I love these t-shirts!

Nice.
But harrasment is generally determined by where you live. For example, Rock for Life tshirts were worn around my high school all the time, but on the day of silence I was openly mocked. In a liberal school I"m sure it's the other way around.

PIP -

huh? I'm confused.

I live in probably the most conservative county in Indiana. Let's put it this way - Dan Burton rarely has a democrat running against him. And if he does, no one knows who that person is because there is no money for advertisment.

When kids wear their pro-life T-shirts to the schools here they get harrassed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-04-23-abortion-cancer-study_N.htm?csp=34

Study discounts abortion-breast cancer link

The new study, appearing in Monday's Archives of Internal Medicine, looked at data from 105,716 women participating in the Nurses' Health Study, which was established in 1976 to study a wide range of health issues affecting women.

The women, ages 29 to 46 at the start of the study, were followed for 10 years. Every two years, they were asked about abortions, miscarriages and new breast cancer diagnoses. The researchers looked at medical records to confirm the diagnoses.

The researchers found no greater rate of breast cancer among the women who reported having abortions, compared to the other women. They saw no greater risk associated with multiple abortions and no greater risk linked with miscarriages.

Im guessing the AMI has a liberal "pro-abort" bias too? Like every other medical expert who's said the abortion=breast cancer thing is a lie?

Read the rest of your article, Amanda:

Joel Brind, a biochemist with City University of New York's Baruch College, was the sole dissenter to the 2003 NCI report on abortion and breast cancer. He said the new study is flawed because it included very recent abortions — too recent for them to contribute to the development of cancer. Including those abortions in the analysis may have diluted the cancer rates, he said.

From "Dakota Voice"

Results of a study were released yesterday that found no link between abortion and breast cancer.

If the risk isn't there, then it isn't there. There remain many reasons why abortion is harmful not only to the unborn child who is killed, but the mother as well (increased risk of miscarriage, infertility, depression, substance abuse, suicide, etc.).

However, there is already a host of research that indicates a link between abortion and breast cancer, and this study is likely politically motivated. Why? There are many in the "scientific" community who will fight to preserve the "right" to abortion regardless of the harm it does to mother and child.

Some information about the study from CNS News:

The survey followed 105,716 women between 29 and 46 years of age from 1993 on, with updates collected every two years until the study was concluded in 2003. In the end, it said, "16,118 participants (15 percent) reported a history of induced abortion, and 21,753 (21 percent) reported a history of spontaneous abortions [miscarriages]."

One of the key problems with the study? With cancer, cause and effect usually don't follow in just a few short years.

One of the problems with the study was its lack of sufficient follow-up time, Malec said. She noted that participants who reported having an abortion in the later part of the decade-long research period wouldn't have had time to get breast cancer.

"If you start smoking cigarettes today, are you going to develop lung cancer next month? Will you get it in six months?" she asked. "It's going to take years before you develop lung cancer, if you're going to get it at all.

How do scientists believe the abortion/breast cancer link develops?

Proponents of a link between abortion and breast cancer risk say that upon conception, the level of estrogen in a woman's body increases dramatically. This results in the development of undifferentiated cells in the breast, which pose an additional cancer risk.

Late in the pregnancy, these cells become milk-producing cells, cease posing a greater cancer risk and in fact provide added protection against cancer.

If a woman has an abortion before that stage - and the vast majority of abortions would occur before then - her body is left with a high number of undifferentiated cells which increase the risk of her contracting breast cancer, they argue.

This isn't considered a factor with miscarriages, since most miscarriages occur due to insufficient estrogen, there isn't enough of the hormone to produce significant amounts of undifferentiated cells in the breast.

One dissenter... out of dozens. Yeahhh....not buying it. The AMI is peer reviewed - meaing, many many people had to agree this was a legitamate study in order for it to be released and published. One person disagreeing with it is hardly a reason not to take it seriously.

It's not about the person in question who was dissenting, Amanda...it's about the argument he posed. Get it?

Jill,

Schools have been having there "Day of Silence" day at school to endorse homosexuality.

I think it's time to have a "Day of Silence" day at our schools to remember all of the unborn children killed through abortion (45,000,000+)and all others affected by the evil of abortion. We can all wear our Pro-Life t-shirts on this day also!

Mike

I like that idea, Mike!

Mike, I agree. Who knows. A Day of Silence may already exist. When I google national pro-life t-shirt day, photos come up of pro-lifers with red tape over their mouths and a descriptor of a pro-life solidarity day. If you could perhaps check into it, let us know?\

As for the ABC link discussion, from LifeNews.com today, "But critics say the results are flawed because the researchers did not allow enough time following the abortion for the potential cancer to develop. Joel Brind, president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, told LifeNews.com that 'This isn't the first time that Harvard Nurses Study researchers have produced the wrong epidemiological results. They were wrong about combined hormone replacement therapy reducing the risk of heart attack and stroke, and they're wrong about abortion,' he said."

I'm fond of the "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries" t-shirts, myself.

Also, from what I can tell, the "Rock for Life" t-shirt seems needlessly antagonistic. The shirt you pictured seems pretty inoffensive, though, and I can't see why a school would censor it, unless the student wearing it was causing a disruption. I think I was lucky: I went to an extraordinarily conservative high school, but wearing anti-Bush t-shirts was extremely common, and the faculty, frankly, didn't care.

I think schools should remain a free speech zone. Pro-life, pro-choice, pro gay, anti-gay, let all students express themselves.

I think students with such shirts might encounter "harassment," but that comes in many forms. Fellow students might challenge you, and that's just part of the experience. As long as the school stays content-neutral and protects you from extreme reactions, the democracy is safe.

Valerie,
Really?! Huh, didn't know that. All I know is that all of my liberal shirts got people trying to pick an argument out of me. People there wear conservative shirts all the time. They have bumper stickers that say man + woman= marriage, but criticise mine when mine says "hate is not a family value."

So maybe I'm wrong. That's just the place I grew up in.

Mike, the day of silence only exists to stop violence against homosexuals, and not to promote a secret agenda. This idea is one that most people should support--sin or not. Homosexuals are victims of hate crimes too, and until recently these crimes haven't been percieved as a "big deal." That's what the day of silence is about.

So I don't have a problem having your own day of silence, but understand the idea behind ours, as well, please.

Hal, exactly. If people want to challenge my tshirts, I should be allowed to challenge theirs. But noone should be prosecuted for them.

You can listen to a couple Audio Archive links at this website which explains the link between Abortion/Breast Cancer...

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=78841

Mike

Wait, are you saying that all cancers are related to abortions or just breast cancer?

Ok, let me clarify my question. Are you saying that only breast cancer is related to abortions? Or is cervical cancer & ovarian cancer realted to it to (in y'alls opinion)?

hello? why is everyone ignoring me?

Millertime,

There are many causes for Breast Cancer. Abortion is just one of the many.

Mike

Mike, that did not answer my question. What about cervical cancer or ovarian cancer? Do abortions cause those as well?

Ok, I give up. No one will answer me, so I am leaving now

Mike, I agree. Who knows. A Day of Silence may already exist. When I google national pro-life t-shirt day, photos come up of pro-lifers with red tape over their mouths and a descriptor of a pro-life solidarity day. If you could perhaps check into it, let us know?

Jill,

Marc Tuttle from Pro-Life Wisconsin sent me the following email...

Stand True Ministries, directed by Brian Kemper, who founded Rock for Life, has an annual Day of Silent Solidarity. If you go to www.standtrue.com, go through the intro. to the website, and then click on “Projects/Action” on the left, you’ll be able to find out more about the National Day of Silent Solidarity.

-------

When you get into the website, click on "Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity".

