognize it when it happens?

Phil

Posted by: Phil at March 5, 2007 9:48 AM


I've been hit by a boyfriend
and I've had an abortion.

I can say without a doubt, being with a man who would hit me was a FAR greater mistake than aborting what would have been his child.

Having an abortion and leaving him were two of the best decisions I ever made.

I'm with a very real man now, who would never hit me, and we have two beautiful children.

Jill - you are sick and misguided. Real men NEVER hit women.

Posted by: Sonya at March 5, 2007 9:59 AM


To all of you who argue about whether an abortion hurts or doesn't hurt women, etc., can't you see that none of you are willing to change your position? This is an unending, futile practice that leads to nowhere.

Abortion is a sin, just like lying, murdering, cheating or stealing are sins. If you don't want to call them sins, then call them crimes and this is why they are illegal. To use the logic that abortion should be made illegal because it hurts the committer is like trying to determine whether or not lying, murdering, cheating or stealing should be made legal or illegal based on whether or not they harm the committer is ridiculous. We all innately know that these sins or crimes are wrong because they hurt someone else. Simply, we wouldn't want these things to be done to us. So, as a former fetus, would any of us want to have been aborted? I think to say that the vast majority of us would say no. What then gives anyone the right to abort another human being?

Do we now do unending scientific studies on how lying may or may hurt liars without regards to the harm it does to the one being lied to because we want to make lying legal or illegal? What about cheating? What about stealing? What about murder? Perhaps the real interest is in researchers lining their pockets with grants from pro-life and pro-death organizations and not about right and wrong. It’s all very, very silly, and dangerous.

Phil

Posted by: Phil at March 5, 2007 10:30 AM


Ahhh Phil - what a fantastic Reactionary attitude.

No one is going to change their minds so lets just stop trying?

Imagine if Martin Luther King had believed that.

We'd still be living in a country of disgusting, hateful, racial segregation.

Science has proven there is no difference in the intelligence level or humanity between blacks and whites, and that science made racism baseless and stupid. If science supported all of the propaganda you've been fed about the effects of abortion, you'd be heralding and celebrating that science. Its only because it DOESN'T support your belief that you're opposed to it.

It also seems like you need to be reminded of the fact that America is not a theocracy. I have morals and follow laws without believing in the same God you do, and it is blasphemous and self righteous of you to assume the God you believe in is superior to the one I believe in.

Posted by: Amanda at March 5, 2007 10:37 AM


no Amanda,

not blasphemous at all ... perhaps 'smart' and willing to listen!

btw the black were only emancipated to the level of the white man. Freedom as Phil speaks of it is a religious experience prompted/allowed by God .... there is only One ... we are His creatures; not 'my' god/divine being.

Posted by: John McDonell at March 5, 2007 10:57 AM


Jen & Megan,

I just read your posts from late last night. You both had questions why there is a link between Abortion & Breast Cancer but no link between Miscarriages and Breast Cancer?

----

Here's the answer...

Biological Explanation for the Link


The explanation for the independent link makes good biological sense. It remains unrefuted and unchallenged by scientists because it is physiologically correct.

A never-pregnant woman has a network of primitive, immature and cancer-vulnerable breast cells which make up her milk glands. It is only in the third trimester of pregnancy - after 32 weeks gestation - that her cells start to mature and are fashioned into milk producing tissue whose cells are cancer resistant.

When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast to multiply terrifically. This process is called “proliferation.” By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception.

If the pregnancy is carried to term, a second process called “differentiation” takes place. Differentiation is the shaping of cells into milk producing tissue. It shuts off the cell multiplication process. This takes place at approximately 32 weeks gestation.

If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated -- and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells -- than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy.

In contrast, research has shown that most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. This is due to a lack of estrogen overexposure. Miscarriages are frequently precipitated by a decline in the production of progesterone which is needed to maintain a pregnancy. Estrogen is made from progesterone, so the levels of each hormone rise and fall together during pregnancy.

For a thorough biological explanation of the abortion-breast cancer link, see this second website for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, www.BCPInstitute.org and click on its online booklet, “Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention.”

--------

Network of Primitive Immature and Cancer-Vulnerable Breast Cells

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/maturity.htm

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 5, 2007 11:11 AM


Abortionbreastcancer.com - yet another website whose goal is to prove the causal connection. You cannot use that as a source. That is like citing the Bible in a debate about whether or not the Bible is truth. You have yet to use a medical website or journal that has been peer-reviewed as a source. I know why you aren't using one as a source, you can't find one.

You have yet to make a comment about the research article I sent you. Once you acknowledge the original article I sent you... from the medical research institute, I will listen. Otherwise, keep on rambling to yourself.

Posted by: Megan at March 5, 2007 11:42 AM


Megan,

You can continue to view only sources which backup ONLY your views but you need to be open to other opinions.

I had worked for the Tabacco Industry for 10 years. Years ago they had a playbook to use money to sway government, politicians and the medical community from accepting the fact cigarettes cause lung cancer. The Abortion Industry is using that same old playbook. As the years go by, it will backfire on them just like it did with the Tabacco Industry.

Follow the $$ in the Abortion Industry and you will find a huge coverup.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 5, 2007 11:53 AM


Phil, you are a nut. I'm sorry, but god lets of live because he's a nice guy? This is what your religion is reduced to? That's why your god has blessed me with a nice home, a great family and a productive and satisfying life. But he'll burn me in Hell forever because I don't believe a word of what you say? That's crazy.

Posted by: Gary at March 5, 2007 2:53 PM


Laura from a few is a very well-spoken woman, obviously well-educated on this subject, pro-life yet makes sense. And she's right -- we need programs to teach children, women, and men how to NOT get into a situation where they need to have an abortion. Which means much better safe-sex education... I didn't really know anything about it until I got to college. So many people don't even understand how you get pregnant at all because it's never talked about -- and we end up with awful situations like this. Laura, you have my applause.

Posted by: jess at March 5, 2007 3:50 PM


rather than nit-picking (something we tend to do) because there is no better fight than to be pro-life or pro-choice, maybe its about time to expose a humongous enemy, common to us all.

I gave you this site before http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php , but we are talking about the deaths world-wide of between 1-3 BILLION people. [Codex's own estimate!] Hello, we're talking about killing 1/2 the world's present population.

Rather than lock-these-people-away as some kind of crazies, we have our governments ... USA too actually working hard to cooperate... Think I'm wacky ... you (in Codex's future) will not be allowed to bring relief to the victims of famine, because that will break GATT agreements. And it gets sillier and sillier ... and deadlier!

If everyone doesn't forget our present squabbles and fight this ... we're dead. The catastrophe that was Katerina will seem mild if we allow such into our existence!

Posted by: John McDonell at March 5, 2007 3:51 PM


I found this interesting link showing video testimonies of those who had abortions. I was very interested to find these two on the link...

Sharon Osbourne (wife of rock singer Ozzie)

Jennifer O'Neill (actress and model)

http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/video/index.html

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 5, 2007 3:51 PM


Phill:

Stealing, and murdering are not crimes because they are sins. They are crimes because they impinge upon someone else's rights to autonomy, life, and property. Lying and cheating are not crime, until it impinges upon one of those rights -- such as in the business world, where a lie about how much something costs to a customer impinges upon their rights to property when they get extra bills they were uninformed about. Otherwise lying and cheating are perfectly acceptable within the confines of the law. Do not mistake sins for crimes: rights and God are not necessarily connected, though they sometimes intersect (i.e. murder).

Posted by: Jess at March 5, 2007 3:58 PM


Mike:

What point are you trying to make with Sharon Osborne? She had an abortion... so have others, very devout Christians in fact. Are you trying justify yourself by using pop stars as an abortion poster model?

Posted by: Jess at March 5, 2007 4:02 PM


Jess,

No, I was not making any point with that post. I just found it interesting. Another interesting note is Dr. Alveda King (niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr), Dr. Bernard Nathanson (one of the founders of NARAL, SilentScream.Org) and Norma McCorvey (from the Roe v Wade case in 1973) were all Pro-Abortion but are now Pro-Life.

Don't you find this interesting?

Go to 2-19-07 to hear Alveda King...

http://www2.catholic.com/radio/calendar.php?type=month&calendar=1&category=0&month=01&year=2006

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 5, 2007 4:30 PM


Also, Jill: way to advocate some really awful and/or untrue stereotypes about Italians.

Posted by: Jess at March 5, 2007 5:37 PM


Gary,

This is what you wrote:

"Phil, you are a nut. I'm sorry, but god lets of live because he's a nice guy? This is what your religion is reduced to? That's why your god has blessed me with a nice home, a great family and a productive and satisfying life. But he'll burn me in Hell forever because I don't believe a word of what you say? That's crazy."

Did you read what I wrote?

"This is the amazing part. While He has no obligation to do so, He allows us to continue to live and breath and have our being. Allows us to sin without immediate judgement while we blaspheme His name by denying his existence, killing his intended creation, etc. Why does He do this? Only because of His kindness in not wanting to see any of us perish and Him gracioulsy giving us time to change. The amount of time allowed, however, is not known and the choice is ours. The stakes are unimagineable."

