This Saturday, April 28, the March of Dimes will launch its 2007 WalkAmerica fundraisers around the country.

MOD's stated mission is "to improve the health of babies by preventing birth defects and infant mortality."

To be honest, MOD should add the tag, "... in politically correct ways."

MOD has been at odds with the pro-life community since the 1970s for its inexplicable love affair with the pro-death movement in many areas.

One is that MOD turns a blind eye toward the link between induced abortion and premature delivery.

See page 2 of this post for a list of 60 studies confirming the link between abortion and subsequent premature deliveries.

Then view MOD's list of risks and note one strangely missing.

MOD trips over its own feigned ignorance. Its site reads:

Prematurity has been escalating steadily and alarmingly over the past two decades. One out of eight babies is born prematurely in the United States....

Despite decades of research, scientists have not yet developed effective ways to help prevent premature delivery. In fact, the rate of premature birth increased almost 31 percent between 1981 and 2003 (9.4 to 12.3 percent).

MOD admits "women who have had a previous premature birth" are at risk for subsequent premature deliveries. Objectively speaking wouldn't induced abortion, which forcibly stretches a mother's cervix, fall into that category?

For this and other reasons, such as that MOD financially supports fetal tissue experimentation, pro-lifers should not contribute to MOD.

[Photo courtesy of MOD]

60 Significant studies of abortion/prematurity risk

Compiled by Brent Rooney

September 2005

Sixty studies showed a statistically significant increase in preterm birth or low birth weight after surgical induced abortion.

A. The 60 studies are at least 95% confident of increased risk of preterm birth or 'surrogates' for PTB (such as low birth weight or 2nd trimester spontaneous abortion) from previous surgical induced abortions (SIAs); this list, in all probability, is NOT a complete list of all such studies; studies preceded by "+" found that the more the number of prior abortions, the higher the preterm birth risk (studies 8,9,11,25,29,32,34,35,39,40,42,44,48,49,50,51,52,55,58,59)

B. All three studies that examined whether prior SIAs boosted the risk of subsequent XPBs (extremely preterm births) found they did:

1. Lumley J (Australia, 1993, study number 44)
2. Lumley J (Australia, 1998, study number 49)
3. Moreau C et al. (France, 2005, study number 59)
[The 2005 'Moreau' study is the first European confirmation
of the Australian XPB results of Judith Lumley]

C. These 60 studies involve 23 countries

...................................................................

List of 60 Significant APB Studies

1960s

1 Barsy G, Sarkany J. Impact of induced abortion on the birth
rate and infant mortality. Demografia 1963;6:427-467

2 Miltenyi K. On the effects of induced abortion. Demografia
1964;7:73-87

3 Furusawa Y, Koya Y. The Influence of artificial abortion
on delivery. In: Koya Y, ed. Harmful effects of induced
abortion. Tokyo: Family Planning Federation of Japan,
1966:74-83

1970s

4 Drac P, Nekvasilova Z. Premature termination of pregnancy
after previous interruption of pregnancy. Cesk Gynekol
1970;35:332-333

5 Pantelakis SN, Papadimitriou GC, Doxiadis SA.
Influence of induced and spontaneous abortions
on the outcome of subsequent pregnancies. Amer
J Obstet Gynecol. 1973;116:799-805

6 Van Der Slikke JW, Treffers PE. Influence of
induced abortion on gestational duration in
subsequent pregnancies. BMJ 1978;1:270-272
[>95% confident of preterm risk for gestation
less than 32 weeks]

7 Richardson JA, Dixon G. Effect of legal termin-
ation on subsequent pregnancy. British Med J
1976;1:1303-1304

+8 Papaevangelou G, Vrettos AS, Papadatos D, Alexiou
C. The Effect of Spontaneous and Induced Abortion
on Prematurity and Birthweight. The J Obstetrics
and Gynaecology of the British Commonwealth. May
1973;80:418-422

+9 Bognar Z, Czeizel A. Mortality and Morbidity
Associated with Legal Abortions in Hungary, 1960-
1973. AJPH 1976;66:568-575

10 Grindel B, Lubinski H, Voigt M. Induced abortion
in primigravidae and subsequent pregnancy, with
particular attention of underweight. Zentralbl
Gynaekol 1979;101:1009-1114

+11 Obel E, et al. Pregnancy Complications Following
Legally Induced Abortion With Special Reference to
Abortion Technique. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
1979;58:147-152

12 World Health Organization Task Force on the Sequelae
of Abortion. Gestation, birthweight and spontaneous
abortion. Lancet 1979;1:142-145.

13 Ratter G et al. Effect of Abortion on Maturity of
Subsequent Pregnancy. Med J Australia June 1979:
479-480

14 Roht LH, Aoyama H, Leinen GE, et al. The association
of multiple induced abortions with subsequent
prematurity and spontaneous abortion. Acta Obstet
Gynaecol Jpn 1976;23:140-145

15 Harlap S, Davies AM. Late sequelae of induced abortion:
Complications and Outcome of Pregnancy and Labor. Amer
J Epidemiology 1975;102:219-224

16 Mocsary P, Csapo AI. Effect of menstrual induction on
prematurity rate. Lancet 1978;1:1159-1160

17 Koller O, Eikhom SN. Late Sequelae of Induced
Abortion in Primigravidae. Acta Obstet Gynecol
Scand 1977;56:311-317

18 Lean TH, Hogue CJR, Wood J. Low birth weight after induced
abortion in Singapore, Presented at the 105th Annual Meeting
of the Americal Public Health Association, Washington DC,
Oct. 31, 1977

19 World Health Organization. Special Programme of Research,
Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction:
Seventh Annual Report, Geneva, Nov. 1978.

20 Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Perinatalishalazons.
Budapest: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, 1972

21 Czeizel A, Bognar Z, Tusnady G, et al. Changes in mean birth
weight and proportion of low-weight births in Hungary. Br J
Prev Soc Med 1970;24:146-153

22 Dziewulska W. Abortion in the past versus the fate of the
subsequent pregnancy. State of the newborn. Ginekol Pol
1973;44:1143-1148 [Poland]

1980s

23 Zwahr C, Voigt M, Kunz L, et al. Relationships
between interruption abortion, and premature birth
and low birth weight. Zentrabl Gynaekol 1980;102:
738-747

24 Kreibich H, Ludwig A. Early and late complications
of abortion in juvenile primigravidae (including
recommended measures). Z Aerztl Fortbild (Jena)
1980;74:311-316

+25 Levin A, Schoenbaum S, Monson R, Stubblefield P,
Ryan K. Association of Abortion With Subsequent
Pregnancy Loss. JAMA 1980;243(24):2495-2499

26 Legrillo V. Quickenton P, Therriault GD, et al.
Effect of induced abortion on subsequent reproductive
function. Final report to NICHD. Albany, NY: New
York State Health Department, 1980.

27 Slater PE, Davies AM, Harlap S. The Effect of Abortion Method
on the Outcome of Subsequent Pregnancy. J Reprod Med 1981;28:
123-128

28 Lerner RC, Varma AO. Prospective study of the outcome of
pregnancy subsequent to previous induced abortion. Final
report, Contract no. (N01-HD-62803). New York: Downstate
Medical Center, SUNY, January 1981.