Mike

I haven't commented in a while. Hello, everyone!
I agree with Hal and PIP on this matter. Students should remain free to wear shirts that send political messages as long as they aren't using them to cause a disruption or using offensive language or images.
On a related note, when I affiliated with the republican party I had a bumper sticker talking about republican women being great leaders. One day I came to my car and the sticker was peeled right off. Kinda scary.
But on the flipside, my boyfriend has several liberal, hippie stickers on his car like a darwin fish, a "use less stuff" sticker, a "who would jesus bomb?" sticker and he gets honked at all the time. One time a truck with an American flag on the back rode next to us, gave us the finger, and threw trash at his car.
Both groups can be really immature about personal political mediums, like stickers and shirts. Especially adults.

Bethany,

"It's not about the person in question who was dissenting, Amanda...it's about the argument he posed. Get it?"

Yeah and you want to know who the dissenting person is? Joel Brind? The person who came up with the theory. A pro-life born again Christian. Of course he's going to refute it. If he didn't, it would make him look like a liar and a fraud.

My school offers a Rock for Choice concert every year hosted by the school's feminist majority group, and all proceeds go to the college's health services to provide birth control and condoms to all students. It's a great system. :D

PIP -

I read your 1st post wrong. Sorry. But I think we both still got our points across. ;-)

The T-shirts and days of 'silence' or 'protest' are a good thing. But it isn't the harrassment of the students that is causing problems. It is the teachers and administration telling them that they cannot wear them or have to turn them inside out that is causing the problem.

Also, someone is going to have to explain to me how saying marriage should be between a man and a woman is hate. It's an opinion, not hate.

opinion - 1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

hate - 1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy : LOATHING
2 : an object of hatred

Big difference. Now if I said homosexuals should not be allowed to get married and all homo's need to be put on a seperate island so we can bomb them - that is hate.

I really dislike the "hate is not a family value" t-shirts, bumperstickers and whatnot. It is unfair to say that. (personally - I go back and forth on this subject. I know too may gay men that have been together longer than my straight friends. My cousin has been with his partner for over 20 years. Yes, my Catholic family still loves and respects him and his partner is with us at all family gatherings.) But I just dislike someone telling me that I hate even when I don't.

Another one that bothers me, while I am on the subject, is 'keep your roseries off my overies'. That is offensive. If you said, keep your religion out of my region, I would have no problem. Roseries are used to pray to Mary, the Mother of Jesus. They are used to pray for peace, happiness, etc... things to better the world. They are also used as a form of meditation to pray for something specific.

okay - getting off my moral high horse now!

Valerie, I prayed a roserie every week for three years, and a smaller roserie every night for three years. I realize that they're for peace and happiness and meditation. Especially the latter, they were quite good for that. But as I've also heard people say that they would pray a roserie for someone so that they wouldn't go to hell, or that they'd pray a roserie for (insert specific political cause here), I really don't think that's all they're used for.

Besides. It's more catchy than saying: "Keep your religion out of my reproductive organs."

For those who are Pro-Abortion on this website -- Have any of you read Dawn Eden's Book at ThrillOfTheChaste.com?

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=1740921

Mike

As I am fundamentally against abstinance and abstinance-only education, nope. : )

Where is MK, I have a score to settle with her from the posts you made yesterday...

Come out and play MK, I am about to prove you wrong!

Hello, MK where are you? I need to debate something with you...

Mike, there's no point in reading those books. Chastity- and abstinence-only education has not worked, is not working, and will not work in the future. Unless you consider deterring people from vaginal intercourse to oral and anal a "success". It's still quite easy to spread STD's that way.

The dissenting biochemist could have reworked the data for himself to support his accusations of "flawed study"... but he didn't because it's not likely that removing the more current abortions would change the results... only their statistical power. He's basically avoiding doing the science so that he can argue from ignorance in order to advance political notions.

I'm fond of the "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries" t-shirts, myself.

My personal favorite is...

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=357

They should definitely make t-shirts with pictures of colonoscopies on them, especially from people with diverticulitis, to give people more interesting things to look at

Haha, I love TShirtHell. I'm very fond of the Cereal Rapist one, myself.

"My school offers a Rock for Choice concert every year hosted by the school's feminist majority group"

Sounds a lot more fun than wearing bloody t-shirts and tape on the mouth

Good bumper sticker:

My Karma ran over your Dogma

Did everyone get to hear Karen Malec explain why there is a link between Abortion & Breast Cancer on the Audio Achives at...

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=78841

(Go to Post#4)

It's a 55 minute talk. So if you don't have the time to listen to all of it, I will let you know the important parts to listen. Here they are...

IMPORTANT SEGMENTS

10:00 (minutes into the program) Biology Explaining the Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer.

45:50 (minutes into the program) Please Explain the Biology on How Contraception Contributes to Breast Cancer?

-----

OTHER SEGMENTS

2:30 (minutes into the program) Studies Showing A Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer.

22:45 (minutes into the program) Information on the Relationship Between Oral Contraceptives & Breast Cancer.

27:30 (minutes into the program) Why Does the Susan G Komen Foundation Never Tell Women About the Link Between Abortion/Contraceptives & Breast Cancer?

36:30 (minutes into the program) Studies about Breast Cancer Risk/Who Should You Believe About Whether or Not There's A Link Between Abortion & Breast Cancer?

Mike

nice t-shirt choice cameron. i would aport that anyday! :P

Mike, 2:33p: Thanks for the info. The date f Day for Silent Solidarity is October 23 this year. Will post on it then.

Jen C., 2:44p: Hi! At the risk of sounding like we're at an AA meeting, we're glad you're here! And I had a pro-life magnet ribbon stolen a few times. Finally gave up.

Cameron, 4:29p: Except I don't see your post. I wonder if I accidentally deleted it. Sorry if I did. Thanks for the correction. Fixed.

seriously where is MK hiding at?

Midnite, I alerted her you were stalking her... :)

ok, well thank you Jill, I do appreciate that : )

Oh and not "stalking" thats a little harsh, just wanting to continue a debate from yesterday. So I am patiently awaiting her return for now.

I think MK has kiddos, if I remember right, so she's probably busy with them. They take a lot of energy, do those little buggers.

Midnite,

All right, all right already. I'm here.

What?

I only have till 6:15 so I hope your can hear me typing!

mk

Midnite,

Whatever it is, I was wrong. Sorry. I apologize.

I'll check my sources next time.

I didn't mean it.

OOps!

Did that cover it? :)

mk

Jill,

I want a raise...

You're not paying me enough to be at this computer 24-7...

mk

ok then, MK.

Do you still want to stick to your story that women who have abortions are like Dahmer?

Now then MK, you want to compare women who’ve had abortions to Jeffery Dahmer? Well since he was a Socio-Path (aka he had Antisocial Personality Disorder), lets take a look at the criteria one MUST MEET to qualify for that disorder.

Antisocial Personality Disorder is a pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others (Definition by the DSM IV).

Now then p. 706 of the DSM IV states:

A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since the age of 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others
(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

B. The individual is at least age 18 years.

C. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder (see p. 98) with onset before age 15 years.

D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a Manic Episode.

Now then MK, that is word for word what the DSM IV says about “socio-paths”. And you are going to sit at your computer desk and tell me that every SINGLE woman who has ever had an abortion has AT LEAST three of those symptoms from criterion A, and criterion B, C & D were present as well? I don’t think so. Now then, show me some research to prove this ridiculous theory you have going on here. Have your personally interviewed EVERY WOMAN who’s had an abortion and found these symptoms? Are you a Psychiatrist, Psychologist, or even a counselor? Did you go to school for this? If you can show me the research I might consider your argument on this, but until then, i will not consider this a valid argument.

Also, do you even know anything about Jeffery Dahmer? I will venture to say that you don’t, or you wouldn’t have compared him to women who’ve had an abortion.

Now then some facts on Dahmer for you:

1. He found teenagers and young men at bus stops, bars and the streets. He lured them to his apartment by promising drinks, pornographic videos and even money to some in exchange for sex.