Who's the nut?

Posted by: Phil at March 6, 2007 2:03 AM


Gary,

This is what you wrote:

"Phil, you are a nut. I'm sorry, but god lets of live because he's a nice guy? This is what your religion is reduced to? That's why your god has blessed me with a nice home, a great family and a productive and satisfying life. But he'll burn me in Hell forever because I don't believe a word of what you say? That's crazy."

Did you read what I wrote?

"This is the amazing part. While He has no obligation to do so, He allows us to continue to live and breath and have our being. Allows us to sin without immediate judgement while we blaspheme His name by denying his existence, killing his intended creation, etc. Why does He do this? Only because of His kindness in not wanting to see any of us perish and Him gracioulsy giving us time to change. The amount of time allowed, however, is not known and the choice is ours. The stakes are unimagineable."

Who's the nut?

Posted by: Phil at March 6, 2007 2:03 AM


Gary,

This is what you wrote:

"Phil, you are a nut. I'm sorry, but god lets of live because he's a nice guy? This is what your religion is reduced to? That's why your god has blessed me with a nice home, a great family and a productive and satisfying life. But he'll burn me in Hell forever because I don't believe a word of what you say? That's crazy."

Did you read what I wrote?

"This is the amazing part. While He has no obligation to do so, He allows us to continue to live and breath and have our being. Allows us to sin without immediate judgement while we blaspheme His name by denying his existence, killing his intended creation, etc. Why does He do this? Only because of His kindness in not wanting to see any of us perish and Him gracioulsy giving us time to change. The amount of time allowed, however, is not known and the choice is ours. The stakes are unimagineable."

Who's the nut?

Posted by: Phil at March 6, 2007 2:04 AM


Jess:

It's no coincidence that most sins are also crimes. Have you ever heard of the Judeo-Christian ethic? It's where our Consitution and most of our laws came from. In fact, the vast majority of the framers of the Consitution were deists despite what modern revisionists would have you believe.

Abortion used to be a crime until it was made legal. The result; 50,000,000 murders of unborn children. Abortion is still a grave sin and someday it will be illegal again.

The point is that God institutes government to protect us against ourselves and for our good. The problem is that as we have tried to remove God from government, schools, homes and lives, the results are more and more depravity. Just read the news. We reap what we sow.

If we sought to do things God's way, God promises to heal our land. Have most of us become so cynical and callous that we can't even believe this simple truth?

Phil

Posted by: Phil at March 6, 2007 2:17 AM


Amanda,

So are you telling me that if the god of “Science” proves that abortion is harmful to women, you will become pro-life? I think not. You prove my point that both sides are unwilling to change solely based on the evidence produced by scientific research. Seems to me that you have concluded that the pro-death crowd has already won this one and somehow you base this assumption on some science/race argument. How illogical is that?

I did not say one thing about the effects of abortion. Where did that come from? You must be talking to yourself. In fact, I believe that these endless arguments about whether or not abortion hurts women produce nothing. Because I believe in a God of order and good that eventually science will prove that abortion is absolutely harmful to women. But, who will change their minds based on this? That’s the point. By the way, most if not all abolitionists and civil rights leaders were devout Christians and probably not scientists. Wasn’t Martin Luther King a Baptist preacher? Hitler’s Germany had the best scientists in the world who did horrible experiments on Jews. Just because they were scientists would you believe their conclusions as well? Scientific conclusions have to be tempered with morality. You make a huge error when you make science your predictor of moral outcomes.

And where did I say America is a theocracy? I did not! Now had I said that I think I could make the argument that America was created by God for a specific time in history to allow the Gospel to be preached throughout the world. Having said that, I think all abortion, everywhere, in any part of the world is a sin, no matter if it’s in Russia, Italy, Poland, wherever. Most countries have laws that are based on our innate sense of right and wrong. After all, we were all created in the image and likeness of God, i.e. we have a moral compass. The problem is that the world in general is quickly abandoning God, and that’s a huge mistake, because we reap the terrible effects of that decision. It’s all so, so stupid.

By the way, I am an engineer/scientist. My name is etched on spacecraft that were launched years ago. I’ve designed equipment that flies in aircraft all over the world. I have built three businesses in the technical fields of aerospace, building technology and health. I have a Master’s degree in Theology and pursuing a Doctorate. Big deal. I know enough to know that I will never know enough and there will always be more to learn. I also know that I will not trust my soul to science. Science cannot even cure the common cold. Logically, this points me to One that is Infinite; the Father, the Son - Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

Phil

Posted by: Phil at March 6, 2007 3:10 AM


Phil

Thank you for proving once again that no one can argue against abortion without using their religion as a base.

Here's the thing - everything you say becomes null and void when I say I DONT BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU BELIEVE.

Faith is not fact. Never will be.

You can keep waiting for an invisible man in the sky to come fix everything. In the mean time, I'll actually be WORKING to improve healthcare and access for women in the U.S as I have been since I finished college.

Posted by: Amanda at March 6, 2007 9:11 AM


Amanda,

the use of the word 'improve' is itself a matter of belief. Too many assume that change, any change is an improvement. But I assume that the improvement you are speaking of is but one piece in a long line.

Have you ever thought about just what you are improving towards ... what is your goal? Is your-goal my goal? Why is it not OK to impose my goal on you, if there is a difference? How do you know your direction is correct? Is having more comfort a sign that your way is the correct one?

Such questioning and the answers are very revealing. They help me, I hope they asssist you too!

Posted by: John McDonell at March 6, 2007 10:09 AM


John

My degree is in public health with a focus in reproductive/maternal health. My goal in life is to work for better sex ed, better healthcare, and less judgement towards girls and women.

The U.S. has one of the worst (in fact it will probably be the worst when the 2006 stats come out) infant mortality rates of developed nations.

So while people like Jill are promoting domestic abuse, 14 out of every 100,000 African American infants born in this country die before their first birthday - often due to neglect and abuse.

Why is it that its not ok to have an abortion, but its perfectly ok to hit a woman, and its perfectly ok for our government to let infants die and live in squalor just because their parents are poor?

Conservatives reject abortion, but as a whole (and Ms Stanek is perfect example) they also reject comprehensive sex ed, improved healthcare access, universal health care, etc.

Take the case of one of my patients - 32 years old, with 2 children aged 7 and 4. Her husband left her 2 years ago, and is a deadbeat who does not pay child support. She finally started dating again, and got pregnant 6 months later, though she found out after she and the man she was dating had broken up. She works part time so she can be there when her kids get home from school. She is able to afford the low-income HealthPlus insurance for her two children, but is not insured herself.

Does she decide not to pay rent or groceries so she can afford prenatal care? Should she keep working in hazardous conditions through her pregnancy so she can keep food on the table and a roof over her head? How is she going to pay for anything when she needs to stop working, since part time jobs do not need to offer paid maternity leave? And once the baby is born, who's going to take care of it? How can she afford an extra mouth to feed when shes barely scraping by as it is?

Up until that time in her life, she had considered herself pro life, but she had an abortion because she knew it was the best thing for her two born children, and at her 6 month follow up, said she had absolutely no regrets and was grateful for the services she was provided, which included getting an IUD at a low cost.

Another huge problem I work to improve is women's self image. When women have no or low self esteem, have been victims of abuse, or feel lonely or depressed, they are more likely to become involved in unhealthy sexual behaviors. I find it ironic that Ms Stanek would advocate domestic violence, when the opporesion and abuse of women is a risk factor for abortions down the line. Better self image = better sexual choices. Abuse has a unimaginable impact on self image.

I cant even tell you how many young girls Ive seen who were told by the boys they had sex with that they couldnt get pregnant. If they had sex ed to empower them, these girls would have known they were being decieved.

How someone can call themselves "pro life" but be against providing free healthcare and advocate domestic violence at the same time is absolutely baffling to me. It goes against every grain of basic common sense.

More comfort? I guess if you believe seeing more infants survive past their first birthday is "comfort"able, then yes. I personally dont think it has anything to do with comfort, but with the fact that health is a human right.

I dont impose my goals on anyone. Thats why Im pro CHOICE, not Pro Abortion. The program I work for tries to make sure a teen knows all of her options, we offer mediation and counseling if a girl is afraid to tell her parents/the baby's father/family, etc. We have interns that help girls apply for WIC and welfare, we have reps come from the low-cost insurance companies, we offer parenting classes, etc, etc. But the fact is, despite all of those services, some girls still believe an abortion is the best choice for them, and we have an obligation to respect that, and make sure they get it safely, rather than intentionally overdosing, using tea or chemical concoctions, or going to a non-professional.

Abortion is not the problem. Abortion is a sad SYMPTOM of a problem, but for some reason, people like to ignore the actual problem, and all of the other symptoms, and focus on abortion alone. Education can correct that, as I have witnessed personally many, many times. Take cancer for example: cancer causes pain, but you dont treat cancer by taking a painkiller, making the pain go away, and convincing yourself the cancer is gone. The same goes for abortion.

Posted by: Amanda at March 6, 2007 11:49 AM


Thanks for deleting my comment yet again Jill Stanek. Can you not take the criticism? That's a very poor reflection on your character, that you'd rather silence those who criticise you than merely accept it and move on.