+29 Berkowitz GS. An Epidemiologic Study of Preterm
Delivery. American J Epidemiology 1981;113:81-92

30 Meirik O, Bergstrom R. Outcome of delivery subsequent to
vacuum aspiration abortion in nulliparous women. Acta
Obstet Gynecol Scand 1982;61:415-429

31 Schoenbaum LS, Monson RR. No association between
coffee consumption and adverse outcomes of pregnancy.
NEJM 1982;306:141-145

+32 Puyenbroek J, Stolte L. The relationship between spontaneous
and induced abortions and the occurrence of second-trimester
abortion in subsequent pregnancies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol
Reprod Biol 1983;14:299-309 [this is the only study in
this complete list that uses second-trimester miscarriage
as a surrogate for PTB]

33 Pickering RM, Forbes J. Risk of preterm delivery
and small-for-gestational age infants following
abortion: a population study. British J Obstetrics
and Gynecology 1985;92:1106-1112

+34 Lumley J. Very low birth-weight (less than 1500g) and previous
induced abortion: Victoria 1982-1983. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynecol
1986;26:268-272

+35 Shiono PH, Lebanoff MA. Ethnic Differences
and Very Preterm Delivery. Am J Public Health
1986;76:1317-1321

36 Lieberman E, Ryan KJ, Monson RR, Schoenbaum SC.
Risk Factors Accounting For Racial Differences
in the rate of premature birth. NEJM 1987;317:
743-748

37 Krasomski G, Gladysiak A, Krajewski J. [English translation of
Polish title: Fate of subsequent pregnancies after induced abortion
in primiparae]. Wiad Lek. 1987 Dec 1;40(23):1593-1995

38 Seidman DS, Ever-Hadani P, Slater PE, Harlap S, et al.
Child-bearing after induced abortion: reassessment of
risk. J Epidemiology Community Health 1988;42:294-298

+39 Mueller-Heubach E, Guzick DS. Evaluation of
risk scoring in a preterm birth prevention
study of indigent patients. Am J Obstetrics
& Gyn 1989;160:829-837

1990s

+40 Vasso L-K, Chryssa T-B, Golding J. Previous
obstetric history and subsequent preterm delivery
in Greece. European J Obstetrics & Gynecology
Reproductive Biology 1990;37:99-109

41 Pickering RM, Deeks JJ. Risks of Delivery during
20th to the 36th Week of Gestation. Intl. J
Epidemiology 1991;20:456-466

+42*Zhang J, Savitz DA. Preterm Birth Subtypes among Blacks and
Whites. Epidemiology 1992;3:428-433

43*Michielutte R, Ernest JM, Moore ML, Meis PJ,
Sharp PC, Wells HB, Buescher PA. A Comparison of
Risk Assessment Models for Term and Preterm Low
Birthweight. Preventive Medicine 1992;21:98-109

+44 Lumley J. The epidemiology of preterm birth.
Bailliere's Clin Obstet Gynecology. 1993;7(3):477-498

45 Guinn D, Goldenberg RL, Hauth JC, Andrews WA et al. Risk factors
for the development of preterm premature rupture of membranes
after arrest of preterm labor. AJOG 1995;173(4):1310-1315

46*Hillier SL, Nugent RP, Eschenbach DA, Krohn MA,
et al. Association Between Bacterial Vaginosis
And Preterm Delivery Of A Low-Birth-Weight
Infant. NEJM 1995;333:1737-1742

47 Khalil AK, El-Amrawy SM, Ibrahim AG, et al. Pattern of growth
and development of premature children at the age of two and
three years in Alexandria, Egypt. Eastern Mediterranean Health
Journal 1995;1(2):186-193

+48 Lang JM, Lieberman E, Cohen A. A Comparison
of Risk Factors for Preterm Labor and Term
Small-for-Gestational-Age Birth. Epidemiology
1996;7:369-376

+49 Lumley J. The association between prior spon-
taneous abortion, prior induced abortion and
preterm birth in first singleton births.
Prenat Neonat Med 1998;3:21-24.

+50 Martius JA, Steck T, Oehler MK, Wulf K-H. Risk
factors associated with preterm (<37+0 weeks) and
early preterm (<32+0 weeks): univariate and multi-
variate analysis of 106 345 singleton births from
1994 statewide perinatal survey of Bavaria.
European J Obstetrics & Gynecology Reproductive
Biology 1998;80:183-189

+51*Ancel P-V, Saurel-Cubizolles M-J, Renzo GCD,
Papiernik E, Breart G. Very and moderate preterm
births: are the risk factors different? British
J Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1999;106:1162-1170

+52 Zhou W, Sorenson HT, Olsen J. Induced Abortion
and Subsequent Pregnancy Duration. Obstetrics &
Gynecology 1999;94:948-953

53 Ancel PY, Saurel-Cubizolles, Di Renzo GC, Papiernik E, Breart G.
Social Differences of very preterm birth in Europe: interaction
with obstetric history. American J Epi 1999;149(10):908-915

2000-2009

54 Foix-L'Helias and Blondel B. Changes in risk factors of
preterm delivery in France between 1981 and 1995. Paediatric
and Perinatal Epidemiology. Oct 2000;14(4):314-323

+55 Henriet L, Kaminski M. Impact of induced abortions on
subsequent pregnancy outcome: the 1995 French national
perinatal survey. British J Obstetrics Gynaecology
2001;108:1036-1042

56 Grimmer I, Buhrer C, Dudenhausen JW. Preconceptional factors
associated with very low birth weight delivery: a case control
study. BMC Public Health 2002;2:10 [Germany]

57 Reime B, Schuecking BA, Wenzlaff P. Perinatal outcomes of
teenage pregnancies according to gravidity and obstetric history.
Annals of Epidemiology 2004;14(8):619-619 [German subjects]
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=GatewayURL&_method=
citationSearch&_uoikey=B6T44-4D8V8F5-2R&_origin=
SDEMFRASCII&_version=1&md5=e73601c4adf512cbb49d79b556183ab7

+58 Ancel PV, Lelong N, Papiernik E, Saurel-Cubizolles MJ, Kaminski M.
History of induced abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth in
European countries: results of EUROPOP survey. Human Repro 2004;
19(3): 734-740.

+59 Moreau C, Kaminski M, Ancel PY, Bouyer J, et al. Previous induced
abortions and the risk of very preterm delivery: results of the
EPIPAGE study. British J Obstetrics Gynaecology 2005;112(4):430-437
[France] [abstract online:
www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/
j.1471-0528.2004.00478.x/abs/ ]

60 Conde-Agudelo A, Belizan JM, Breman R, Brockman SC, Rosas-
Bermudez. Effect of the interpregnancy interval after an
abortion on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America.
Int J Gynaecol & Obstet 2005;89 (Supp. 1):S34-S40

............................................................

* studies that included spontaneous and induced
abortions but did not report PTB/LBW risk separately for each
+ studies that found dose/response (the more SIAs, the higher the risk)

Send feedback to Brent Rooney.

I didn't know that about the March of Dimes!

It's sad that a political (and money making) agenda keeps these people so silent about this very real risk!

How can the MOD really care about preemies if they won't even let women know the truth about the risks from abortion causing subsequent pregnancies to end prematurely! If women don't know all of the reasons this happens, how can they even attempt to prevent it from happening to them?

Thank you for shedding light on this, Jill.

Bethany, there's more. Actually, MOD's older sin is helping create the environment for eugenic abortions.