2. Once inside his apartment, he would slip a potent sedative into their drinks, strangle them and then dismember their bodies with an electric saw. On occasion, he ate some of their flesh.

Now how do women who’ve had abortions do this exactly? They don’t know the sex of the fetus (because it is not determinable) when they have an abortion. Plus he liked GAY MEN & TEENAGERS, not a fetus or babies. And I don’t know about you, but women where I am from would have to look really hard to find a baby in a bar by him/herself.

3. Police looked in Dahmer’s bedroom for a knife. When an officer went inside the room, he found photographs of human remains. The other officer opened the refrigerator and quickly slammed the door shut when he saw a human head inside.

Now then, I don’t think women keep pictures of their aborted fetuses lying around their house nor do they keep the skull in their fridge.

4. Investigators found seven skulls, four heads, body parts and photos of naked and dismembered victims inside the small apartment. Human remains were found preserved in formaldehyde, and heads had been boiled. Dahmer told police how he had poured acid over flesh to dissolve remains. He had kept strips of flesh in his freezer for later consumption.

Hmm, my friend who had an abortion definitely didn’t do this. Not to mention she didn’t eat the flesh of her aborted baby either.

5. In all, Dahmer admitted to killing 17 males

Wow, why didn’t he admit to aborting babies as well? Maybe because he liked killing GAY males & not fetuses or babies.

MK, next time you compare women who’ve had an abortion to someone, please do some research.

Midnite, by "stalking" I was kidding.

MK, lol, your reward will be in heaven, my dear. You've earned many jewels for your crown these past couple months.

Okay,

You got me.

Their probably more like John Wayne Gacy. He didn't eat his prey.

I'm kidding.

I was not saying that women who had abortions were sociopaths. I was saying that their behavior was sociopathic like.

And I'm sticking to that. Women who can allow a "doctor" to rip their children to shreds or salt their skin off, or have them delivered just enough so that they can suck their brains out fit the above criteria in the particular situation where they are procuring an abortion.

Less made it very clear last night that there is a huge difference between calling someone something and saying that they are "like something.

I believe that killing your own child in a way that is no less brutal than what Jeffrey Dahmer did is behaving in a way very much like sociopathy.

Antisocial Personality Disorder is a pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others (Definition by the DSM IV).
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others
(6) consistent irresponsibility,
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental and behavioral disorders, defines antisocial personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

I believe that at least three were met, and if abortion was illegal you could add:(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest

At one time it was illegal, and the women who had them fit 5 of the criteria.

So, as you can see, murdering your child is a sociopathic behavior.

I'm by no means claiming that these women are all sociopaths, but I am claiming that abortion is a sociopathic act.

mk

And just so you know,
I knew all about the criteria before I made the claim. And I'm am familiar enough with Jeffrey Dahmer to stand by my claim.

He was a sociopathic murderer. He felt no remorse for what he did and he infringed on the rights of other human beings.

Which is exactly what the woman who has an abortion does.

"Which is exactly what the woman who has an abortion does."

My mother, while staunchly pro-choice, has said time and time again that she regrets her decision.

Now having said all that, I also need to say, that I understand that many of these women were under extreme duress. They are hurting and afraid and panicked. Jeffrey Dahmer was just a freak.

I actually worry more about the SOMG's and Dianas of the world, because unlike some of you, they admit that the "fetus" is a baby and a person, but that it doesn't matter because their rights supercede the rights of the infant.

This to me is the MOST sociopathic behavior yet talked about. They aren't even trying to rationalize away the fact that it is a full fledged human being. They admit it. They don't try to pretend that it's a blob of cells, or a non-person. They just think they are more important. This is truly, truly, scary to me.

It is egotism to the nth degree. And it is sociopathic. Antisocial. Psychopathic. Call it what you will, it is soulless and unconscionable.

Oh, I must add on. I think a lot of these women definatly have "issues." If they didn't have them before the abortion,they definatly have them after. A woman I know has had 7 abortions. This is by her own free admission. She has 1 living child. She is a very abusive mother,and her parents had to take custody of that child. She also has had several hospitalizations for suicide attempts,and twice for almost drinking herself to death.[litrally]Another woman who admitted to me that she had "lost count" of her abortion total,is a total drug addict.The state took custody of her 3 children. I could tell you about many more,but I think you guys get the picture.

Antisocial Personality Disorder is a pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others (Definition by the DSM IV).
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others
(6) consistent irresponsibility,
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

How the Pro-Life Movement is a Sociopathic Act:
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead. Many pro-lifers are also anti-contraception. If we can't plan for our own children, abortions will happen.
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others. Pro-lifers only care about the safety of a fetus, rarely do they have any regard for the safety of health of a living woman.
(6) consistent irresponsibility. Due to the adamancy of anti-contraception and the consistent disregard for health and emotional issues of pregnant women, this is self-explanatory.
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another. Many pro-lifers are extremely indifferent to the plight of desperate, pregnant women. They steal away women's rights to their own bodies consistently, the lack compassion for women who have had abortions by calling it a sociopathic act, they mistreat their fellow humans by humiliating them by any means possible into giving up their reproductive rights.

See, MK? You can twist anything to sound the way you want.

Hey, What if Gacy had referred to his victims as blobs of flesh??

Well,

Then it would be all right. Of course if he called them fetii, viruses, little sh**s, pains in the a**es, leeches, lunch (oh, that was Dahmer again, sorry), freeloaders mistakes or zits, he would have gotten off scott free!

Go figure. The fool. He should have had a better lawyer!

mk

I read the book on Gacy. He killed young men because he had poor impulse control and no conscience. He discarded his victims because after they were dead,he no longer had any use for them. Also,remember the abortionist who was eating babies?

Heather4life: you mean that he dehumanized and demonized his victims? The way that you dehumanize and demonize desperate women by claiming that women who get abortions have issues, and that there is something wrong with THEM, not with their SITUATION?

If we want to talk about psychology, you should learn a little bit about it. There's something called the fundamental attribution error, or FAE, a scientific psychological construct in which people have a tendancy to blame things on personal and deviant characteristics of a person (so as to place blame upon them) rather than to assess situational fault, which is more likely.

We see the FAE a lot in pro-life arguments, and even more in the homelessness debate.

MK,Hi it's me. momof3.I changed my screen name.

Midnite,

You have 15 minutes, (less actually if you want me to answer), cuz then I'm off to hear Father Loya talk on the "Theology of the Body"...

You know, a crazy, fanatical religious gathering...
where we'll discuss (said in a hushed whisper...S.E.X). Way over most of you guys heads.

All about responsibility, and love, and commitment and heterosexual relationships...

You know all that freaky stuff that "Catholics" do.

OOOOHhhhhhhhh...scary....

mk

I will agree that some women probably are pressured into an abortion.However,the problem comes when they continue to support abortion.

Danielle, Bethany,
"It's not about the person in question who was dissenting, Amanda...it's about the argument he posed. Get it?"
Yeah and you want to know who the dissenting person is? Joel Brind? The person who came up with the theory. A pro-life born again Christian. Of course he's going to refute it. If he didn't, it would make him look like a liar and a fraud.

hmm.... still you can't refute the ARGUMENT,can you?

Continue to support women who were in their own situation once? Yes, how awful. I know that if I ever become rich, I'll just look back on the poor people and tell them they're evil and wrong for being put in a situation they didn't want and couldn't help instead of trying to find a better solution... very Christian.

How do you feel about the woman who puts herself in that situation over and over and over again?

Jess,

You mean as opposed to blaming the situation so that you can avoid responsibility? Placing the blame on circumstances instead of yourself.

Yeah, we hear a lot of that from the pro-choice side. That and abusive husbands. You know, it was the situaaaaaation. It wasn't his fault he beat his wife. She maaaaade him do it. It was the circumstances...

mk

by the way, I think "scientific psychological
is an oxymoron. Now if you had said scientific psychiatric....