And once again, congratulations on promoting and supporting domestic violence.

Posted by: Ilana at March 6, 2007 12:34 PM


Isnt that nice Ilana? Promoting domestic abuse and deleting the comments of anyone who calls her on it... and yet she wants people to take anything she says seriously?

Posted by: Amanda at March 6, 2007 12:37 PM


And grow up. The term for a doctor who performs abortions is an OB/GYN, or Doctor, as they are commonly referred to in the MEDICAL world. Sorry, the term "abortionist" is not a scientific or AMA approved term.

Jen,

Doctors heal patients, they don't kill them. Abortionist's kill patients.

Doctor?? - I don't think so...

http://www.klannedparenthood.com

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 6, 2007 3:24 PM


Thanks for your views Amanda,

there are different ways to look at abortion ... and I have to agree with you that far too many people think of abortion as a solution rather than a symptom. But a symptom of what? I just feel that abortion for you is operating as a solution called 'escape'(from a life without hope). I know where you are coming from because one of my best friends does exactly the same work as you do ... [and she does counsel for abortion.]

The situations that you speak of points out dramatically that indeed we live in a callous society. But are we closed to accepting that there are many folks (aside from your peers and team members) who are not callous at all? [Have you even considered for one minute that there are plenty of pro-life people (and church-congregations) who could serve as a pool-of-help? Are these considered without merit, because they are not-professionals?]

I wonder if abortion is a symptom of suicide. If so, would your pattern of treatment be different? I suspect it would! So do a little reflecting, please, on how closely abortion resembles a quasi-suicide. We might use the word 'health' extensively and not reflected at all on its meaning.

May you find peace rather than comfort!

Posted by: John McDonell at March 6, 2007 3:58 PM


Ok Mike, just because you can post a conspiracy theory website with detailed graphics does NOT MEAN that "abortionist" is suddenly a scientific, AMA approved term.
It still isn't.
If you pro-lifers are so excited to post scientific studies to prove your points, get excited about using the correct terminology as well.
But you could always use the emotional appeal. Always worked well for your movement when science wouldn't justifiy the outrageous claims.

Posted by: Jen at March 6, 2007 3:59 PM


Jen,

It's got to be getting tough for the Pro-Aborts now since the Pro-Lifers are taking over the language and like always the Pro-Lifer's are the only group holding all the pictures!

Don't Pro-Aborts have any camera's? I never see any of you showing any pictures of abortion in public.

http://www.missionariestopreborn.com/default.asp?fuseaction=photoshome

I will be spending tomorrow praying at the "Abortuary". Whoops, I have a feeling you don't like that term either -- oh well.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 6, 2007 6:58 PM


Jen,

I just wanted to tell you a story of what happened on one of the Pro-Life Tours. This story is being told by a Pro-Lifer...

Abortion Pictures Say It All


I admit that where I was standing across the street, I encountered very little opposition this time except for some snide remarks. In fact, a number of people thanked me for being there and I was questioned by one young lady to whom I pointed out that all our sign said was "abortion," and had a pictures of an aborted baby. It doesn't even say we're for it or against abortion.

I said, "What if I were holding a sign that said 'McDonalds,' and had a picture of a hamburger. Viewers would assume that I was pro-hamburger, not against hamburgers. But when I hold a picture of an aborted baby they immediately assume I am against abortion. Why? Because everyone knows instinctively that abortion is wrong and that when you hold a picture of an aborted baby you are not supporting abortion, but you are opposing it."

She mused over that analogy for a few seconds and said, "That make sense. Now I have to get to work. I work at McDonalds."

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 6, 2007 7:24 PM


Phill:

Are you aware that Thomas Jefferson, one of our key founding fathers, made his own version of the Bible?

A version that took anything miraculous, all of Jesus' miracles, anything that didn't make sense, out.

That doesn't sound like much of a God-fearing deist to me. Sounds like a realist, and a pragmatist.

The founding fathers knew and saw first hand the dangers and oppression of a theocracy: so they re-created DEMOcracy, where religion did not rule but rights.

There is a reason America is so proudly referred to as the cultural melting pot... and you cannot force your beliefs onto another person's rights just because you feel is it not right.

Posted by: Jess at March 7, 2007 12:03 AM


exactly Jess,

the next step to take is .......... with what objective criteria do you define person-hood? In pro-life circles we characteristically use the unique human-DNA ... so arguments like: this is my own body are false ... pro-lifers contend a baby/fetus is 'in' a woman's body but is NOT her body. This growing being is indeed dependent on her, but is still not her.

rights are not whims or preferences. Many pro-aborts contend that the mother's rights (often understood as conveniences) super-cede her offspring .... Pro-lifers would like to know on what basis are fetal-people denied that their rights exist while the mother has the right to kill(abortion). Is it size, age, power ... what?

There is little doubt many women have severe lives but this certainly is not ALL women. [Those that do need support, they do not 'need' to kill their children.]

Any mention of a deity is not necessarily about religion ... a theocracy. The existence of God is a philosophical/intellectual thing too. 'All men are created ....' is a profound philosophical (+ religious) phrase. It means we all have worth and this value translates into human rights. No value = no rights = non-human. So I ask you ::: when does humanity begin???????????? can a human fetus be alive and doing most things a baby does and not be human? A friend once said: 'Just what are women supposed to be pregnant with .......... a firetruck?'

Posted by: John McDonell at March 7, 2007 8:11 AM


Christi's Choice (powerful 4 minute video) & Aborted Fetus Sings...

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=1974497

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 7, 2007 8:56 AM


Here is Ted Harvey's (Colorado House) story about Gianna Jessen. The Colorado House was meeting to celebrate the 90th anniversary of Planned Parenthood in the Rocky Mountains. As a strong Pro-Lifer Ted Harvey was wondering what he could do at the next Colorado House meeting. That weekend God introduced Gianna Jesson (an abortion survivor with cerebral palsy) to Ted Harvey.

Anyhow Ted somehow had Gianna sing the National Anthem to open the house meeting. Nobody knew about Gianna's story. They gave Gianna a tremendous standing ovation after she sang the National Anthem.

Next, Ted Harvey told Gianna's story about how Gianna got cerebral palsy to the Colorado Congress and Planned Parenthood. The gavel came down and all hell broke loose...

You will have to read the rest of the story...

http://www.tedharvey.com/gianna.htm

Mike

Posted by: Mike at March 7, 2007 10:05 AM


Amanda,

If all you seek are facts, that's all you'll get; conclusions based solely on observable evidence. But man does not live by bread alone (things oee can hear, touch, see, feel, smell) but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (which requires faith that comes from the heart).

If Thomas Edison didn't believe (have faith)there was a solution he would not have tried inexhaustibly to find the right light bulb filament that didn't burn out and we'd still be sucking candle smoke. If Fulton didn't believe (have faith) that steam could be used for power, we'd still be pulling carriages with horses. If Columbus didn't believe (have faith) that the world was actaully a much different place than fact-finders of the time said it was, we'd all be Europeans. On the other hand, Hitler had faith that he could build a superior Germany by killing (aborting lives) innocent human beings and we all know the outcome. So faith, not based on sound, Biblical principles of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control is really not faith at all.

Very simply, we don't live long enough or are able to see enough of the universe to gather all the facts necessary to come to a knowledge of the truth on our own, we need help from God. Logic demands an element of faith that stretches us beyond our pride and arrogance and self-worship, which then causes us to be able to risk all that we are, our very lives, to a God that shouts to us through all of creation that He lives. Point is, most of us want Him to reveal Himself in our way. He says no, look around you, I am everywhere, trust Me.

If anyone seeks the truth and that with all their heart, God's Word promises, that He'll be found. That a huge promise, one that countless billions have found Him to have been faithful on. Why not test that claim and then make a decision, rather than battling the God that created and loves you and wants relationship with you, but not on your terms, but His?

The choice and associated risks are yours.

Are you that arrogant that you won't even look at the evidence?

I did it my way for years and got nowhere. In the 30 years since I accepted Christ and was baptized in obedience to His commands, my life has been a series of victories and defeats, however, when I look back I can see how He has guided me in every situation. This is only a vantage point a believer can appreciate.

Because I am a Christian, a believer in Christ, I also believe that it would not be His will that abortion be allowed. His teachings on how adults are to treat children are very definite and come with some rather harsh warnings
(millstones, and all that stuff) about the outcomes of those who hurt children in ANY way including not telling them about the God of the Bible, encouraging them to disobey their parents, showing them how to try to avoid the consequences of irresponsible and immoral sex, convincing them that killing an unborn, innocent and defenseless human being is OK, etc., etc., etc.

Phil

Posted by: Phil at March 7, 2007 10:49 AM


Ok so it looks like no matter what I say, people will start referencing abortion pictures. What does that have to do with the fact that "abortionist" is not an AMA, scientific term?
Honestly, if you guys want to be taken seriously with the whole science thing, you'll stop using made up words.
They are OB/GYNs, also referred to as Doctors. The whole emotional appeal thing works fine when you don't refer to science.
If you want to cite a study, use the appropriate terms. It's a sign of maturity I'm waiting to see from the pro-life movement.