Jill,

You know that the picture of that preemie has been faked. They don't really look like that. It's obviously a rubber fetus with spaghetti coming out of its nose.

mk

Blah I was SO upset when I found out that MoD supported abortion when the tests (that they spearheaded!) come back with less than desireable results.

Note to March of Dimes: It doesn't "save" any babies if you kill them before birth!

Funny you posted this Jill, I have a post about this very subject on my blog. :)

Wow, Lauren, that's something. I was triggered to think about it by an article by Randy Engel just sent out. What pushed your button?

I just bought Mary Pat new shoes for Easter, and there was a sign on the counter asking if I'd like to donate to MOD. I already knew about their tactics and said "No, thank you"

mk

I was scanning the preemie blogs and realized that they ALL had MoD links. I realized that alot of parents of preemies probably had no idea about the organizations true colors.

"March of Dimes"....how nice.....how pleasant, how devious.

"Pro-choice"....how nice......how pleasant.....how devious.

The obfuscation of words is the tactic of all who promote abortion in any way.

Should we be surprised that murderees are also liars?

(Correction to post)

"March of Dimes"....how nice.....how pleasant....how devious.

"Pro-choice"....how nice......how pleasant.....how devious.

The obfuscation of words is the tactic of all who promote abortion in any way.

Should we be surprised that murdereres are also liars?

Really? the same organization that fought polio??

That was how long ago?

I"m not sure, that's what I thought they originally did..

Thanks for a great post His Man. A friend of mine told me about the March of Crimes. I used to donate.

I had no clue.

I guess this is part of NOW and NAF's campaign to make sure that women know all their options. You know, CPC's don't inform the public there is this thing called abortion and birth control because no one has never heard of those before. It is far better to attack them then to let any kind of medical problems out.

Oops -

That is suppose to be "medical knowledge out. "

First, the MOD link you provide as evidence specifically states "lifestyle" and "medical condition" risks, and the list would be very long if they decided to include historical medical treatments.

Second... while large studies are able to discern a "statistically" significant increased risk in preterm delivery associated with abortions, that risk is not particularly large (0.5% to 2% depending on whose numbers you use), unless the person has had multiple abortions (~10%).

Finally... picking on MOD just contributes to our (pro-choice) perceptions of morally unconscionable behavior from the pro-life camp. Thank you! Sure you don't want to go after the babies themselves??? After all, they're out of the womb now and no longer sanctified.

Chus,
Cameron

Cameron, until your pro-choice perceptions are discarded for pro-life perceptions, it's hardly a discouragement to pro-life critics of MOD that your internal thoughts gravitate toward further disrespect of advocates for the unborn. I mean, if you're already morally confused enough to be indifferent with regard to the willful destruction of human life, why should pro-life folk feel as if they need to pander to your other confused impressions of things?

Dude. Pro-life are driven by the interests of the unborn -- not by whether morally confused people think ill of pro-life.

Get him rasqual.

You made a mistake though, you called him Dude.

Every thoughtful analysis of pro-life moral absolutism is confounded by reality... where as pro-choice accommodates a messy reality without suspending morality.

Who's really confused?

This is why pro-lifers always end up abandoning all moral principles in favor of just one. Constrained by an over simplistic notion of what is right or wrong, they will deny what is more genuinely true and/or employ lies with cavalier abandonment of any and every moral principle; from humility (e.g. His Man) to murder (e.g. bombing clinics).

The more appropriate criticism of my above statement is “no duh!”

Thanks Jill,

I'll be sure not to contribute to the MOD and I will spread the word as well.

Deuteronomt 27;25 Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person.

"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Exodus 21:22-25

"Why did I not die at birth, come forth from my womb and expire? Why did the knees receive me, and why the breasts, that I should suck? For now I would have lain down and been quiet; I would have slept then, I would have been at rest, with kings and with counselors of the earth, who rebuilt ruins for themselves; or with princes who had gold, who were filling their houses with silver,. Or like the miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light. There the wicked cease from raging, and there the weary are at rest. The prisoners are at ease together; they do not hear the voice of the taskmaster. The small and the great are there, and the slave is free from his master."

Job 3:2-4,11-19

Deutoronomy 27;25 CURSED is the MAN who accepts a BRIBE to KILL an INOCENT PERSON!!!!

Heather, it seems you have been out-versed, at least for the moment

Cameron, you obviously don't understand a little something called "context". I'll just leave it at that.

Okay, I have to add one thing. Look at that verse you posted again.

"Or like the miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light"

THANK you, Cameron! I appreciate you showing me a verse I probably wouldn't have realized fully before.

The verse about the "miscarriage" is faulty. The translation is incorrect.

Dan,I still like mine better.

Well, Heather, none of the verses that Cameron cited proved you wrong anyway. I am surprised he tried something so lame...I would have expected him to retort with those Deuteronomy verses about stoning. lol

Wow Beth... fabulous defense. Ooodles of evidence! Logical inferences! Lot's of independent resources!

Oh wait... no... Actually, it looks like you don’t have anything but defensive attitude.

Context:

In Ecclesiastes, King Solomon clearly thinks it's better to end life prematurely if a miserable life is the alternative.

What's your interp Beth??

In Exodus... the wrongful loss of the fetus, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to require another life in retribution...

How would you spin sugar cakes??

When times get tough for Job, he seems certain that he'd have been most certainly blessed if only he'd died in the womb or upon birth.

Care to set us straight Beth, or are you just going to sit like a kid in the back seat saying "nuh ah?"

Regarding the correct translation of misscarriage....

the alternative interpretations is premature birth which, 3000 years ago, is a dead baby.

In Ecclesiastes, King Solomon clearly thinks it's better to end life prematurely if a miserable life is the alternative.

Okay, Cameron. Are you by any chance referring to the story of the two women who brought their babies to Solomon, one of them dead, and one alive, and were fighting over the baby?
Let me know if that's the one you're referring to, and I'll explain what the story was about.

In Exodus... the wrongful loss of the fetus, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to require another life in retribution...

I've already explained this one, but your translation is messed up.
Try the KJV, or even better, the Geneva Bible which has been around since the Pilgrims came.

"Exodus 21
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

1) If a woman gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury--i.e. the baby lives without harm,
then a fine results to compensate for the assault.

2) If a woman gives birth prematurely, and the baby dies, then the assailant is to be given the death penalty. This point is HUGE!!! What God is saying here is that the value and worth of an adult man is equal to the value and worth of an unborn fetus who was young enough, or injured enough, to die. God equates the loss of an unborn baby as the loss of a life, for He says, "you are to take life for life,..." This point cannot be emphasized too strongly. God considers the unborn baby alive, and the loss of that life is considered murder. This murder is punishable with the death penalty. This verse demonstrates three truths:
a) The unborn's life is equivalent in value to an adult's life in God's sight
b) This also outlines God's Law against criminal feticide.
c) The killing of the unborn is murder "

When times get tough for Job, he seems certain that he'd have been most certainly blessed if only he'd died in the womb or upon birth.

Read the rest of the story. Was he right?

The above (about the premature baby) was taken from "the Biblical case against abortion", by the way. I forgot to link it.

OKay I had a brain fart. The first one you were referring to was in Ecclesiastes. I'll write up a response now.

"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5

Where do you see God or Solomon advocating his death? Do you see him saying, it's better for him to be killed?

Solomon is describing how cursed his situation is, if he can't be satisfied with good things. What kind of a life is it? A horrible life, one of obscurity and he has never really understood anything. He'll never amount to anything.