Basically all you have done is make an excuse.
Not given a reason. But made an excuse. Something the pro-choice side is well practiced in!

Jess,

and we were talking about poor people, when?

Honestly,I've NEVER told anyone that they were evil,bad,horrid people for having an abortion. Believe it or not, this is what they told me. I just listened.

"I will agree that some women probably are pressured into an abortion.However,the problem comes when they continue to support abortion."

That makes very little sense. Care to elaborate... GESTATOR OF 3... bwa ha ha ha ha ha

5 minutes and counting....

Hi Heather4lifemomof3,

How's our little girl...
when do we get pics?

MK

Interesting side note... the most conservative anti-abortion states have the highest rates of infant moratility... the conservative base has slashed medicaid in child health programs in these states. Apparently, the sanctity of life doesn't count if there's a chance you might be paying for Mexicans to have babies too.

Cameron,shut up.

Being that any psychologist with a PhD has had numerous years more schooling than you have had, MK, I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Espeically since you have no idea what psychology really is, what you're talking about, nor have you had any education in the area. I don't understand quantum phsyics, but that doesn't mean it's not a science.

It's the pro-life wackos like you that are the problem. Most women who have abortions are completely normal women placed into an extremely stressful situation that you would never understand. Some of them have a lot of problems, but this is not due to abortion, nor did it cause the abortion. If you knew anything about science, you'd know that correlation is not equal to causation (something any educated psychologist would know, I'd point out).

I'm not talking about blame of the women, I'm talking about YOUR excuses. Your excuses of blaming other women for a societal problem that you refuse to address. Anti-contraception and pro-life is a contradiction in terms, they don't fit. All you do is sit here and whine about how these women have psychological problems without addressing any sort of solution to it. Why? Because if there's something wrong with the woman, then there's nothing you personally can do about it but blame them for being sociopathic, selfish, and sick, is it?

Now, let's say that a lot of the problem is societally based. That makes it YOUR problem. So who's taking the easy way out?

well, abortion just might be legal in Mexico city soon anyway, at least first trimester, theres a debate goin round bout it now, so it wont matter assuming it passes. Itll just add first trimester to the cases of rape or health reasons to the current law or something.

April: it's an analogy to women who get abortions but then don't support women who were once in their situation. Read between the lines a little.

MK, I promise I will get them out soon.I'm typing with the baby on my lap. I promised Jill I'd get some to her for posts.Been pretty sleep deprived these nights.

The bible belt also has some of the highest rates of STDs and teen pregnancy.

Hmmmm!

Jess,what kind of a stressful situation? I'm curious.

Rape, health issues that arise from pregnancy, inability to afford medical costs (hmmm... Medicare cuts by social conservatives... which I might point out is what PP is trying to cover, it always fascinates me that PP also provides prenatal *health*, but pro-life likes to ignore that), not to mention familial pressure. Were I to become pregnant now, I would not get an abortion. But what about a girl who would be beaten or expelled from her family for becoming pregnant? I know some women who got abortions for the sole reason of being able to remain a member of their own family, because their families were so religious that they only cared about their dogma, but not their children.

What about women who are married, but can't afford to be pregnant or have another child? They work minimum wage, can't take out from work, have no medical insurance to cover the costs of pregnancy, and have other children to feed.

Other women's situation is not YOUR situation. That's the point of pro-choice, the ability to CHOOSE what is right for you, not have someone with a completely different situation decide it for you.

I'm not talking about blame of the women,

but I am.

Most women who have abortions are completely normal women placed into an extremely stressful situation

Hmmm...could have sworn I just said that: "Now having said all that, I also need to say, that I understand that many of these women were under extreme duress. They are hurting and afraid and panicked."

Your excuses of blaming other women for a societal problem that you refuse to address.

Every time we tell you guys to keep your clothes on or deal with the consequences we are dealing with the societal problem.

Can you show me anywhere that psychology is called a science?

"Anti-contraception and pro-life is a contradiction in terms, they don't fit. "

If you knew anything about the pro life movement , you'd know that anti-contaception is equal to pro-life (something any educated right to lifer would know, I'd point out).

That makes it YOUR problem. So who's taking the easy way out?

I don't have time to go into all the ways that I am addressing this issue. Suffice it to say that it's here somewhere in these posts...you want, you can go look it up yerself...me? I gotta date with a padre!

mk

How the Pro-Life Movement is a Sociopathic Act:
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead. Many pro-lifers are also anti-contraception. If we can't plan for our own children, abortions will happen.
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others. Pro-lifers only care about the safety of a fetus, rarely do they have any regard for the safety of health of a living woman.
(6) consistent irresponsibility. Due to the adamancy of anti-contraception and the consistent disregard for health and emotional issues of pregnant women, this is self-explanatory.
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another. Many pro-lifers are extremely indifferent to the plight of desperate, pregnant women. They steal away women's rights to their own bodies consistently, the lack compassion for women who have had abortions by calling it a sociopathic act, they mistreat their fellow humans by humiliating them by any means possible into giving up their reproductive rights.

Since none of this is true, as we have proven over and over, I won't even bother to respond, except to say that you had to stretch and add to the criteria whereas mine stood on its own...

"Also, someone is going to have to explain to me how saying marriage should be between a man and a woman is hate. It's an opinion, not hate."
My opinion- the Catholic church doesn't have to marry gay pepole if they don't want to--it's a sacrament, and it's up to the church. It's up to every private institution to do that. But there's no reason why the government shouldn't. If someone opposes legislation that a gay couple can't recieve the legal benefits of straight couples it is discrimination, in my opinion. And many people who are the strongest opposers of the legislation are very hateful indeed, from my experience. (Not all of them val, but many of them.)

"But I just dislike someone telling me that I hate even when I don't."
We aren't-but many things that are taught and LEGISLATED as "family values" encourages hate. Look at the hate crimes- both against homosexuals and those against other races. The debate has reduced the people in question to almost non-persons, just entities. Like "homosexuality is a sin" being the main argument (adultery isn't illegal?)--so...it send the message that homosexuals ARE sin. Does that make sense? it's hard to explain. We are not saying your morals ARE hatred, but sometimes legislating "family values" on the part of conservatives have encourages hatred (it still sorta depends on which "family values"). You can make rational decisions without calling homosexuality a problem, for example.

"Every time we tell you guys to keep your clothes on or deal with the consequences we are dealing with the societal problem."

Yes, because all women who get abortions are whores who can't control themselves or keep their pants on. None of them are married women, or women in healthy, loving relationships. And "Just Say No" has never worked. Ever.

Pro-life is a contradiction in terms. Pro-life is only concerned for sustaining life, not the quality of it. And generally, for the life of a fetus, but not a woman.

You've probably only seen doctor Phil 'psychology' which is bullshit psychology. You'd have to go to college to see that psychology is a science, and take a class on it, but I doubt you'd want to put yourself through the trouble of educating yourself on a matter before speaking about it. But I can direct you to the number of scientific studies and professional journal articles written by psychologists. And to the APA, akin to the AMA.

I know plenty about the pro-life movement, and I know that if pro-life wants to take any strides, they should look at the results of scientific studies (yes, sometimes conducted by people in the field of PSYCHOLOGY! GASP) to see that if you want to lower abortions, you have to provide better options. Telling people "Don't have sex." doesn't work, and never has. Then those same people who don't understand how to protect themselves make a mistake and get pregnant, and their only option now is abortion. Probably because no one supports them.

Contraception is pro-life. It prevents unnecessary pregnancy without aborting it. Unless you believe that "every sperm is sacred" or that sex is only for procreation. I can't change beliefs like that, but I can prevent you from forcing them on someone else.