Posted by: Jen at March 7, 2007 4:58 PM


Hi Jen,

I have wondered for years whether the scientific word 'neonate' refers to an infant or an after-birth(detached placenta). And to what species does this term refer? At what point is a neonate a grown-up ... if ever?

Please, enlighten my ignorance.

Posted by: John McDonell at March 7, 2007 5:30 PM


Jill,
I think its obvious from the kind of responsive actions you condone that you either:
a. did not meet many decent male role models in your childhood.
b. Have had very poor relationships with boyfriends, spouses, and guy friends in general.

YOU may have grown up in a home where violence was accepted. YOU may be in (or have been in) a realationship where you are/were treated like a child and not an adult, but don't EVER dilude yourself into thinking that other woman want to be treated like kids who can't make their own decisions.

Posted by: Kim at March 7, 2007 7:14 PM


Jill, the mafia wasn't necessarily evil. After all, the father of the mafia in the US, Al Capone, set up soup kitchens to relieve the poor of their suffering in Depression-era Chicago. It was very Christian of him, don't you think? And, you are so absolutely correct: the fact that Italy is adopting modern facets of society should be frowned upon. I mean, seriously...we need to push all of humanity back into the Inquisition era where individual rights and freedoms can be oppressed yet again by the church. Your point of view is soooo refreshing, especially the talk of real men beating women. Gosh, you've left me speechless, I'm completely in raptures over your 'well-researched' article!

Posted by: Veronica Mars at March 7, 2007 7:51 PM


I wonder when people will realize that early stage foeti are nothing more than brainless lumps of meat.

I thought America was out of the dark ages by now...

Posted by: Dan at March 7, 2007 8:01 PM


Dan,
Well obviously they are more important than a person, I mean, sure, 2/3 of all embryo's are naturally disposed of by the body, but if it has 'potential' than who cares if someone is treating like a human incubator! ///SARCASM
Kim

Posted by: Kim at March 7, 2007 8:08 PM


Mrs. Stanek,

Under no circumstances is hitting a woman acceptable. Period. Domestic abuse is not something to take lightly, neither is abortion. However, if my future wife were to have an abortion I would be deeply hurt and feel betrayed. This would not mean that hitting her would be okay. Communication, counseling, and possibly divorce are acceptable options; domestic abuse, on the other hand is not. As I said before, under no circumstances is hitting a woman acceptable. If hitting a woman is what it takes to be seen as a "real man" in your eyes, then do not view me as a "real man." You've lost any respect I have had for you.



Trevor Sorenson

Posted by: Trevor Sorenson at March 7, 2007 8:14 PM


I can't belive you would try to use Michael Corleone as some sort of twisted role-model for yourself in regards to how "real men" react to abortion.

I understand that you might feel some pleasurable venting of hostility in that slap he delivers to his wife onscreen when she tells him she aborted the child. But for shiat's sake, you can't possibly think that his reaction was the "less cowardly, more manly" thing to do?? Is that how real men react when faced with difficult situations? They slap women?

Violence is not the answer to violence. Mr. King demonstrated so eloquently that the most respectable revolution is a peaceful one.

Posted by: Melissa at March 7, 2007 8:17 PM


This is disgusting. A real man would never lay a hand on his wife/girlfriend. If my boyfriend ever hit me, no matter the reason, I would be out that door and never look back.

Then again, being in a strong and loving relationship, I would speak to my boyfriend about what to do if I got pregnant. But I can understand other woman not doing the same.

In the end it still comes down to my choice and my boyfriend, while he would want to be there to support me and help me, agrees that the choice is mine to make.

Posted by: Danielle at March 7, 2007 9:20 PM


You are disgusting, Jill Stanek, for EVER advocating violence against women under ANY circumstances. Women fought for decades to outlaw the inhumane practice of allowing men to beat/rape their wives. Saying that under certain circumstances that a man should be allowed to beat his wife, or slap her, puts us back on a slippery slope to the dark ages, where everything our foremothers fought for is undermined. You are an abomination of a human being for ever suggesting that there is a "right" time for a man to hit a woman. How do you expect to garner any respect from pro-choice people, who respect all rights of women, if you make arguments with such a callous and anti-woman bent?

And you call US evil?

Posted by: Alyssa at March 7, 2007 9:21 PM


Alyssa,

Should a women who commits murder ever be subject to the death penalty? That's pretty violent isn't it? What about a woman who kills her own children? What makes women so sacred that they are exempt from the consequences of their actions? Just because they are female? No, a man should never abuse a women and vice versa, they should only seek to love one another.

However, most of today's females, raised on the propaganda of Gloria Steinem and the like, have learned to irrationally hate men, especially strong men that aren't afraid to stand up to such types.

As such, when they metaphorically see a man, even as evil as Michael Corleone, react in an impulsive, passionate, very human way against such a heinous atrocity as a mother killing her and his own child, somehow manage to forget that an innocent, defenseless, pure, sinless, human being was viciously abused, torn apart and destroyed, and, are somehow, only outraged that Michael slapped his wife. What am I missing? Where's the balance? Where's the equally demanded outrage/horror/shame/sadness against the unilateral decision of a mother to murder their mutually conceived offspring?

If someone had treated one of my children in the same fashion, i.e., ripped them apart from limb to limb, murdered them, stole their future, and then came to brag to me that they had done this, I would be less than human and certainly not a man, not only to want to slap that person, but to want to kick their you know what until they were turned inside out, male or female, doesn't matter. My wife would feel the same way, in fact, I would be more afraid of what she would do to the perpetrator than what I would do. I'd like any mother tell me that they wouldn't want to do the same thing. I'm not saying that this would be right but simply, a very human reaction to a very inhuman act.

Because I am a Christian my faith demands forgiveness but not a release from the consequences. Murdering an innocent, defenseless child should have severe consequences.

The only difference here is, that pro-deathers don't see unborn children as children but as globs of tissue who threaten their idol worship at the sacred altar of the "Right to Choose". Therefore, they are willing to blind and sear their own consciences and even deny the image of God in which they were created, in order keep such rights. That not a good exchange. A temporal right and feeling of self-satifaction in exchange for your immortal soul. Seems like the gates of hell are winning, but, no, won't happen.

Yes, on a relative scale, even the Mafia is better than people who do such cowardly and selfish, demonic things, however, both will suffer unimaginably and forever unless they repent.

Jill, I don't believe you were advocating the right of any man to slap a woman. I do think you were trying to say that even someone as evil as Michael Corleone could see that the act of abortion is about as bad a thing as a person could do, not unforgiveable, but bad, really, really bad.

So Alyssa, really think about the point that Jill was trying to make and stop trying to turn it into a female rights issue. That's really, really dishonest and deceptive. Good try.

Phil

Posted by: Phil at March 8, 2007 1:24 AM


"That spontaneous slap was the reaction of a real man [...]"

Phil, to me, this is advertising domestic violence.
And what you call "pro-deathers": I'm sorry, we do not promote killing anybody. We do, however, believe that women have a right to choose - in a situation no man will ever experience- how they life will continue.
As you like to point out, you're Christian. I'm Deist, I believe in God in a way you probably find not acceptable (and I don't fear for my "eternal soul") and I ask you one simple question: Why do you not believe that God gave us the right to make decisions about our very own bodies?

Posted by: Ingrid at March 8, 2007 11:52 AM


Phil, how dare you tell ME what is dishonest and deceptive. I'm not using religion to back my arguments, especially when many people debating on this topic are not religious. You saying what I believe is 'wrong' according to your religious beliefs is no more than judging me (hmmm, judge not lest ye be judged), and that in itself is deceptive. I have never told you that you are wrong for what you believe in, it is you that constantly reminds others of their "duties" to a Christ that they might not believe in. I respect your opinion on this subject, but abortion affects the women that contemplate them more profoundly than any Christian man.

I was not trying to deceive anyone. Besides, any human emotion can be controlled...didn't Jesus want us to think before we act on emotions? It doesn't matter what any woman does, no man has a right to hit her. No woman has a right to hit a man. Just because you see someone who has done you a great personal wrong (in your opinion), you don't have a right to hit them. Nor do you have a right to act purely on emotions in the moment. That's a basis for lawsuits. If I hit every person that offended me deeply at the moment that they did so, I'd be up to my ears in lawsuit debt or criminal charges. Any man who hits his wife is a criminal. Any woman who hits her husband is a criminal. Don't tell me that I consider one to be immune from punishment.

Posted by: Alyssa at March 8, 2007 12:16 PM


Ingrid, one slap does not domestic violence make. Up until that shocking moment, speaking strictly of Michael as husband and father, he was ideal. He didn't drink, refused to womanize, shielded Kay with his body when mobsters splattered the bedroom with bullets, and was affectionate and attentive to Kay and loving and proud of their children.

The slap demonstrated how horrible Michael considered abortion, a strange thing for a mobster, certainly, but showing there was good in him, although obviously misplaced.

In fact, Michael killed his own brother because Freddo played a part in mobsters attacking Michael's family at home.

In actuality, who was the one really guilty of "domestic violence"? Kay.