Again, a little more than half of premature babies survive with modern medical technology. And about one in two healthy babies back then died. Premature pretty much means dead, and suggesting otherwise is wishful thinking.

Good, then if the baby died, the punishment was death. If by some miracle the baby survived, he was only charged with a fine.

I've gotta put meatloaf in the oven but will be back tomorrow. Have a good evening everyone! :)

"Good, then if the baby died, the punishment was death. If by some miracle the baby survived, he was only charged with a fine."

LMAO....Whatever you need to keep your bubble from bursting.

Diddum's feel'n a widdle desperate???

death sentence is for the death of the mother, fine is for the premature birth of the child.

Does anyone know, is there a link between a history of full-term labor and delivery (parenthood) and subsequent risk of premature delivery? I mean, as long as we're talking about STRETCHING the cervix....

The EUROPOP study (here's the link--which YOU should have provided, Jill, I can't believe I'm doing your work for you: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/3/734 ) admits that in their study "women who reported previous induced abortions were significantly older and less likely to be married than those who did not report previous induced abortions; they were also less likely to be primiparous,..." In other words they identify two confounding factors in their group: age, and already having children.

death sentence is for the death of the mother, fine is for the premature birth of the child.

And how do you figure this, Dan? Because other translations make it say this? Where does it specify that the woman is the one injured?

Thank you Bethany. I had to run an errand after I posted. Thank you for proving them all wrong again!

SoMg, Is it your opinion that there are absolutly NO risks with abortion? No physical or emotional risks at all? I'd really like you to prove this if your answer is "no."

I respect your opinions and conviction that pro-lifers should not contribute to the March of Dimes, and from reading the crime site I have an understanding of why PETA is against them as well. My only concern is that neither site recommends an alternative charity to donate to.

I'm sure we can agree the mission of the March of Dimes is noble, despite any issues with the way they put it to practice: "Improving the health of babies by preventing birth defects, premature birth, and infant mortality. ... through research, community services, education and advocacy to save babies' lives...to give all babies a fighting chance against the threats to their health: prematurity, birth defects, low birthweight."

If my child was born premature and I wanted to donate to an organization that works toward a similar mission (prematurity/birth defects/infant mortality), where else could I donate?

If there isn't a similar organization, yet you condemn the March of Dimes, then aren't you basically turning a blind eye to prematurity & birth defects?
Which is the lesser of the two evils at that point?

Simple, I read the passage. The way it was worded seemed portrayed that if the child was forced to be born prematurely but the MOTHER survived the injury (because pregnancy obviously wasnt as safe in terms of care then) then the attacker only had to pay a fine deemed appropriate by the woman's husband. Now if the mother died, the attacker was given the death sentence

Dan,

I read your website. What twisted propaganda. Abortion is a self serving evil.

Jasper: It's not twisted propoganda. I could say the same about this page, but I won't.

Guess I kind of did...oops.

GeoffG. -

Any Children's hosptial takes donations to help with research, testing and help with the actual care of the Children.

http://www.rileykids.org/hospital/index.asp

Riley's is a local hospital here.

http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/give/ways/

This is also an excellent children's hospital that does research.

Basically, you can find a children's hospital that would be local to you and donate to them.

Valerie: There is also Gillette's Children's Hospital in Minneapolis. :)

Thanks for the options, but I'm not looking to donate to a local childrens hospital or even a charity for children, I hope you can appreciate how a parent of a preemie would find such an organization "unfocused".

I'm specifically interested in prematurity & birth defects. Any other suggestions?

Cameron- Premature does not "pretty much mean dead" in fact, a full 70% of all premature infants survive. The rate of survival goes up every day of gestation, until 34 weeks where it becomes even with a term fetus.

Nice try.

"Every thoughtful analysis of pro-life moral absolutism"

...with which, doubtless, you are familiar enough to make such a universal claim. Every. Right?

"Who's really confused?"

Obviously not you, since you possess sufficiently universal knowledge to make such claims.

"This is why pro-lifers always end up abandoning all moral principles in favor of just one."

Rank bigotry.

Cameron, I'm not trying to alienate you, but do you ever listen to your language? Just here you're generalizing to an entire class of people, and making sweeping judgments about their entire ethical framework. You speak of pro-choice as embracing complexity, but you can only deal with pro-life by reducing the entire cohort to a single pigeonhole that fits the Procrustean bed of your simple-minded prejudices.

Good grief.

Simple, I read the passage. The way it was worded seemed portrayed that if the child was forced to be born prematurely but the MOTHER survived the injury (because pregnancy obviously wasnt as safe in terms of care then) then the attacker only had to pay a fine deemed appropriate by the woman's husband. Now if the mother died, the attacker was given the death sentence

Ultrasounds weren't so good back then.

mk

There are biological signs to indicate pregnancy, fairly sure theyd be able to tell from that, not to mention the fetus laying on the ground after the attack may be a bit damaging.

Nowhere near propaganda Jasper, read all the articles/blogs, etc.

GeoffG, one pro-life alternatives to MOD is:

The Michael Fund: http://www.michaelfund.org/

Thank you for asking.

SOMG, 7:38p: At least 60 studies show a profound link between induced abortion and subsequent preterm deliveries. The conclusion of the study you linked to?

"Previous induced abortions were significantly associated with preterm delivery and the risk of preterm birth increased with the number of abortions. Odds ratios did not differ significantly between the three groups of countries."

and

"Our results are consistent with other studies reporting a significant increase in the risk of preterm birth with the number of previous induced abortions."

and

"Previous studies have identified a significant relationship between history of induced abortion and spontaneous preterm birth (de Haas et al., 1991; Kristensen et al., 1995; Lang et al., 1996). In our study, a history of prior induced abortion seemed to be strongly associated with spontaneous preterm delivery. Like Henriet and Kaminski (2001), we found a significant association between a history of at least two previous abortions and indicated preterm birth."

Jill, one would think so. It looks so unnatural to open the cervix the way abortionists do. The choice blues video shows an actual first trimester abortion. That cervix is really pinched. EEEWWWW that just looks so painful! I can only imagine what multiple abortions would do to the cervix.

Anyone want to see first trimester abortion looks like? Type in The Choice Blues. I wouldn't recommend this for those with a weak stomach. You will see parts of the baby being scraped out. It is the actual abortion procedure. That was no blood clot.

I've also heard that other corporations/businesses give to the abortion industry. Walmart,Bed Bath and beyond and the Susan Komen Foundation. I have shopped many times at the above stores.

"Cameron- Premature does not "pretty much mean dead" in fact, a full 70% of all premature infants survive. The rate of survival goes up every day of gestation, until 34 weeks where it becomes even with a term fetus."

Hey Lauren... we were talking about 3000 years ago. About 60% survive with current medical technology. 3000 years ago, 1/2 of all HEALTHY babies died.

Try to keep up!

Rasquel

"Cameron, I'm not trying to alienate you, but do you ever listen to your language? Just here you're generalizing to an entire class of people, and making sweeping judgments about their entire ethical framework."

It's not a sweeping judgement/generalization. Prolife, in no uncertain terms, thinks abortion is always wrong (i.e. moral absolutism). Moral absolutism is often confounded at the level of the individual case, or because other morals are abondoned in order to facilitate the chosen one.

Would you care to elaborate on and support your own accusations of my unsavory behavior here, or would you prefer to remain in hypocritical bliss?