The debate has reduced the people in question to almost non-persons, just entities. Like "homosexuality is a sin" being the main argument (adultery isn't illegal?)--so...it send the message that homosexuals ARE sin. Does that make sense? it's hard to explain.

That was well stated, PIP. I am one of those who does not support gay marriage, but I totally see where you're coming from on this issue from what you said.

"Since none of this is true, as we have proven over and over, I won't even bother to respond, except to say that you had to stretch and add to the criteria whereas mine stood on its own..."

Still calling women who get abortions sociopaths, huh? Well, I guess there's really nothing we can do about women who we just can't fix! Damn whores should keep their pants on in the first place.

Interesting, like Cameron said, that the percentages are higher in the Bible Belt. Are there more women who can't control themselves down there, or more women who are forced into a situation they can't help because no one helps them?

Thanks Bethany :)

Well that was fun.

Back to Gutierrez paper..

"What about women who are married, but can't afford to be pregnant or have another child? They work minimum wage, can't take out from work, have no medical insurance to cover the costs of pregnancy, and have other children to feed."

What about adoption? Many families who want to adopt are more than willing to cover the costs of the pregnancy including living expenses. Instead of using a financial excuse to kill a baby, for no out of pocket expense you could provide a loving, successful couple a child they would treasure and adore.

But of course in pro-choicers' minds, it is better to kill a baby than to give them a chance with a loving family. Got to love that logic.

Jess,

Still calling women who get abortions sociopaths, huh? Well, I guess there's really nothing we can do about women who we just can't fix! Damn whores should keep their pants on in the first place.

Not only am I NOT STILL calling women who have had abortions sociopaths, I NEVER DID to begin with.

For someone who knows so much about psychology, I'm surprised you're not more familiar with the term projectiton.

You know, like "PROJECTING" all kinds of things about yourself that you don't want to face onto other people?

Not only do you put words in my mouth, you don't read the words I put there myself.

Typical.

Can't argue with someone who has their fingers in their ears.

Jess,

After reading many of your posts I would recommend you read one of Chistopher West's (ChristopherWest.com) books on Theology of the Body. I think this book would answer most of your questions and statements.

Also, listen to Jason Evert's live speech online which can be found at ...

http://www.pureloveclub.com/seminars/index.php?id=3

---------

MK,

You can listen to the archives of Fr. Thomas Loya's shows at byzantinecatholic.com.

Mike

Mike, it cannot be an abortion if there is no pregnancy in the first place. You can call it "early abortion" if you like, but if it indeed does this (and the language connotates that the situation is rare or of an unknown rate of occurance) it prevents a pregnancy, in the medical sense of the term. Pregnancy doesn't begin until after the egg implants.

PrettyinPink,

Life begins at conception not an implantation. In fact chemical abortions happen all the time. The number of chemical abortions caused by so-called contraception is between 9-14 million per year in the U.S. This number far exceeds the number of surgical abortions performed each year in the U.S.

Here are the statistics...

http://www.prolifewisconsin.org/infolibraryshow.asp?lID=28

Mike

What about adoption? Many families who want to adopt are more than willing to cover the costs of the pregnancy including living expenses. Instead of using a financial excuse to kill a baby, for no out of pocket expense you could provide a loving, successful couple a child they would treasure and adore.

A majority of couples only want children of their same race. And of the 26% of women who do consider adoption, only 4% ever take concrete steps towards said adoption. I have heard of relativly few cases where women are willing to cover the expenses of pregnancy: would you mind providing statistics for that?

Further, adoption solves the problem of an unwanted child, not the problem of unwanted pregnancy. Do you realize the complications that pregnancy can spawn, or how it can impact a woman's career? Or a student's education?

Here is how the estimated number of chemical abortions in the U.S. are estimated each year...

http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/IV,1,10-8-1998/Ziegler.htm

Mike

Mike, that site doesn't provide any sources. They say that the information comes from the Pharmacists for Life International booklet, "Infant Homocide Through Contraception." They don't provide the booklet, however, and the title alone is enough to indicate bias. Can you provide other sources, or is this the only one?

1. Medically, pregnancy does not begin until implantatation; abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, therefore that is not a true abortion.
2. Now that does not mean that life doesn't begin at conception, obviously debating is what we are here for. But you might as well not say things that are untrue.
3. Many many fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant and are flushed out during the menstrual cycle. If these are all real abortions, then there are MUCH more miscarriages than we are counting!!
4. The leaps and jumps your website uses doesn't make any logical sense to me. More specifically, this sentence: "Because many contraceptive measures are abortifacients (drugs that induce or cause abortions), it is important not to overlook the number of children killed by chemical abortions. Since 1965, an average of 11 million women have used abortifacient methods of birth control in the United States at any given time. This means about 14 million chemical abortions are committed in the United States each year, giving a total of 450 million chemical abortions between 1965 and 1996. "
How are they counting how many abortions there really are? Most of the time all the pill does is prevent ovulation, and there is a once-per-month menstrual cycle. In most of my research it was sort of a guess how many of these were "early abortions." (Anybody here knows this information I would love to know). So unless you wanna give me a copy of that booklet or explain a little more, maybe you should give me some better sources for this claim.

Mike, let me read it, I didn't see that post.

Less,

Your last comment was just ridiculous. It's better to kill a baby rather than give it up for adoption -- give me a break!

Did you know there are over 750 risks associated with abortion for the woman listed in medical literature? Can you name me 3 other medical procedures which are "legal" and have over 750 risks to the woman?

I won't even mention each abortion kills a baby each occurence. Oh, I just did.

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

Mike

Okay. Where is he getting his numbers here? The site you linked me didn't have many sources that seemed to lead me to the source I want. Care to give me another one?

PrettyinPink,

What I posted in the above post on April 24, 2007 10:03 PM...

comes from your Pro-Abotion Source: The Planned Parenthood Reference Desk.

If you have in-house problems with other Pro-Aborts then you need to clean up house and all come up with a concensus.

Mike

Mike, prove that abortion has 750 risks associated with it, and this time try using a non-biased source.

Pregnancy carries significant risk as well: preclampsia, entopic pregnancy, rupture of the uterus...and last time I checked, pregnancy is legal. And abortion kills a fetus, dear, not a baby.

Okay. Where is he getting his numbers here? The site you linked me didn't have many sources that seemed to lead me to the source I want. Care to give me another one?

PrettyinPink,

You need to look at the bottom of the page.

This brochure is not long enough to list the more than 750 references in medical literature, each of which indicate serious complications to legalized abortion.

For a complete listing

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."

Mike

I asked for where the numbers came from, Mike. I didn't see it in the other article.

I choose to get most of my information from religioustolerance.org, a rather neutral site. It says,
"There is general agreement among pro-choice groups, and medical professionals that emergency contraceptives is a contraceptive. It does not not induce abortions. In the event that a pregnancy has begun -- that is, a blastocyst has implanted in the wall of the uterus -- the medication has no effect.

Pro-life groups have a unique definition of the terms "pregnancy" and "abortion" and maintain that these pills can and sometimes do induce an abortion."

"Physicians -- at least those who are not conservative Christians -- generally agree that:

Pregnancy does not begin when an ovum is fertilized; i.e. at conception.
Pregnancy typically begins about 12 days after conception, after the blastocyst has fully implanted itself in the lining of the womb.
Abortions are defined as medical interventions after pregnancy begins.
Since the emergency contraception pills are taken within 3 days of intercourse or an Intra-uterine device (IUD) is inserted within 5 days, they generally prevent the start of pregnancy. Thus, emergency contraception is not a form of abortion.

Physicians conclude that the morning after pill and the IUD are not abortifacients. They do not induce abortions, but rather prevent pregnancy from developing."