I have found the exagerated reaction to Michael's slap telling. If Kay had just killed their two-year-old, no one would be arguing that Michael was a wife beater for slapping Kay upon hearing this shocking news, certainly the most awful news a parent can hear.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 8, 2007 12:22 PM


Their two-year-old was no longer using her body as a personal incubator. There's a difference. No one, not even your CHILD, has a right to use your body for his or her benefit or survival. You may choose to give them that right. Even if you put him/her in that position.

Posted by: Alyssa at March 8, 2007 12:40 PM


Alyssa, everyone relies on someone else for survival at many points throughout life - a newborn baby, a person dying with AIDS, an elderly person with Alzheimers, even that two-year-old. That cannot be the criteria for the right to life.

You're also saying that one's location determines one's worth. A baby in the uterus is expendable. A baby outside the uterus is not.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 8, 2007 12:50 PM


Jill,

I won't speak for Alyssa (since she is more than capable of standing up for herself), but the point has nothing to do with the worth of the fetus/baby. It has to do with what rights/obligations the woman has to the fetus and what rights the fetus has. Even a full grown, thinking, feeling person has no right to use your body for their survival. So neither does the fetus. Nor do you have any obligation to a full grown thinking, feeling person to maintain their physical survival through the violation of your bodily autonomy. So no such obligation exists toward the fetus.

And the point you make about people being dependent on others is irrelevant to the issue at hand. We're talking about dependence for survival at the cost of bodily autonomy. My dependence on the functioning of society is in no way analogous to that.

Posted by: Diana at March 8, 2007 12:57 PM


If I depended on you for survival (I hope for my sake I never have to), I would do it in a way that didn't infringe upon your body. I wouldn't be "plugged into you". A fetus poses a risk to a woman because it is inside her, living off of her bodily reserves. It is dependent, yes, but on her body, not on resources outside of it. It still doesn't have the right to take away a woman's right to decide what uses her bodily resources to survive.


An AIDS patient, an Alzheimer's patient, and a two-year-old do not depend on the bodies of others to survive. A fetus usurps control of a woman's body to survive. You refuse to see this difference. It's not location, it's the method of how one goes about surviving. If you're using the bodily resources of another to do so, that's intolerable unless allowed by the person you're taking the body resources from. Period. It's unacceptable for someone to use my body to survive as an adult (someone with definite granted rights under the law), why should a fetus be given the same rights unless I grant it?

Posted by: Alyssa at March 8, 2007 1:01 PM


Ms. Stanek,

I greatly admire you and your work, but please, Michael Corleone? A sociopathic killer? Sociopaths, who are devoid of conscience and morality. Who next, Al Capone? The same Michael Corleone who had his brother murdered, though he was considerate enough to wait until his mother died. As I am a huge "Godfather" fan, I recall, Kaye was rubbing Michael's nose in the fact that the baby aborted was male. Would this "family man" have reacted the same way to an aborted female child? She knew how desperately Michael wanted a MALE child and aborted out of revulsion for Michael's murderous lifestyle. Of course she didn't take his family, he would have had her killed first! Please Ms. Stanek, keep up your excellent work, but please pick better role models, real or imagined. You only discredit yourself and your wonderful work with examples like this.

Posted by: Mary at March 8, 2007 1:47 PM


Diana, Alyssa: You both speak as if pregnancy is an illness, a "violation," an "infringe[ment]," a depletion of "bodily resources."

This is interesting wording to discuss a condition that is actually a sign of good health. Pregnancy is a normal body function.

It is nonsense to suggest the law never tells people what they can or cannot do with their bodies. You cannot sell your body for sex, or sell organs, or put certain drugs in your body.

Statements like yours also ignore the fact that, by any rational standard, the preborn child is a separate individual from her mother.

The pro-life movement has never suggested women be required to have children. However, it is a biological fact that when a women is pregnant she already has a child. We argue that child should not be butchered.

Preborn babies require exactly what postborn babies require from their mothers - oxygen, nutrition, and shelter. Would you as the mother of a born child not provide in these ways?

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 8, 2007 2:02 PM


Just because it is an indication of good health does not mean I want it to happen. I can still be healthy even if I'm sterile. So what? You're still ignoring the fact that preborn babies are living DIRECTLY off of the body of another human being. Post born babies are not. It IS an infringement for ANY human being to usurp ANY part of your body without consent, whether or not they need your body to survive. You keep skirting THAT issue.

Posted by: Alyssa at March 8, 2007 2:06 PM


Mary, the most interesting component of the Godfather movies was the fact these men indeed did have consciences, albeit selective. As a matter of fact, you could not ask for more conscientious and devoted family men that Vito or Michael. Watch the movies again with an eye toward them as husbands and fathers.

As I stated earlier, Michael killed his brother because Freddo played a part in mobsters attacking Michael's family at home. This infuriated Michael.

As for Michael's desire for a son, you won't find many men who secretly or honestly don't have the same feelings.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 8, 2007 2:07 PM


Alyssa, I'm not ignoring that fact. Postborn babies live directly off the bodies of their mothers, too, when they breastfeed. Some women have no choice in that matter. But I don't know any who would walk away from that responsibility. What would you think of one who did, for no reason other than a desire for autonomy?

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 8, 2007 2:10 PM


First you reduce the readers' complaints regarding your "mafia" column to petty "political correctness." Then you try to imply that we Italians are "in denial" about our mafia background. Now you dare to question our commitment to the pro-life movement simply because we Italians don't appreciate being labeled "mafioso"?

What is "telling" here, Ms. Stanek, is your inability to apologize for your highly offensive title "Italian Abortion Mafia" (which doesn't even make sense) and your exaggerated characterization of a fictional mafia character as being representative of pro-life Italians!

Italy's abortion laws and abortion statistics have NOTHING to do with the mafia. Please save your interpretation of Michael Corleone's reaction to Kay's abortion for your creative writing class.

Posted by: Valerie Mierzwa at March 8, 2007 2:18 PM


"This is interesting wording to discuss a condition that is actually a sign of good health. Pregnancy is a normal body function."

It is generally a sign of good health in that women who are not in good health are sometimes naturally incapable of getting pregnant. Their bodies naturally prevent the pregnancy from beginning or continuing (through failed ovulation, failure of implantation, or miscarriage.) But part of the reason that a woman must be in good health is that a fetus does in fact take resources from the mother. Certainly you cannot deny that. I apologize if you dislike the wording, but that's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. (See your earlier blog "embryo terminology")

"It is nonsense to suggest the law never tells people what they can or cannot do with their bodies. You cannot sell your body for sex, or sell organs, or put certain drugs in your body."

No one suggested any such thing. What was suggested was that no one has a obligation to allow their body to be used by another, even if it means that other's surivival. Likewise, no person has a right to use another's body. Hence, the woman has no such obligation to the fetus and the fetus has no such right. Even if it is a person.

"Statements like yours also ignore the fact that, by any rational standard, the preborn child is a separate individual from her mother."

I don't see where we've ignored any such thing. We've merely noted that, separate or not, the child is using the mother's body, which it has no right to do without the mother's consent.

"Preborn babies require exactly what postborn babies require from their mothers - oxygen, nutrition, and shelter. Would you as the mother of a born child not provide in these ways?"

This is false. Preborn babies require an array of nutrients out of the mother's own body. Postborn babies do not. Yes, postborn babies are dependent. But the point is that they are not dependent on another's body. They are not using the mother's body for their survival. And if I were a mother, I would of course provide in those ways. But especially because I would only be a mother by choice.


Posted by: Diana at March 8, 2007 2:20 PM


I can't believe any woman advocates a man hitting his wife or any other woman. It's like suggesting it's ok for a powerful state to beat up on its minorities. It's like saying it's ok for Israel to carry on maltreating its Arab residents. It's like suggesting it's ok for adults to beat their children, and that it's ok for the police to beat up the people they arrest. None of the above is right, and God's will (IMO) is that the strong use their strength of character rather than their brute strength to prove their position.
If any man hit me for any reason, I'd have the law on him so quickly his feet wouldn't touch the ground.
It is the duty and responsibility of the strong to protect the weak, not to beat them up "just because they can".

Posted by: Catherine at March 8, 2007 2:38 PM


"Ingrid, one slap does not domestic violence make."

Alright then, Ms. Janek. Where does domestic violence start? Does it mean a woman has to be hospitalized in order to be accepted as a victim? Does she have to show bruises, black eyes and broken bones? Or is the psychological way enough - you know, every aspect of a woman's live controlled by her husband / boyfriend / father; no social life, no friends, no nothing.

Posted by: Ingrid at March 8, 2007 3:14 PM


Jill - I was given a link to your post in a PRO LIFE forum.

PRO LIFE

even we, pro lifers, are horrified, disgusted, and appalled by your statements about "real" men and domestic abuse.

Please stop writing - you're making your own cause look bad.

"one slap does not domestic violence make" Really? The POLICE and the LAW would beg to differ Ms Stanek.

You're an EMBRASSMENT to pro lifers everyhwere.
People like YOU give pro-choicers ammo against us. Thanks a lot.