It freak'n amazes me how you people eat breath live double standard, to such a degree that you're dumbfounded and besides yourselves when someone would even reasonably agree with you all (e.g. the WIRTL discussion).

Fascinating!

*raises eyebrow like spock.

Jill, my question was whether FULL-TERM DELIVERY is linked to subsequent premature birth.

If the answer is yes, then it's not the abortions, but the pregnancies, that cause increased risk of premature birth.

And the study I linked to admits that their post-abortive subjects were older, and had more kids, than their control group. Two confounding factors.

"And the study I linked to admits that their post-abortive subjects were older, and had more kids, than their control group. Two confounding factors."

I think it's important to keep in mind that abortion, even early, like any other invasive procedure is not without risks. Just like all other invasive procedures, there is the risk of infection, complications, and a possiblity for deminished robustness in what ever system was manipulated... be it teeth or a womb. Abortion is not free of risks, and it's not unreasonable infer that their is a potential for the integrity of the unterus to be compromised. The important thing is not exagerate that risk one way or the other, and allow the patient to understand and acknowledge that there are risks, and to determine for themselves if that risk is OK.

This is why doctors are legaly obliged to facilitate informed consent in advance of any procedure, and abortion is no exception.

Cameron:

"It's not a sweeping judgement/generalization. Prolife, in no uncertain terms, thinks abortion is always wrong..."

But Cameron, you didn't say "prolife." If you are defining "the" prolife view as being morally absolutist (whether that's a fair characterization of the complex range of views held by people who self-identify as prolife is a question you're neglecting), you are certainly free to describe it. It's possible to discuss moral absolutism quite separate from a discussion of whether it's a fair characterization.

But you didn't say that, and that's not what I'm taking issue with. In other words, in defending yourself just here you're shifting the goalpost. You said, verbatim:

"This is why pro-lifers always end up abandoning all moral principles in favor of just one."

You were speaking about people, not an ideology. "Pro-lifers," not "prolife."
And since not all people who self-identify as pro-life are moral absolutists, then by attributing moral absolutism to all such people, you're generalizing and guilty of bigotry.

You may think it's an easy thing to gain rhetorical ground with semantic prestidigitation, but it just exposes your bad faith. As for:

"Every thoughtful analysis of pro-life moral absolutism"

- that just seems arrogant. If you're really familiar with "every thoughtful analysis," frankly, what the hell are you doing on this blog's comments? Shouldn't you be a talking head regularly consulted by the pols?

"It freak'n amazes me how you people..."

Another Shibboleth of bigotry. "you people"

...eat breath live double standard, to such a degree that you're dumbfounded and besides yourselves when someone would even reasonably agree with you all (e.g. the WIRTL discussion)."

"you all"

Cameron, how do you know what I think of the WIRTL discussion? I didn't comment.

Bigotry. Attributing to an entire group what you prefer to believe about them.

Rasquel;

You'e like one big red herring…. But a damn good one. If only you put half as much effort into the discussion here rather than attempting to find fault with me personally.

"ou were speaking about people, not an ideology."

Your comment suggests that it is fairer to accuse an ideology itself of abandoning or embracing morality...wich is kind of silly, don’t you think? Alas, I see what you are saying, you’re just trying too hard to say it, and I would agree.

"You may think it's an easy thing to gain rhetorical ground with semantic restidigitation, but it just exposes your bad faith."

I think it just shows you all are rubbing off on me, and/or testing my patience. Not that two wrongs make a right but you need to turn that analysis on others here, and do so daily less your interest in elucidating bad faith is nothing more than bias (in-group or out-group though??).

"- that just seems arrogant. If you're really familiar with "every thoughtful analysis," frankly, what the hell are you doing on this blog's comments? Shouldn't you be a talking head regularly consulted by the pols?"

I should!

Frankly, what hell are you doing here if you can’t handle comments of such nature??

"Another Shibboleth of bigotry. "you people""

Whatever.

"Cameron, how do you know what I think of the WIRTL discussion? I didn't comment."

Excuse me… please amend "you all, excepting Rasquel."

"Bigotry. Attributing to an entire group what you prefer to believe about them."

Amen!

Once again, your criticisms, while mostly valid, are rendered laughably ineffectual in light of the antics here that you seem totally blind to. As for any personal attacks you may have perceived from me, by virtue of the sweeping generalizations, you deserve it for your complacency and inability to demand the same from others.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/15/19332/5961

The Cluster B personality disorders of the DSM-IV include the antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic personality disorders. While none of these are a perfect description of the typical troll's behavior, they do share features with the troll.

First of all is the antisocial personality disorder, also known as psychopathy or sociopathy. Antisocial behavior includes some of the following elements:

* Failure to conform to social norms
* Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
* Consistent irresponsibility
* Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

Narcissism is the ego unbound. The DSM-IV describes the narcissistic personality disorder as, "A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts...." Some indicative behavior are these:

* Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
* Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
* Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
* Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
* Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
* Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Some elements of the histrionic personality disorder, a disordered personality exhibiting an excessive need for attention, also manifest themselves in trolls:

* Is uncomfortable in situations in which he or she is not the center of attention
* Interaction with others is often characterized by provocative behavior
* Has a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacking in detail

What the Cluster B personality disorders have in common is manipulative behavior, a lack of empathy, and self-centeredness. What separates trolls from typical people with Cluster B personality disorders is a form of social aversion or fear of identification that prevents them from acting out their self-centered behavior in less anonymous places. The result is that these needs are satisfied on the Internet. Here are my criteria for the Internet Troll Personality Disorder:

The Internet Troll Personality Disorder is characterized by attention-seeking and disruptive behavior in anonymous, delocalized places of socializing. It is indicated by the following traits:

1. A tendency to make provocative comments to invoke emotional responses in others
2. A lack of connection to the community being trolled; i.e., will leave if desired response is not invoked ("Do not feed the trolls!")
3. A dissatisfaction with one's life and a cynical attitude towards things in general
4. A tendency to challenge the rules and authorities of a community
5. A preference to exhibit these behaviors only in places where one's true identity is unknown

Disclaimer: It takes a qualified professional to diagnose anyone with a personality disorder.

When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. Alternatively, they may protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed. Perhaps the most difficult challenge for a webmaster is deciding whether to take steps against a troll that a few people find entertaining. Some trolls do have a creative spark and have chosen to squander it on being disruptive. There is a certain perverse pleasure in watching some of them. Ultimately, though, the webmaster has to decide if the troll actually cares about putting on a good show for the regular participants, or is simply playing to an audience of one -- himself.

Still not answering, Jill? Does childbirth increase the risk of subsequent premature delivery, or doesn't it? Surely one of the sixty references you posted contains this information (you wouldn't post references without reading them, now would you? You're not a lazy undergraduate, after all.)

...and speaking of trolls...

Perhaps you need to add challenging and thought-provoking questions to the troll list Beth.

Risk factors in a woman's medical history that can lead to premature labor include:

* Infection in the cervixThe lower part of the uterus, often referred to as the neck of the uterus. or uterus

* A previous premature delivery

* Multiple pregnancy - twins, triplets, etc.