"Most, (if not all) pro-life groups define:

The life of a human being as starting at the instant of conception.
Pregnancy as starting at conception.
As noted above, it is probable that when EC is taken:

Either an ovum has not been released, or
An ovum has recently been released but not fertilized.
Under these conditions, EC acts as a contraceptive. However, it is possible that when emergency contraception is taken, conception has already taken place. Thus they consider the morning after pill as having the potential to terminate a pregnancy and induce an abortion. And since they believe that it terminates the life of a child -- a human person -- they regard both techniques as potentially inducing a murder.

Some pro-life groups appear to ignore the fact that EC usually acts as a contraceptive; they seem to assume that it always acts as an abortifacient:

Gracie Hsu of the Family Research Council said: "For pro-lifers in general, we believe that [human] life begins at conception and that means this, technically, is an abortifacient."
Robert Maginnis, vice president of the Family Research Council said: "As far as we're concerned it causes an abortion to take place. It kills a human embryo." 1
On 1997-FEB-25, the "Christian Medical & Dental Society" (CDMS) of Bristol, TN issued a press release. Using the pro-life definition of pregnancy, they stated that "Contrary to the claims of some, the so-called 'morning-after pill' will dramatically increase - not decrease - the tragic number of abortions in this country. The public is being misled into believing that this concoction prevents a pregnancy when actually in most cases it will abort a pregnancy...Approving and promoting these pills is not only medically irresponsible, it is also sending the wrong message to the American public. Instead of promoting this as an alternative for family planning, we should be emphasizing sexual responsibility.""

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_emer2.htm

Mike, I meant about how many times it acts by uterus lining vs. ovulation prevention.

PrettyinPink,

3rd Paragraph

http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/IV,1,10-8-1998/Ziegler.htm

Mike

Ilooked that booklet up and it's a religious booklet and I think I have to buy it to actually see it.

Do you have anything better?

I've tried this several times...arrgh not working.

You have to pay for that religious track. Have something better?

Mike, that is a religious pamplet and I need to buy it to see it. Do you have anything better?

PrettyinPink,

3rd Paragraph

http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/IV,1,10-8-1998/Ziegler.htm

Mike

Oh! It worked that time.

Oops, I guess it worked the several times before too. Safari just kept saying that it lost the network connection.

"What about adoption? Many families who want to adopt are more than willing to cover the costs of the pregnancy including living expenses. Instead of using a financial excuse to kill a baby, for no out of pocket expense you could provide a loving, successful couple a child they would treasure and adore."

By "many" do you mean "a few?" Because I see a lot of kids who get stuck in the system who are never adopted, and many desperate mothers struggling to make ends meet with NO one willing to adopt their children, never mind pay for the expenses of having them.

Ah yes, MK, the whole "Sociopathic Act" instead of being a sociopath. Funny how you left out the other criteria of being a sociopath to fit what you thought molded to your description of a woman getting an abortion. Also interesting how you criticize psychology and yet are using parameters set by the psychological association to support your "sociopathic act" theory of women who abort, being that sociopaths are dealt with by the psychological field.

Looks like Mexico has voted to go pro-choice.

Happy Pro-Life T-Shirt Day.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-fg-mexabort24apr24,1,5669756.story?coll=la-health-medicine&ctrack=1&cset=true

Mike,

Day of Silence has actually already been taken by the GLBT youth. Sorry. :P

http://www.dayofsilence.org/

Jess,

Ah yes, MK, the whole "Sociopathic Act" instead of being a sociopath. Funny how you left out the other criteria of being a sociopath to fit what you thought molded to your description of a woman getting an abortion. Also interesting how you criticize psychology and yet are using parameters set by the psychological association to support your "sociopathic act" theory of women who abort, being that sociopaths are dealt with by the psychological field.

I don't believe that I left anything out. Show me.

I have no problem with psychology, I simply said that I didn't believe it was a science. An art? yes, but not a science.

If I ever go back to school, I would major in Psych. So there goes your argument.

Also, I am not the one that brought the whole psychology argument into play. You did. Projection rears it's ugly head again!

What is your problem? Is "nasty" a prerequisite for discussion with you? Maybe an anger management course?
mk

The procedure will be almost free for poor or insured city residents, but is unlikely to attract patients from the United States, where later-term abortion is legal in many states.

Looks like Edward Allred is going to get his wish!

n an unguarded moment, Dr. Edward Allred, owner of the largest chain of abortion clinics in California, made his racist attitudes frighteningly clear:

Population control is too important to be stopped by some right-wing pro-life types. Take the new influx of Hispanic immigrants. Their lack of respect for democracy and social order is frightening. I hope I can do something to stem that tide; I'd set up a clinic in Mexico for free if I could . . .

This doesnt really have anything to do with pro-life t-shirts, but it does have to do with the miracle of a life that could have been aborted...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4B-r8KJhlE

Samantha T. What a great voice you will make as you speak out for the unborn! I was once pro-choice myself.As time went by, and I began to investigate abortion,I could no longer live with myself condoning the bloodshed of innocent babies.Samantha T. you are awsome!

Samantha,

I have seen this before, and never tire of seeing it again.

It says everything about love, life, faith, joy, God and what it means to be human better than our own words could ever do...

Did you see my post on the incorruptibles? I've posted it three times...

let me know.

God Bless my sweet girl, God Bless.
mk

PS Samantha T. Please forgive me if I prematurely assumed that you were pro life. Perhaps you still have your doubts. I remember when you were on the blog defending choice.We had a few disagreements. I remember we all told you how great it would be if you were on "our team."It seems like you have changed quite a bit. I still think you WOULD be a great voice.Anyway, thanks for the video.- You are still awsome!

This doesnt really have anything to do with pro-life t-shirts, but it does have to do with the miracle of a life that could have been aborted...

This has EVERYTHING to do with pro-life T-shirts!
It's a living, breathing advertisement for everything good and beautiful in the world. Just like you.

mk

Alyssa,I still think you would be a great asset to the pro life side as well.

PIP-you too!

Samantha,

Okay, now these are not as impressive as Medjugorje or the good Padre, but they are creepy, interesting, amazing in their own way.

Throughout the years, certain saints have had to exhumed and moved. Sometimes to be reburied in a church named after them. And other odd reasons.

But...

When they dig them up, they have not aged, decayed or changed one iota. They look as fresh as the day that they died.

Okay, a couple of them look a little worse for the wear...

But for the most part they are perfectly preserved.

check them out here:

http://www.livingmiracles.net/Incorrupt.html

and here:

http://www.overcomeproblems.com/incorruptables.htm

I think St Rita looks more decayed because she was black and it is deceiving...

Also notice at the bottom of the second link that some of them were from 1something AD...

I'll give you another apparition soon...gotta do some more research...you're tappin' me out!

mk
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 23, 2007 07:08 PM

MK I did read about the incorruptibles, and I am absolutely sucked in! Im sorry, I have been working a lot, and this week is finals week. But I am here to stay, and I cant tear myself away from the miracles, even for a quantum physics exam. :-)

Momof3, I am so glad to hear about your little girl! You should send Jill a picture so she can post it! No need to apologize, you are correct in assuming my "conversion." Now if we just get Bethany and Valerie on here, we can have a breakfast club!

Thanks Samantha T. To hear this makes my day! It really does! I am going to send some pics. to Jill as soon as I am able. I have an appointment this morning.[Rushing around] I'm still reeling at this news. I just can't believe it.This is the reason that I am so glad for sites like Jills, as well as other pro life web sites.They refuse to lie about or hide the ugly evils of abortion.Welcome Samantha T.*hugs*...gotta run all. The breakfast club it is!

I'm here, now we just need Valerie! ;)

Good morning!

Mike, prove that abortion has 750 risks associated with it, and this time try using a non-biased source.

Less, weren't you the one who stated this?

"Prove Guttmacher to be biased. Simply because it is the reserach arm of Planned Parenthood does not make it biased. To prove such a bias, you first must ascertain that the methods used to prove causation are faulty. Until such time, your claim that Guttmacher is biased is unproved and thus will be considered as false."