Posted by: Sandy at March 8, 2007 3:45 PM


More Ammo? You bet. You walk straight into our hands.
>
Insofar as the pro-life or pro-choice argument goes, every woman should have the choice to become and stay pregnant if she so pleases. The Catholic viewpoint of "every sperm is sacred" really is misogynistic male dominance over what is ultimately a female issue. If you can't see the wrongness in saying that a raped woman must carry her rapist's offspring to term whilst she loathes him, herself and it every second it is in her body, then you are perpetrating the rapist's action on that poor woman's body and you are no better than he, in fact you're worse than him because you are allegedly not a sociopath.
Why should any woman be forced to carry to term a baby that has such defects that she would not be able to love and care for it as she would want? What if her partner decides not to support her? If she's too poor to look after her current offspring and herself, why force her to have yet another baby? What if carrying here baby to term means she'll die? Who gets to choose then? An orphan?
How cruel are you? How "holier than thou" are you? Have you not heard the proverb that pride goes before a fall?

A woman's body is her own, she should become pregnant when and only when she wants to. She should be the only one (with her doctor's help) to decide whether she can carry a baby to full-term. It is not your decision, it is hers.

It beats me that any educated person can accept such nonsense as anything more than interesting dogma from a historical theological viewpoint. It beggars belief that unmarried men (priests) are in any position to dictate to women how to use their bodies.
An unmarried, childless man tried to tell me how to bring up my child, (including how to give birth and how to breast-feed) this was at work in front of my colleagues while I was 8 months pregnant. He didn't get away unscathed. Do you see any similarity with this and a priest telling women how they can only use the rhythm method as contraception? What a JOKE!
Leave it out, Stanek, go and tell President Bush he's an idiot and to stop faking elections to become President. At least that might have a beneficial effect on the world!

Posted by: Catherine at March 8, 2007 3:53 PM


CATHERINE. YOU. ROCK.

Posted by: Kim at March 8, 2007 4:18 PM


Agreed.
I always wondered how a man, who vowed to never have sex, believes himself allowed to tell any woman what to do with her body.

Posted by: Ingrid at March 8, 2007 4:25 PM


Why thank you Kim and Ingrid. I feel so much better having got that all off my chest. I must of course now say several Hail Mary's and Pater Noster's for being such a naughty girl to be able to think for myself!

Posted by: Catherine at March 8, 2007 4:48 PM


You go enjoy yourself now and remember what Marilyn Monroe says: Respectable women seldom make history.

Posted by: Kim at March 8, 2007 4:53 PM


Ms. Stanek,

I appreciate your response but I still feel better examples can be picked. Both Vito and Michael put their families in harm's way with their criminal lifestyles. Michael lied continuously to Kaye about his "business". Both men were secretive and deceitful. Vito brought his sons into the criminal life. I think I can certainly ask for "more conscientious and devoted family men" than this.
As for "one slap does not domestic violence make", Ms. Stanek, I spent a childhood living in domestic violence and terror that began with one slap.

Posted by: Mary at March 8, 2007 5:24 PM


Jen and Megan,

Concerning the question of why miscarriage would not cause breast cancer and abortion would. With miscarriage, the body prepares over a period of time to naturally expel the fetus. Hormonal levels drop off naturally, the cervix softens, the uterus contracts. This is a very natural process. Miscarriage does not just happen instantly, unless its traumatic, but rather is a process for which the body prepares for over time. I've had women tell me they sensed something was changing and knew even in early pregnancy that the fetus had died.
This is certainly not the case with induced abortion. The body is making every effort to protect and maintain the pregnancy and must be forcibly violated, i.e. cervical dilatation. Its theorized that the elevated estrogen levels which prepare the breasts for lactation and account for the breast changes women experience, can adversely affect breast tissue since it will remain after the abortion for a prolonged period. In normal pregancy hormonal levels are intricately controlled, abortion throw this mechanism off.
I would recommend the website, www.abortionbreastcancer.com. It contains the most up to date research. You can review this site and draw your own conclusions. Wherever one stands on this issue, women have a right to be thoroughly informed of both sides of this abortion/breast cancer controversy and to draw their own conclusions. Sadly this is not being done. It cannot be said for absolute certain there is no link, and is a grave disservice to do so. Keep in mind the abortion industry has a lot to answer for, and millions of dollars to lose, if a link is established. In the meantime, I strongly urge an open mind and doing your own research.

Posted by: Mary at March 8, 2007 5:39 PM


"Alyssa, I'm not ignoring that fact. Postborn babies live directly off the bodies of their mothers, too, when they breastfeed. Some women have no choice in that matter. But I don't know any who would walk away from that responsibility. What would you think of one who did, for no reason other than a desire for autonomy?"

Incorrect. I was not breastfed. I did not live directly off of the body of my mother after I was born. She, coincidentally, is a wonderful mother anyway. No one has to breastfeed, either. You make it seem like all women do. You're full of it. I grew up healthy without breastmilk. Give me a break.

Posted by: Alyssa at March 8, 2007 6:01 PM


Phil, you said:
"most of today's females, raised on the propaganda of Gloria Steinem and the like, have learned to irrationally hate men,"
1 Who is Gloria Steinem? I've never heard of her.
2 Who are you calling me a female? I'm a woman, live with it. Oh, and to quote you again, "It's important what you call me".
3 It's not irrational mate, it's totally rational. Men have been dominating women for far too long on the basis of might is right. The same basis that America now seeks to dominate the world, and the rest of us gaze on in horrified silence. Also, btw, the same basis that Stanek defends in the Corleone family, that I and many others find totally indefensible.

If women were accorded their proper position in the Judeo-Christian developed world, it would be a far better place. It's men who need to prove their machismo, not women. Women emulating appalling male behaviour can be just as bad and can cause as much havoc. Hooliganism, vandalism and thuggery are male-dominated bad behaviour - FACT. Prisons are full of men, not women - FACT. Wars are propagated and fought by men - FACT.

The sad fact is that as women realise their inequality in an unequal male-dominated world, they also realise they have to out-male the men... We don't hate men, we understand them. Their pathetic attempts to be macho (as seen by the vile Corleone family) only prove how foul men can be, and how they frequently think the only way out of a bad situation is to increase the violence.

You men have a lot to answer for. Unwanted pregnancy is definitely one of those things. Without a man, a woman would not get pregnant, wanted or not. Unfortunately, without a man, a woman can't get pregnant, although I believe we're working on that!!
I would suggest that all men butt out of arguments about terminations on the grounds that if it's not wanted, it's probably a man's fault.
BTW, if you're a Catholic priest or an unmarried childless man, Phil, please see my previous comment above.

Posted by: Catherine at March 8, 2007 6:09 PM


You're also forgetting the fact that babies given up for adoption do not breastfeed from their mother, and this is AFTER women make a CHOICE to have them. They have a CHOICE in the matter. Duh. I've never known a woman to be FORCED to breastfeed. There's a shot after the birth for that, you know. I mean, you kind of ARE a nurse.

What kind of propaganda are you throwing out there anyway? Who has ever been FORCED to breastfeed? Most women after giving birth who breastfeed do it because it relieves their bodies...if they don't, it hurts. Even then, they can make a CHOICE to use formula or their own milk. IT'S STILL A CHOICE.

Posted by: Alyssa at March 8, 2007 6:11 PM


Alyssa, I'm with you, babe. I chose to breastfeed my two for as long as I could. The lack of support from the NHS was phenomenal, but I made my CHOICE and I stuck with it.
I defend my CHOICE and although I would not now choose to abort, I will defend to my death any woman's right to that FREEDOM of CHOICE.

Posted by: Catherine at March 8, 2007 6:18 PM


Dammit, I've just read another of Phil's comments. Of course this is a womans rights issue, Phil. Until we are seen as people with human rights that are as great and important as other (male) humans, some man will think he can just tell us how to live our lives and what we can and can't do with our bodies. Which is what you're doing with your bigged-up so-called Christian ethos. For crying out loud, go mind your own business, and leave us women to ours.

Jesus loved women. What's your problem?

Posted by: Catherine at March 8, 2007 6:41 PM


Catherine,
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.....

Were not supposed to use the "w" word in a sentance that refers to Jesus.

Posted by: Kim at March 8, 2007 6:48 PM


Oh Kim, thanks for reminding me. You made me laugh out loud.
Jesus loved men.
Is that better?

Posted by: Catherine at March 8, 2007 6:59 PM


Why don't we ask Jill to see which one she prefers?

Posted by: Kim at March 8, 2007 7:04 PM


"one slap does not domestic violence make"

How disgusting. I'm sure victims of domestic violence would disagree. The police and courts certainly do. How disappointing to hear this kind of talk from a self-proclaimed Christian. Would Jesus condone slapping a woman, or would he say to turn the other cheek? How many slaps does it take to qualify as domestic violence?

I hope you examine your heart and really think about the kind of testimony you are presenting to the world as a Christian woman. "They will know us by our love." Ask yourself, by encouraging this behavior from men, are you showing love?

Posted by: Joy at March 8, 2007 7:07 PM


Dear Jill,

As I had mentioned to you previously, I interned last semester at Planned Parenthood. This semester I am interning at another reproductive health agency funded by the March of Dimes.

I shared my column with my supervisor. She is planning on passing it on to the March of Dimes to release an official statement against you.