* Poor socio-economic status

* Previous miscarriages or terminations of pregnancies (especially if these were repeated and late)

* Premature rupture of membranes

* Previous surgery on the cervix (line conization)

* Exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic estrogen commonly given to pregnant women between 1938 and 1971. DES is no longer used because of a link to birth defects.

http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/prematurelabor/PRL_causes.htmlH

A cervix that opens (dilates) without contractions (incompetent cervix). In a normal pregnancy, your cervix dilates in response to uterine contractions. But if your cervix is weak, it may open just from the pressure being put on your uterus as your pregnancy advances. The cervix may have been weakened by a previous pregnancy, or during a previous surgery on the cervix, such as a dilatation and curettage (D and C) or a biopsy.

Weak cervix. In a normal pregnancy, the cervix softens late in pregnancy and opens (dilates) in response to uterine contractions. But for some women, the cervix opens earlier — perhaps due to the weight of the baby and amniotic fluid. This problem can be associated with previous surgery involving the cervix, such as a dilation and curettage (D and C) or a cone biopsy. It's somewhat more likely to occur when you're pregnant with twins or other multiples.

Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and
Research.

While not every site lists D & C's as a cause, none of the 30 sites I looked at listed childbirth as a risk for premature birth...

As the mother of six, I can tell you that none of mine came early...faster, and easier, but not earlier...

Did you hear anything Bethany? I didn't hear anything...

mk

Yeah and I'd like to have anyone who thinks full term childbirth is a risk for subsequent pre-term pregnancies talk to Michelle Duggar, mom to 16 healthy children, another on the way. lol

16!? Holy moly!!! I say NO to more than three. I can't imagine being pregnant all the time. More power to her!!

Oh yeah, MK, and all of mine came more easily each time, and even though I had them induced 2 weeks early each time, they ended up being either the same weight or larger.

My first weighed 8 lb 10 oz at birth.
My second weighed 7 lb 15 oz at birth.
My third weighed 9 lb 2 oz at birth!

I anticipate that my next child will be even larger, as I will not be inducing again (after learning the risks associated with it) unless it's absolutely necessary.

lol Alyssa, yeah it's amazing huh? I watched the documentary about them on TLC and it is amazing how organized they are!

MK, you wrote (or quoted): "But if your cervix is weak, it may open just from the pressure being put on your uterus as your pregnancy advances. The cervix may have been weakened by a previous pregnancy, ... " AHA! Previous pregnancy weakens the cervix, which causes a subsequent premature delivery, and there's your mechanism for parenthood as a risk factor. Now, MK, which do you suppose weakens the cervix more, a typical abortion (dilation = 14 mm) or childbirth (dilation > 10 cm)?

I can't prove this, but I'll go out on a limb here and bet it turns out that the risk of subsequent premature delivery is greater for women who have been through full-term pregnancy and childbirth than for women who have had abortions. After all, you can tell whether a woman has had a baby or not by feeling her cervix (the external os of a nulliparous cervix is tighter, smaller, and rounder).

@ Bethany: My mom had my younger brother and I more or less on schedule and had to have my littlest brother induced because he was HUGE.

Me: 7lbs 11oz
Brady(18 months younger than me): 7lbs 9oz
Matthew (7 years younger than me): 10lbs 4oz

If my mom hadn't had such crappy gall bladder problems during her pregnancy with my brother and I, I imagine that we would have been big babies as well. :)

She also went through all three births without pain medications (yes...even the 10 pounder). I personally think she's nuts, but she's my mutti, so I must get it from somewhere. :)

SOMG, when childbirth happens naturally as opposed to being forced way too early, the cervix goes back to it's normal size within just a few days. Because that's how your body is designed to work.

What causes an incompetent or weakened cervix?

A weakened cervix can be caused by one or more of the following conditions:

* Previous surgery on the cervix
* Damage during a difficult birth
* Malformed cervix or uterus from a birth defect
* Previous trauma to the cervix, such as a D&C (dilation and curettage) from a termination or a miscarriage
* DES (Diethylstilbestrol) exposure

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/incompetentcervix.html

Causes for an Incompetent Cervix
Women who have one or more of the factors below are at an increased risk of having an incompetent cervix:

* Previous cervical surgery
* DES exposure
* Trauma or damage to the cervix (maybe caused by a previous difficult birth or a D&C)
* Abnormally shaped uterus or cervix (congenital defect)

http://www.sharedjourney.com/define/incomp.html

Causes:
Incompetent cervix accounts for 20-25% of all second trimester losses. Many women do not even know they have an incompetent cervix until after they have experienced 2 or more losses in the second trimester.

The causes of an incompetent cervix can range from trauma to the cervix including extensive cervical conization (cervical biopsy), uterine abnormalities and anomalies, exposure to the drug DES (diethylstilbestrol) and undergoing a forced D & C with a late pregnancy termination. Even previous childbirth can weaken the cervix. For some women, there is no definitive cause for an incompetent cervix. There are also claims that an incompetent cervix is over-diagnosed because often the indications for treatment are not always clear.

http://www.pregnancy.org/article.php?sid=89

A. While the exact cause of cervical incompetence is unclear, it is known to be associated with certain risk factors including:

* cervical trauma from previous child birth during which the cerix was torn
* Cone biopsy
* repeated or late-term abortion

Women who have an abnormally formed cervix, often caused by prenatal DES exposure, are also at risk for incompetent cervix during pregnancy.

http://womenshealth.about.com/od/cevicalconditions/f/causeincomptent.htm

@ Bethany: My mom had my younger brother and I more or less on schedule and had to have my littlest brother induced because he was HUGE.
Me: 7lbs 11oz
Brady(18 months younger than me): 7lbs 9oz
Matthew (7 years younger than me): 10lbs 4oz
If my mom hadn't had such crappy gall bladder problems during her pregnancy with my brother and I, I imagine that we would have been big babies as well. :
She also went through all three births without pain medications (yes...even the 10 pounder). I personally think she's nuts, but she's my mutti, so I must get it from somewhere. :)

That's the exact reason I induced all of mine! lol
The doctor told me they would be too large to fit through and I might have to have a c-section if I didn't induce. I probably would have a 10 pound baby or maybe even 11 pounds if I carry to full term. :)
Wow, no pain medication.... I wonder if I'll ever get the courage to do that!

YES, by the way, I do realize it says childbirth can cause it, however, the reason is also listed in the next one:

* cervical trauma from previous child birth during which the cerix was torn

wow, 16 kids, they'd have to live in an old frat house or something...lol. And drive a bus. Are they the ones with their own tv show? Or am I thinking of another family because I thought this one only had 13 kids.

They had 14 kids when they first had a documentary on TLC, but then they had another documentary when they were having their 16th. :)
Here's their website:
www.duggarfamily.com

Actually, the Jeub family does own a bus. I think it's cool!
http://jeubfamily.com/bus/

http://www.jeubfamily.com

It might have been the Jeub family that I was thinking of. I've always kind of wondered what made some people want to have so many kids. I mean besides being able to play 5 on 5 basketball in the backyard with subs to spare.......lol

lol I know what you mean!

I don't think they actually set out to have that many children. Most of the people who have large families like that, have made a choice to stop using birth control for some reason or the other. In these two cases, it's because they decided to allow God to control their wombs. My husband and I made that decision about 7 months ago (to stop using any kind of birth control), and it's funny to think about, but we might actually end up being like one of those people!

But not all people who stop using birth control have that many kids. The average is 5, I think. :)

If you and your husband had that many kids you could end up with your very own tv show.......lol :-)

Personally, I love Little People, Big World. They only have four kids, but the fact that they are vertically challenged I guess makes it more interesting.