Couldn't we say the same thing for ALL's website?

Prove American Life League to be biased. Simply because it is a website created by people who are against abortion does not make it biased. To prove such a bias, you first must ascertain that the methods used to prove causation are faulty. Until such time, your claim that ALL is biased is unproved and thus will be considered as false.

Oh and by the way, Mike's link which you must not have even glanced at, cites it's sources, which are objective sources and therefore you cannot be honest and still claim bias. Don't shoot the messenger. The ball is now in your court....Find some objective studies that refute the claims from the other objective studies which are cited below:

Women at higher risk following an abortion

Several groups of women are at significantly higher risk for post-abortion problems. They should be particularly aware of the greater potential for complications.

Women under 20 experience a 2 times greater risk of medical complications than for women aged 25-29. Canadian Journal of Public Health 1982; 73:396-400

1 in 24 (4.1%) have experienced immediate medical complications. (These have included severe bleeding, infection, perforation of the uterus, and part of the baby being retained.) Canadian Journal of Public Health 1982; 73:396-400

150% greater risk of cervical injury than for women over 30 years of age. New England Journal of Medicine 1983; 309:621-4

Women who've had a previous abortion 200% increased risk of miscarriage after two or more abortions. Journal of the American Medical Association 1980; 243:2495-9

160% increased risk of tubal pregnancy. American Journal of Public Health 1982; 72:253-6

Increased risk of abnormal positioning of the baby in future pregnancies. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 1983; 146:136-40

Women with previous or existing pelvic infections (PID) experience a decrease in fertility following an abortion. Acta/Obstetrics and Gynecology Scandinavia 1979; 58:539-42

More days of post-abortion pain. Acta/Obstetrics and Gynecology Scandinavia 1982; 61:357-60

Increased risk of tubal pregnancy following an abortion. American Journal of Public Health 1982; 72:253-6

This brochure is not long enough to list the more than 750 references in medical literature, each of which indicate serious complications to legalized abortion. For a complete listing, please send $18.00 to 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."

I think I might have to buy that brochure. The pregnancy center here could really use that info.

Samantha,

It's incredible isn't it? 2 months ago you scoffed at the "unseen", and by the grace of God you were granted the "miracle" of being able to see and comprehend what others can't.

You can now understand how difficult our position is. We have seen. We have heard. But unless you believe first you don't have a clue what we're talking about.

But once you get a pair of those "eternal" glasses, you can't believe you lived as long as you did so completely blind. You can't "not see it. It would be spooky if it wasn't so totally awesome.

It's like those pictures that you stare at for hours. Somebody keeps telling you that there is a whole landscape there, but all you can see are dots?

Then, all of sudden, you see the "hidden" picture and can't understand why you couldn't see it sooner.

You have experienced "grace". But it's so frustrating because you can't make the other guy see it. Now you're the one they are mad at and they are convinced that you are pulling their leg.
You are on the "other side" and nothing you do or say can "make" them see the "picture"...

Prayer, patience and persistence. And before you know it, another Samantha has joined the believers.

Just for kicks, you should go back and read your original posts. You'll laugh. Who was that girl?

Now, if we could only get PIP to see the "whole picture"...

mk

I'm glad you think I'd be an asset to the pro-life side, and I would indeed be more likely to side with you if society would step up and men would step up and help take responsibility for unplanned pregnancies. Right now, I'm prochoice out of necessity to women whose lives would be completely sidetracked and ruined due to a pregnancy. When the system is improved to the point where pregnant women get free medical care, (pre-natal and AFTER BIRTH, not just during pregnancy), guarantee of continuing college and in the work force, and abortion exceptions to serious health issues (yes, I consider "health" a reason to abort...I don't believe it is right to allow a woman to be maimed, let alone die in the delivery room), I will be more likely to be pro-life. I don't deny that certain programs exist to make it easier for women to deal with unplanned pregnancies, but they have to drastically improve for their benefits to really be utilized. Fix society, fix the system, fix the problem. You can't fix a problem without fixing the underlying inequities.

You all seem to think that I am one who would rather a woman abort...I am not. I would love to see every woman carry her pregnancy to term. Unfortunately, with today's societal pressures and the ever-increasing poverty gap, women are reduced to having to choose to overcome the poverty line and go to college/feed the kids they already have, or bring another child into the world that will almost undoubtedly suffer all of adolescence. The adoption system isn't working. That needs to be fixed, as well.

Honestly, when I see women receiving pre- and post-birth health care at a greatly reduced cost or free, I will rejoice like no other. Because I think bringing more people into the world should indeed be a gift, not a curse. Society has made it that way. Society must change, and women should not be forced to use a gift that could turn into a lifelong curse, when the resources needed are not available in the necessary amounts.

Seriously, however, pro-choicers love babies. Don't get me wrong. There are way too many pro-choice pregnant women that I know.

Lastly, even if I was to turn pro-life, I would still support the use of contraception. My definition of pregnancy will always start at implantation. Too many fertilized eggs wash out of the uterus anyway during menses for me to believe that people are "starving their children to death". I cannot believe that. And if an artificial womb were to be created, I'd wholeheartedly support it. Pregnancy isn't easy, and I wouldn't force someone to go through such an ordeal when the means by which to do the same thing exists.

But until society changes, I remain pro-choice out of necessity and a duty to the women I care about.

While I'm at it, Less, I might as well ask you again, since you didn't respond in the other thread. Do you find it repugnant that pro-choice organizations and media have completely made up figures that were proved to be false, when referring to the number of women who died due for maternal reasons? (look at the thread "They hate Pregnancy Centers" to find sources listed for this in my post).

Here's what you said when you were referring to the supposed false claims that you say CPC's give (although you never backed it up with any evidence whatsoever):

"Mary, I have no doubt this is true. Both sides are wont to use such appeals, just as both sides have unsavory characters who exaggerate claims. It's not acceptable on either side. Those who make up information to bolster their own claims are utterly repugnant."

So do you find it repugnant or not?

I'm sort of on the side for Alyssa.

I've been on this site and I'm not going to lie, I've become more and more pro-life.

However you guys have always said "if she doesn't believe THIS she is not pro-life.

I am still a strong supporter of birth control, while I understand some of the Catholic positions on the matter, it should be used as caution but not without alltogether. I don't believe it causes an abortion,either, as I have stated above. I don't believe pregnancy begins until it attaches to the uterine wall.

So..all of this progress must not be satisfactory..

Pretty in Pink, I have been tremendously overwhelmed and encouraged by how you have changed your views in the last few weeks!

Please know that we are SO excited, and SO thrilled to have you coming to understand why we do what we do, and being so fair and honest as to progress as far into pro-life advocacy as you have!!

I'm even more excited to know that you are working at a center to help other women in need.... just to think of where we stood about a month ago, and now...it's overwhelming and I just want to say, love ya!

Alyssa-

Feminists for Life is working for everything you mentioned to help pregnant/ parenting students.

Check out their website.

www.ffl.org

Also,I believe that abortion has actually hurt women's equality rather than helped it.

Two MEN went to NOW and told them that they could not be expected to be accepted into the workforce if they continued to bear children.

I believe that had NOW said "shove it, we're women, we have babies, get over it" things would have ended very differently.

PIP, 8:44a, said: "I'm not going to lie, I've become more and more pro-life. However you guys have always said "if she doesn't believe THIS she is not pro-life. I am still a strong supporter of birth control, while I understand some of the Catholic positions on the matter, it should be used as caution but not without alltogether. I don't believe it causes an abortion,either, as I have stated above. I don't believe pregnancy begins until it attaches to the uterine wall. So..all of this progress must not be satisfactory.."

Oh, no, PIP, I'll take it! I'm proud of you for being open-minded and readjusting your thinking to the point you have. It is very hard to change ideologies, which is what you are doing.