She was so bothered by your piece, that even after I left, she emailed me about it... I have copied and pasted the email below. Enjoy:

Hi Amanda, You know, the more I thought about that column you showed me, the more angry I got. The March of Dimes has invested so much effort in to educating mothers-to-be on how to best prepare for motherhood - to have a mentally and physically healthy pregnancy. Even though we do not take an official stance on abortion, many of our values are similar to those of most pro life advocates. To have a woman who claims to be so intent on "protecting" babies from abortion, it is incredibly disturbing to me that she would excuse and justify domestic violence. Domestic abuse is a major cause of maternal and infant injury and death, and is therefore, the polar opposite of "Pro Life". It doesn't matter what the reason is, even if its abortion - domestic violence is a plague on our society, especially our most vulnerable citizens - infants. Politics and opinions on abortion aside, anyone who claims a "real man" would EVER lay a hand on a woman under ANY circumstances is a fool... no nice word for it... just a fool. It frightens me that any person, male or female, may read this woman's article and think that there are sometimes "good reasons" to strike a woman.
Even though I am profoundly disturbed by this column, I thank you for showing it me, and I assure you, it will be passed along to others. This woman's writing undermines the goals of so many people who have worked so hard to protect women, both pro life and pro choice. It may be nice for once to have one thing to agree on: Jill Stanek is a profoundly disturbed woman with a poor sense of humanity and is an embarassment to any cause she represents.

See you thursday,
Andrea

Posted by: Amanda at March 8, 2007 7:44 PM


*my copy of your column, not my column

Posted by: Amanda at March 8, 2007 7:45 PM


Thank you, Amanda. At least we can get people to see her for the deranged animal she is.

Posted by: Alyssa at March 8, 2007 7:56 PM


Ehhh... I love animals Alyssa, most animals I know are smarter than Jill Stanek, in fact even though my cat cannot write, he'd write more inelligently and eloquently than her. I know what you were saying, but we have to find a better analogy!!

Jill and Ann Coulter should have their own distinct category - perhaps a fungus.

Posted by: Amanda at March 8, 2007 9:55 PM


In response to Andrea's letter from the March of Dimes. My mother and grandmother often told me an account of my mother sitting on the landing of a short flight of stairs, begging my father not to hit her anymore. He had already pushed her down the stairs. She was five months pregnant with me when this happened. At this time, in the early 50's, a man's home was his castle, he after all, had his rights. Police were virtually powerless to intervene, domestic violence shelters were unheard of, and women were ashamed since, like Kaye, they obviously "asked for it". "Good" wives were never abused.
Jill, I am as pro-life as you and I agree with many of your articles. Frankly, this made me cringe. I noticed another pro-life poster was equally distressed by this article. Please be careful to not trivialize domestic violence or its dire consequences for its victims, both born and unborn.

Posted by: Mary at March 8, 2007 10:44 PM


Let's just leave it at this:

I believe abortion is murder.

It's amazing that there's even a debate about it.

The term, "Pro-choice" is a marketing crock.

Abortinists and those who have abortions are partners in murder.

Posted by: Phil at March 8, 2007 11:20 PM


Mary - Im so sorry your mother and grandmother had to go through that. My grandmother was a victim too...my grandfather came home from WWII an alcoholic, and would often beat her when he was drinking. I found out a few years ago, after she passed away, that she had 1, possibly two miscarriages, as a result of his abuse.

That is why I believe, as Andrea said, that in this case, no matter what side of the abortion debate we may be on, we can agree that though our motives may be different, we believe in protecting women - and any sort of domestic violence goes against that. So Ms. Stanek is not representing her own stance on abortion at all in this particular piece.

Phil-

No. Lets not leave it at that. Even if I was Pro Life, abortion being murder does not cancel out the fact that Ms Stanek blatently justified domestic violence. You can "leave it at that" if you want to, but I absolutely will not. As long as I have a voice and a heartbeat, everything I do in my life will be the OPPOSITE of "leaving it at that". You can count on that - and you wouldn't have a problem with it if I agreed with you, but I don't and I never will. CHOICE is a great word, isnt it?

Posted by: Amanda at March 9, 2007 12:14 AM


Phil, I don't want to waste one more minute discussing anything with you. Your male arrogance is beyond belief. You have an opinion, and you can have it. Just don't try to change the law in order to prevent women from having control over their own bodies. Women the world over suffer for no good reason at the hands of men who, according to 'might is right' have the ability to do so. Some die, some are stoned, some miscarry, some go mad. You perpetuate the myth that this is a good thing. You are not following Jesus in this.
Stanek, you are a disgrace to womanhood for perpetuating the male myth described above.
I'm not going to waste any more time and energy on you either, you're a waste of space.
God stay with us women who know men and their violent attitudes to everyone. God keep you all safe and give you the peace your mothers didn't have.
I'm off, the rest of you women-haters go rot in the hell you create, but leave us out of it.

Posted by: Catherine at March 9, 2007 1:16 AM


Phil - please, stop the attention-seeking. If you don't have anything of value to contribute and just want to judge doctors performing abortions (they're NOT called abortionists, for crying out loud!), pro-choicers and pregnant women who are even thinking about abortion - do it somewhere else.

I was hoping we could discuss this like adults, but obviously you prefer acting like a stubborn 5-year-old.

Oh yeah, and "pro-choice" is NOT a marketing-crock. It summarizes what we stand and fight for: A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Not more and not less.

Posted by: Ingrid at March 9, 2007 4:51 AM


I read this article and thought, "Is this lady kidding?"

Apparently she wasn't.

Posted by: Lando the Great at March 9, 2007 8:21 AM


I am a female and a male friend of mine told of his girlfriends abortion. He said he never knew that she had been pregnant, and when she told him about the abortion she said "I had that little bastard sucked out of me!" He then said he slapped her. I thought it was appropriate as well.I would have slapped her too.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 9, 2007 9:00 AM


Slapping someone is never acceptable.
It's not acceptable to beat a child.
It's not acceptable to beat a woman or a man.
Violence is never an appropriate response, no matter what you've just been told.

Posted by: Ingrid at March 9, 2007 10:02 AM


...you reference "devotion to family" in your recent "Soprano" article...anyone "fiercely devoted" to being pro-life would understandingly be devoted to creating AND marinating society�s quality of life. Imagine bringing an unwanted youngster onto the planet where she/he will lack every essential support: healthy environment/healthy nutrition; health care and in light of a twisted "romantic� notion you site of a man caring so much he would opt for violence over a non-violent relationship within and outside the family. Me thinks a "real man" as provider is the individual who creates and supports environmental structures where every breath a baby inhales and every word and action the baby absorbs, will not be toxic...beginning at home where the family man values aborted violence over maintaining a community where a woman has no choice but to absorb hostility.

Posted by: dc at March 9, 2007 10:04 AM


So baby killers are acceptable? No Ingrid-WRONG ANSWER!

Posted by: Anonymous at March 9, 2007 10:17 AM


WRONG ANSWER? Excuse me?!
Hitting a woman is not acceptable. And as I said, pro-choice movement does NOT support killing - we support women's freedom to make decisions concerning their very own body. And NOBODY except a woman herself has a right over said body.

If you don't like my views - ignore them. You're not forced to read this.

Posted by: Ingrid at March 9, 2007 10:23 AM


Amanda,

Thank you for your kind words. While we are obviously on polar ends of the abortion issue, we can definitely agree on the issue of domestic violence. For obvious reasons, this is an issue that strikes a cord with me. We would seem to be of different generations, and as such you may have grown up with public awareness and concern about domestic violence. I can well remember the days when the police informed my mother that this was my father's home and as such they could do little. I believe his words were "Well lady, its his house". In my lifetime I have seen tremendous strides in protecting women and children, and I have still seen women, and yes men too, remain trapped in a cycle of violence. There's also the problem of the underlying psychology that motivates men and women to seek abusive partners. The thing to keep in mind is that the domestic violence I describe in our home began when my father gave my mother "just" one slap on the face.

Posted by: Mary at March 9, 2007 10:34 AM


gosh ... some posters are vindictive ... {domestic violence does not only happen to women or to females, but to boys as well .... my great-grandfather, my grandfather, my Dad, and me (my sibs) as well, are prime examples),

so victim-hood is consigned to the less powerful of either gender.

such a perception leaves 'a victim' with not tagging abuse but solving abuse. Catherine wrote that 'MEN' were the ones who were the people who mostly made up criminal population in prison ... all very true. However, her analysis does not take into account that all criminals are adults (and non-senior adults, usually) ... and the beginning of criminal behavior is puberty.

All humans, whether male or female seem hardwired to protect. This tendency often gets skewed into several different forms ... MACHO is one of these ... PRIME-PROTECTOR ... yet another is paternalism/maternal-ism.

[Please ::: fill in ::: I am protector ... therefore I will kill ... my foe, my fetus, my intruders - army ... to protect our homeland/way of life; Alyssa & many others ... to protect my body integrity - really 'my control'... ; Michael C & Phil + his wife & Jill too ... to protect family (my ideas) At most times, these are mixed so one gets armies ... bosses ... gallantry, on and on.