I recorded that show and never ended up watching it before my husband cleared out all the old recorded shows. It looked like it was going to be great. :)

(And that would be cool to have our own TV show! :D)

Yeah, its really cute. They are an awesome family, they own a farm in Oregon and sell pumpkins in the fall and build all these play areas. The dad has all these big ideas for stuff but because of the kind of dwarfism that he has he isn't really capable of doing any labor so he comes up with all these hard, elaborate things and dictates to others and usually ends up getting on their nerves ;-)

haha sounds funny. :D

Two of their boys are twins, one is a little person and one is an average height person, its very interesting how they are twins but so different.

Cameron:

"Once again, your criticisms, while mostly valid, are rendered laughably ineffectual in light of the antics here that you seem totally blind to."

Am I obliged to attend to everything that captures YOUR attention on this blog or in these comments? No, of course not.

"As for any personal attacks you may have perceived from me by virtue of the sweeping generalizations..."

You don't understand. Citing your bigoted generalizations isn't an excercise in whining about personal offense. It's just pointing out where your rhetoric falls short of good faith argument.

Perhaps you imagine that argument is about "scoring points" or "winning." It's not. It's about speaking truly. And it's not speaking truly to generalize simple-mindedly about an entire population of people who self-identify as prolife.

It's certainly legitimate to point out that moral values frequently conflict. They do! What bothers many pro-life folk, however, is how rarely pro-choice people accept any moral value at all for the unborn. Why should there be any moral value attached to something that's neither "human" nor "life," by the moral absolutist reckoning of many pro-choice people?

My wife is pro-life, and also values mothers in difficult situations enough to help them out even when they're crazy enough to think their crackhead boyfriends care about them. That's understanding the moral value of mothers and their unborn and born children. And that, Cameron, is quite a different moral attitude than you're attributing to pro-life people.

"you deserve it for your complacency and inability to demand the same from others."

Then you owe me a better effort, because you haven't given me my deserts. I'm not personally offended by you.

As for "inability," again you're trafficking in unwarranted assumptions or conclusions. There are other options. Unwillingness, for example. Or complete ignorance of things people that irk you have said, even more likely.

Just a thought.

Rasquel;

"Am I obliged to attend to everything that captures YOUR attention on this blog or in these comments? No, of course not."

Again, nice strawman!

My point: You’re attempts to play the rhetorical ref are actually self-righteous in light of the fact you haven’t criticized the unsavory behavior of ANYONE ELSE here. I would be far more respectful of you, and understandably so, if you once, just once, maybe had told your name-calling back-slapping friends they were out of line. Alas, you have no genuine interest in fairness... only demonizing the opposition. Again, your just the classic ad hominem attempt to discredit what I would say by finding fault with me personally. You are, in no uncertain terms, just a sanctimonious windbag until you demonstrate otherwise... you know, like when Jill lies or comments on someone’s penis size, or casts all pro-choicers as irresponsible sex crazed deviants.

"You don't understand. Citing your bigoted generalizations isn't an excercise in whining about personal offense. It's just pointing out where your rhetoric falls short of good faith argument."

I understand it’s not a legitimate argument. I think it’s sad that you’d resort to calling me a "bigot," and it demonstrates both your hypocritical lack of good faith argument, you ignorance regarding the meaning of the word, and your sole intent to find fault with me personally in the absence of a meritous defense of prolife based on the accusations I made, that latter I’ve elaborated on already. In other words, what I said was a negative social stereo type, and I already agreed as much, but synecdoche is not "prejudice" simply because it is synecdoche... prejudice is an unjustified distinction which serves an ulterior purpose. For example, assuming all black people steal so you are justified treating them unfairly and cruelly is bigoted. What I did, was construct an archetype that, for the most part, is true and was not employed to "justify" treating that group of people unfairly, but to illuminate a genuine problem with their notions. In short, your calling me bigot is unfounded hyperbole, mean spirited, and ignorant.

"It's certainly legitimate to point out that moral values frequently conflict. They do! What bothers many pro-life folk, however, is how rarely pro-choice people accept any moral value at all for the unborn. Why should there be any moral value attached to something that's neither "human" nor "life," by the moral absolutist reckoning of many pro-choice people?"

OMG... you almost started defending pro-life in light of my comments... a genuine argument, but then you just made it into the same BS, justifying it all by finding fault with pro-choice. Are you capable of anything but attacking?? Do two wrongs make a right?? Did your mom let you get away with that??

"My wife is pro-life, and also values mothers in difficult situations enough to help them out even when they're crazy enough to think their crackhead boyfriends care about them. That's understanding the moral value of mothers and their unborn and born children. And that, Cameron, is quite a different moral attitude than you're attributing to pro-life people."

Is this you’re idea of lording over me with authority? Crackhead boyfriends... hmm couldn’t be any bigotry there!!!! Nice one Rasquel.

"Then you owe me a better effort, because you haven't given me my deserts. I'm not personally offended by you."

"Owe" ???? You must think we have some sort of point-scoring winning thing going on. LMAO

Rasquel;

I had said:
"Am I obliged to attend to everything that captures YOUR attention on this blog or in these comments? No, of course not."

You say:
"My point: You?re attempts to play the rhetorical ref are actually self-righteous in light of the fact you haven?t criticized the unsavory behavior of ANYONE ELSE here."

Um...

Why are you reinforcing my rhetorical question by demonstrating in your answer precisely what I'm pointing out -- that you imagine I'm obliged to be a "rhetorical ref?"

"I would be far more respectful of you..."

Are you projecting, Cameron? Why do you imagine that my concern is to gain your respect? I'm seeing little respect from you for anyone here. It would seem a fool's errand to seek your respect while remaining pro-life. You can't respect pro-life. You've made that clear. Ergo, your respect cannot be earned by anyone who's genuinely pro-life. And since you are certainly the first person to know that, pretending otherwise by alluding to a possibility for earning your respect, is mere rhetorical gamesmanship.

"Alas, you have no genuine interest in fairness..."

Cameron. You're making slim inferences from two premises. First, that I have addressed critical remarks chiefly to you. Second, that I am obliged, somehow, to address critical remarks to anyone here who happens to offend you.

The fallacy is that I don't share your second premise. You're welcome to it, yourself. But it's water off this duck's back. Savvy?

"Again, your just the classic ad hominem attempt to discredit what I would say by finding fault with me personally."

Really? I thought I was taking issue with the rational content of your remarks, Cameron, not with anything personal about you. Do you take rational argument "personally?" Why?

"like when Jill...casts all pro-choicers as irresponsible sex crazed deviants."

Call for references, Cameron. You'll probably consider it "ad hominem" for me to dignify such an accusation by expecting you to cite just one occasion where Jill has done that. And I do mean quote. Fail to do that and I'll subscribe you a liar.

Parse your grammar, above, carefully to be sure whatever you find supports how you're characterizing it. You've claimed that she's predicating something very specific, and predicating it universally of a class. Since you can make this bold claim, I would think the evidence would be a merest google search away. And as you know, the onus is on you to demonstrate the positive claim. If you can't, you're slandering. Simple. Right?

"I think it?s sad that you?d resort to calling me a 'bigot,'"

Your emotive response to my description of your unwarranted generalizations of a class is not my concern.

"synecdoche is not "prejudice" simply because it is synecdoche..."

Oh good grief, Cameron. Stop slingin' words around that you don't even understand. I mean, nice attempt to weasel out of having foisted blatant, unwarranted generalizations -- but please.

I said:
"It's certainly legitimate to point out that moral values frequently conflict. They do! What bothers many pro-life folk, however, is how rarely pro-choice people accept any moral value at all for the unborn. Why should there be any moral value attached to something that's neither "human" nor "life," by the moral absolutist reckoning of many pro-choice people?"

Cameron replied
"OMG... you almost started defending pro-life in light of my comments... a genuine argument,"

My reply wasn't intended to advance a prolife argument. The above was intended as a description of how pro-life people think about pro-choice. It was offered to help you understand why accusations of moral absolutism are likely to be received with skepticism by pro-life folk, and how charges of hypocrisy can ring hollow.

I said:
"My wife is pro-life, and also values mothers in difficult situations enough to help them out even when they're crazy enough to think their crackhead boyfriends care about them. That's understanding the moral value of mothers and their unborn and born children. And that, Cameron, is quite a different moral attitude than you're attributing to pro-life people."

Cameron replied:
"Is this you?re idea of lording over me with authority? Crackhead boyfriends... hmm couldn?t be any bigotry there!!!! Nice one Rasquel."

Lord it over? Why do you instantly sieze on the pejoratives, Cameron? Where's this hatred coming from? My intention was to cite the most familiar case to me in contrast with your view that:

"Every thoughtful analysis of pro-life moral absolutism is confounded by reality... where as pro-choice accommodates a messy reality without suspending morality."

My wife is a case of a pro-life person who, in exception to your bigoted generalizations, gets right into the mess with women in trouble, who've been abandoned by "men."

What fascinates me, Cameron, is how you behave when confronted with evidence that not all pro-life people fit your characterization. My point in mentioning my wife's work can't possibly be just a refutation of your bigotry; no, it has to be a case of "lording it over" you.

I guess it could be construed as one particular truth dominating a particular lie, if you wish. You simply can't claim that MY wife, at least, is numbered among morally simplistic pro-lifers.

As for describing people who are crackheads as crackheads, how is that a case of bigotry? Her boyfriends actually ARE CRACKHEADS.

Just 20 minutes ago, 20 feet from where I'm typing this, another woman was sobbing about how her teenage son had threatened her. A social service friend gave her good counsel and they went off to do some hard work with the lad.

I work among people who counsel entire families -- many of them single parent -- every day.

I'm surrounded by people -- many, many, many of them pro-life -- who roll up their sleeves and dive into the messy life of women, their children, and all to frequently the deadbeat men who hold disproportionate and often destructive power in their relationships.

My POINT, Cameron, is that for you to imagine that pro-life people are one-track simpletons whose moral absolutes disqualify them from competently and compassionately participating in a vast number of caring activities for women (and men, and children) in trouble -- veritable invalids with respect to any other moral good in society besides zealous worship of the unborn, as I suspect you see it -- is risible beyond belief. You're utterly out of touch and deluded if this is how you think.

You're welcome to distance yourself from that characterization by demonstrating that that is NOT how you think.

You had said:
"As for any personal attacks you may have perceived from me, by virtue of the sweeping generalizations, you deserve it for your complacency and inability to demand the same from others."

I replied:
"Then you owe me a better effort, because you haven't given me my deserts. I'm not personally offended by you."

You then quip:
"'Owe' ???? You must think we have some sort of point-scoring winning thing going on. LMAO"

How can you so quickly forget your own remarks? You defended your offered generalizations as being my deserts. I noted that you didn't really succeed in giving me what you claim I deserve.

So yes, if personal offense is what I deserve by your hand, you still owe me. You're not delivering.

I like you Scott Marquardt. I like you a lot!

MK

Cameron is in the unenviable position of being a minority report around here, from what I gather. I have no idea what motives her, but I have to hand it to anyone willing to endure a dogpile of reaction to her posts.

She's not entirely confusing the personal with the polemical, but I do suspect she sometimes attributes malice to critics of her remarks.

As for whether anyone critiquing her is obliged to critique everyone else as well, I can appreciate how a minority viewpoint would hope for less dogpiling here. And truthfully, I do care very much whether fallacious arguments are advanced for the pro-life cause.

People like Cameron can help pro-life folks burn off the dross of their own prejudices (we all have them, and callous pro-choice advocacy can reinforce them if we're not careful). But it ought to be better, rational critique -- not careless rhetoric apparently calculated merely to provoke a reaction.

Rasquel,

You’re wife sounds like she’s got a nice facade going on. Good for you! Allow me to explain. Since you seem to be in defense of Jill here, it’s not unreasonable to assume that you believe MOD deserves this scorn and contempt, and premature babies be damned. When it comes down to it, I think you and your wife would shoot an abortion doctor in the head given the opportunity, and knowing you could get away with it, such is the bi-polar nature of MOST prolifers, and hence your attempts to cast may achetype as bigotted... it's too close to the truth.

I don’t have time or an interest in reading and deconstructing all your BS: Hyperbole, misrepresentation, and rhetorical gymnastics. So to summarize...

In the beginning, I stated my opinion: that attacking people who are trying to save premature babies for the purposes of advancing a political argument demonstrates a hypocritical lack of morality, characteristic of all profilers. You rightfully found fault with the sweeping generalization, and I agreed it was such, but rather than qualify it, your chose to sanctimoniously conflate as a character flaw on my part which negates the point being made. I have pointed out that you are in no position to do so given your own inherent character flaws, and that it is an illegitimate red-herring...two wrongs don't make a right. I'm also beginning to think you're a lying half-wit for persisting with this asinine effort, rather than acknowledging any argument with genuine merit.

Again, one more time, just for the record: Sweeping generalization: YES. Bigoted: NO. Calling me a bigot = name-calling/hyperbole/ignorance/hypocritical. Buy a dictionary.

Finally, there is always going to be a rhetorical flaw for you to exploit, draw exaggerate inferences from, and allude acknowledgement of genuine truth and meaning.
When I say "you all" or all "prolifers" here, in this thread, my sweeping generalization fits the audience to a T -- everyone here was applauding Jill, and it’s about as ugly and disgusting as I’ve ever seen you all.... if it's bigotted of me to side with saving premature babies, I wear that badge on my sleeve.

I had said:
"So yes, if personal offense is what I deserve by your hand, you still owe me. You're not delivering."

I now say: Nice try. ;-) But you're nowhere near the threshhold of raising an eyebrow, yet.

Your comments just there struck me, though, in the way they discarded your interlocutor's obviously sincere account of things and, instead, offer strikingly buffoonish inferences -- though that's crediting them with way too much rigor.

How can you be taken as a serious, good-faith interlocutor?

nmedsbjip ygrlqo lzpdohfgu ibhcv norvmpukg lhvqdknpy bypmzcv

nmedsbjip ygrlqo lzpdohfgu ibhcv norvmpukg lhvqdknpy bypmzcv

sztpxmul svpfc muea glpahyx kewf ovmqxu ubfjqkhz http://www.xvzgyni.uroqk.com

sztpxmul svpfc muea glpahyx kewf ovmqxu ubfjqkhz http://www.xvzgyni.uroqk.com

Great site. Keep doing.

www.google.com is best search engine ;)

Great site. Keep doing.

www.google.com is best search engine ;)

Nice site!

where are you google?

Nice site!

where are you google?

Hello good design. Very nice. 0n79p7 Enjoy. Goodbay.