THE critical phase that brings all this into the human experience is the onset of puberty. Sorry but PMS is just a small part of this! And Alyssa's knowledge that she was not breast-fed is very telling.

Our species has 4 PHASES of very high zinc demand ... used for generation. PHASE 1 (in initial part of pregnancy ... likely with optic formation at week-5; PHASE 2 is the the months before birth, a finishing touch to the organ systems that will operate differently outside the womb ... for example, just 2 days prior to birth the pancreas starts producing insulin in anticipation of the high-sugar content of human-colostrum. PHASE 3 is the period immediately following birth and finishes the job started in PHASE 2. There are many consequences to this view ... Alyssa is quite right, it seems that both the mother and her fetus/developing-baby need nutrients from a shared pool (zinc). ... consequence #2 is that this PHASE is the famous postpartum depression. ... consequence #3 is about why this would cause 'emotional-stability' problems.

A large portion of zinc is in our brain's cerebellum. This part of the brain is our 'coordinator' so we have tears when sad or 'jump for joy'. It also is why males in puberty often cannot coordinate growing and their muscles properly (clumsy walk for gangly teen-boys with acne). At the same time, their zinc is aiding in producing a flood of hormones.

The 4th PHASE of very high zinc use is puberty. For many girls this spells PMS problems [like with emotional stability - mood swings]: for males, this has many forms as well.

The reason that this is written is to 'solve' this problem.

Alyssa's argument sounds OK until you understand this she thinks the act of killing solves anything at all: it is the fundamental mistake of armies ... that war solves anything; for pro-choicers that killing babies solves anything... that killing intruders in my home/my body/my family/my whatever solves zip because it does not end.

I read the stories about young women not regretting abortion and many of their Mom's saying that that had one also. Does it not stop? Violence against women is not acceptable, but violence against a perceived enemy is OK. HELLO!

And Amanda talks only about the consequences of abuse + a bit about its facilitator - booze. Interesting that booze interferes with zinc any number of ways ... likely with the metabolism of glutamine. A 'leader' is one to solve a problem, not to only 'listen'. Tis not enough!

Posted by: John McDonell at March 9, 2007 11:33 AM


Amanda, 3/8, 7:44p: I'd be interested in hearing more about the "reproductive health agency funded by the March of Dimes" at which you are interning.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 9, 2007 11:38 AM


I can remember how the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act", aka Lacy and Connor's Law, in memory of Lacy and Connor Peterson, was opposed by pro-choice forces. They feared granting any humanity to unborn children. This law would hold abusers of pregnant women accountable for the murder of unborn children resulting from abuse. Since we are on the issue of domestic violence I would hope all pro-choice posters would fully support this law and all similar ones as well.
Husbands and boyfriends have been know to hire thugs to literally beat a baby to death in its mother's womb, or to do it themselves. Shootings of pregnant women for the same purpose have also occured. There was obviously no concern about the assault and battery charges. A murder charge might be another matter. If it makes an abuser think twice, if it offers a woman any kind of protection and justice, if it helps preserve the woman's right to choose, then I would think feminists and/or pro-choicers would be the first to suppport this.
One ardent feminist told me she felt the abuser should only be charged with assault and battery of the pregnant woman. I told her that would amount to little more than a wrist slapping, and an abuser free to victimize again. She wouldn't bend. Better that an abuser go free than that unborn children be granted any humanity. I also asked about the right to choose of the pregnant woman who wanted to go to term and have her child. Again, she wouldn't bend. Far better a woman endure a good pummeling and her attacker get a light sentence than that horror of horrors, an unborn baby is considered human.
At the signing of this bill, President Bush was surrounded by Lacy's parents, as well as the parents and family's of murdered pregnant women, and the mothers who had lost their unborn children to abuse. These mothers also testified before Congress in support of this legislation, their accounts of their assaults were horrific, the loss of their unborn children devastating, and their determination to spare other women this anguish very apparent.

Posted by: Mary at March 9, 2007 12:19 PM


Mary, I haven't looked into Lacy's law enough to comment intelligently on it, but I will say this: The criminal sentence for domestic abuse should be increased considerably. No one, man or woman, should receive a slap on the wrist for assaulting a woman to the point that she loses her baby. It's a disgrace.

Posted by: Joy at March 9, 2007 5:54 PM


Of course, even the Bible did not offer harsh punishments for men that struck a woman and casued her to miscarry. It's a long history we're battling.

Posted by: Joy at March 9, 2007 5:59 PM


Joy,

Amen to that!

Posted by: Mary at March 9, 2007 7:19 PM


Jill - The agency I intern for works with minors who are often in extremely "at-risk" situations. Knowing how you use sarcastic, below-the-belt, adolescent style insults and petty gossip and propaganda to create your columns, I would never tell you the name of the agency, because next thing I know, you'd be comparing it to some assanine movie quote or pop-culture reference, degrading not only the sensitive nature of the situations these girls are in, but also degrading yourself by stooping to such low level tactics to get your opinion across. I'll spare us both - and keep you from having the opportunity to make even more pro-lifers think you're ignorant.

I will tell you though, that its a grant funded perinatal care program based in a major New York City hospital dealing specifically with sexually active teenage girls. I teach sex ed, and facilitate a pregnant teen workshop. I'm also developing a comprehensive curriculum for healthy relationships - and I was actually researching for that curriculum when I came across a forum dedicated to stopping domestic violence with a link to this column in their Hall of Shame.

Posted by: Amanda at March 9, 2007 8:10 PM


Amanda, thanks for sharing at least that information.

One complaint pro-lifers have with the March of Dimes is that while it is supposed to guard against premature births, it refuses to acknowledge that abortions can cause premature births.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 10, 2007 8:37 AM


Ms. Stanek, I'm still waiting for an answer. Where does, in your opinion, domestic violence begin?

Phil, same goes for you. Why don't you believe God gave women a right over their bodies?

Posted by: Ingrid at March 10, 2007 9:01 AM


Wow, is this what people actually think, that it is justifiable to hit a woman who has her own opinion and stands by it?

And do people think that they have a right to force a woman put her life, her career on hold, risk her health and life so she can give birth to a baby that she doesn't want?

U.S. society has a long way to go in respecting and protecting human rights within this country.

Posted by: Elvira at March 10, 2007 1:10 PM


Okay, I haven't posted anything in a long time, but I saw this and I have to ask something with the hope of a response: How can you say that it's alright for a man to hit a woman because of abortion? I know I'm repeating what many have said, but really! What happened to feminism and equal rights for women? Do you support reversing our social customs and allowing men to beat their wives again? I don't think men deserve that type of respect or privilege, especially men in the twenty-first century.

And on another level, what would stop a woman from hitting her husband back? I don't know many who would stand for that type of treatment today.

Posted by: Leah at March 10, 2007 2:57 PM


"And Alyssa's knowledge that she was not breast-fed is very telling.

Our species has 4 PHASES of very high zinc demand ... used for generation. PHASE 1 (in initial part of pregnancy ... likely with optic formation at week-5; PHASE 2 is the the months before birth, a finishing touch to the organ systems that will operate differently outside the womb ... for example, just 2 days prior to birth the pancreas starts producing insulin in anticipation of the high-sugar content of human-colostrum. PHASE 3 is the period immediately following birth and finishes the job started in PHASE 2. There are many consequences to this view ... Alyssa is quite right, it seems that both the mother and her fetus/developing-baby need nutrients from a shared pool (zinc). ... consequence #2 is that this PHASE is the famous postpartum depression. ... consequence #3 is about why this would cause 'emotional-stability' problems. "


Would you mind telling me what my knowledge of "not being breastfed" is very telling of? My perceived immorality according to you? My apparent zinc-deficiency? My dear, what do you think baby formula contains? If it wasn't meant to mimic the output of a lactating woman, then what's the point of feeding it to a baby?

There are vitamins for that, you know. Problem solved.

Posted by: Alyssa at March 11, 2007 12:28 PM


Jill is correct Amanda. Abortion can weaken a woman's cervix. If you are in health care,you should know this.I watched a disturbing video titled;The Choice Blues.It showed a first trimester abortion.I saw little hands and feet and leg bones being scraped out.From the video,I can see where the damage could be done to the cervix.

Posted by: momof3 at March 20, 2007 2:28 PM


Jill,

I don't know how you put up with these idiots.

Bodily autonomy, right to choose?

Sounds like someone trying to buy a Ford or Chevy.

I know, I know, patience.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at March 21, 2007 5:12 AM


I'm trying to stay polite... I'm really trying to.
But damnit, stop insulting us! We're NOT idiots.

We're trying to defend our point of view and have a civil discussion but all you can come up with is quoting the bible and calling us "idiots".

Posted by: Ingrid at March 21, 2007 9:48 AM


"The point is, even the evil mafia hates abortion."

no, one guy was enraged that his wife aborted his baby.

how can you be a woman and condone this kind of abuse? abuse is a hateful act, no matter what someone did to "deserve it." so it's totally unaccecptable to hit anyone you love. or anyone for that matter. i'd imagine god would be pretty upset with that, no matter what because two wrongs don't make a right. "turn the other cheek."

Posted by: erin o'connor at March 26, 2007 7:16 PM