Less, in response to you comments last night around 10:30ish (I go to bed early!) what does the statistics of couples willing to pay for the entire pregnancy have to do with adoption as the appropriate alternative to abortion?

You can go through a number of adoption lawyers, adoption facilitators, private adoption offices who will aggressively pursue finding a family for your child and the cost is nothing. The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter what the statistics are - couples are out there desperate for a baby, while women are killing them just so they don't have to go through nine months of "inconvenience".

And I absolutely understand the complications a pregnancy can have on a woman's daily life. One of my good friends became pregnant while attending our private Baptist university – a definite no-no. Not only did she carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption to a loving couple her senior year (talk about hectic!) but she opted to continue a relationship with her daughter as she grows up.

So no, I don't think having a busy life or being a student is any grounds for having an abortion.

- - - a thought to consider - - - the 'Golden Rule' is 'Do unto other what you would have them do unto you.' Much taa-doo about this as being THE basis of pro-CHOICE ethics.

So, what we now have is: "abort - [kill/murder] babies, so we will .......... unto you." Am I missing something here?

And Alyssa how does killing kids alleviate the obvious injustices done to all women in a crazy society? Isn't it a key feature of this craziness, a willingness to kill it's own offspring ... and call such a 'right'?

And the reason I got so angry at you a few weeks back that it was very obvious you are one of the very brightest people on this site. You had been offered the friendship of one of the most caring people we have ever met, MK. And then after weeks of being close to her ... you retreated - and spat-in-her-face. [That's when I lost my cool. Sorry!]

Pip,

The reason I singled you out is precisely because you are moving in the direction of life.

I didn't mean to insult you. I am so proud of you!
It's really hard to let go of things that you once held as true.

It sort of rocks your world. I mean if you could have been misinformed by this, what else could you have been misinformed about? Scary really. We all feel that way.

As to the contraception issue, that will probably come with time and maturity. I certainly didn't "get" it until I had been married for over 10 years. Just the fact that you listen, and weigh, and don't outright dismiss everything because we said it shows great maturity already.

Most of the girls that come on here are holding loaded guns and ready to shoot.

You are the only girl representing the pro-choice side that came on, introduced yourself, told us who you were and what you liked and then proceeded to treat us with respect from the get go.

I knew that first day that you were someone special. And I was right! Remember? I was the first person that responded to you? Of course anyone who loves Paul Simon is already okay in my book...

"In early memories, Mission music was floating round my nursery door. I said, take this child, Lord, from Tuscon, Arizona, Give her the wings to fly in harmony, so she won't bother you no more..."

Fly my little angel...fly!
mk

I'm stunned. What happened? WOW! What a wonderful way to wake up.

Lauren - Thank you so much for posting the information about Feminist for Life. I am a huge supporter of theirs and donate as much as I can when I can.

The bill they are trying to get through is The Elizabeth Cady Stanton student Pregnacny and Parenting act. Everyone reading this, be it pro-life or pro-choice this is something we can all agree on (even though many pro-choice organizations are trying to stop it). Contact your congresspeople and senators to get them to get this bill through. This is the 2nd time for this to be presented.

Alyssa -

You are right that many things need to change. Pip and I had a conversation on this just last week I think. You will find that it is the Pro-Life side that is trying to do the changing. Feminist For Life being a perfect example. Many CPC's help women during and after a baby. Many churches are joining together to help women with adoption; both putting up for and adopting.

Supporting contraception is a big thing for SOME in pro-life but not too big for others. I do not support artificial hormones being put into the body for many reasons other than the possible aborted baby. (medical reasons for this is not an issue because it is MEDICAL and the hormones are NEEDED) Other forms of contraception, condom, diaphram, spermacide may not be as effective, but the body is not being compromised.

As I have said about a gazillion times - no hospital, no doctor is going to watch a woman die just because she is pregnant. True health of the mother has never been an issue. Try to find one hospital that allowed a woman to die because they didn't want the fetus to die. It just didn't happen pre 1973 and it doesn't happen post 1973. Now, if the woman can carry the baby to viability, she is encouraged to do so as long as her health is not compromised. The health of the Mother is totally the Pro-Choice side pulling the heartstrings and hoping that the public will not educate themselves. Go back and read the posts on CPC's and why pro-choice hates them. It is because they are doing good for the women who are pregnant. Showing them that abortion doesn't HAVE to be a decision.

When it comes to the lower income population. Many, many, many programs are already available to help these woman. County health departments alone can get you the free services needed if someone becomes pregnant and cannot afford the cost of pre-natal. Health Departments were established to help the public and this is one of the ways they help. Free contraception isn't an issue because once again - yep - Health departments can do this as well.

As I told PIP, many of what you say needs to be done to help these woman have already been established. For some reason, no one seems to know about all these programs. Many are out there.

Samantha, PIP, and Alyssa - I am happy that you guys are thinking for yourselves now and not just repeating/regurgitating what you have heard. I agree that you all need to look back at previous posts that you have wrote to see the difference. When you first came here you sounded like every other pro-choice person. But as you read you will see that you started to think for yourself. (I am not saying that thinking for yourselves will result in pro-life, nor am I suggesting that pro-choicers don't think; so don't even go there peanut gallery!) You started to question and this is where you are now.

Honestly - I'll take someone who is Pro-Choice with limitations/Pro-Life with exceptions any day! I am mostly here for the 93% of aborted babies that don't fall in the limitations/exceptions.

Love ya guys!

(And everyone else. I'm just full of love today!)

What a wonderful morning.

Thanks everyone, for your support. It made my day.

"Because you cannot walk with the holy,
If you're just a halfway decent man.
But I don't pretend that I'm a mastermind
With a genious marketing plan.

I'm trying to tap into some wisdom,
Even a little drop would do.
I want to rid my heart of envy
And cleanse my soul of rage
Before I feel."

"Do you find it repugnant that pro-choice organizations and media have completely made up figures that were proved to be false, when referring to the number of women who died due for maternal reasons?"

Bethany, darling, have you ever considered being a high-powered defense attorney? I have no doubt that you could easily shred the fragile cases on which our democracy has "progressed." Not only is it absolutely dispicable that these numbers have been fabricated, but the initial legal vs. illegal abortion debate that centered on the number of complication-related deaths (numbers that MK has repeatedly shown to be false) sparked such a huge following to lead to the legalization of abortion in the first place. To use these kinds of underhanded tactics is, in my opinion, worse than any other aspect of the pro-choice advocacy. I honestly believe that if there werent so many misconceptions about these kinds of statistics, women and providers would be much less compelled to support feticide.

John, I do have a lot of respect for MK. If you would go back through many of the posts, I believe you'll find many that show me defending her and her views. You got angry because of a post in response to YOU, not her. Believe me, MK is highly respected in my book. I don't consider it disrespect to disagree with another person's view. If you do, then I cannot go any further than to say that we agree to disagree. The last thing I would do is spit in the face of someone who offers to be civil. I just get very passionate about my side of the issue as well, and if you view that as "spitting in someone's face", that's just your opinion. None of us are innocent of sarcastic, scathing remarks. I harbor no ill will toward you or your views, and I would fight for you to be able to express them. I can hardly say the same for you.

Alyssa, John and Jill,

I went to the dentist today. Got 3 shots of Novocaine. All morning my head felt swollen.

The Novocaine has worn off and I realize that the swollen head was not from the drug, but from your kind comments.

I'm having trouble holding the darn thing up.

Thanks.

MK

Hahaha, *hugs* to MK. I'm not looking forward to my dentist appointments in the future...I was born without three adult permanent molars, so when I lose the baby teeth I still have at the age of 19, I will have to have implants put in. *sad*

It's so much money that I, as a poor college student, don't have.

Alyssa,

I should have saved you mine. My teeth are so large that they had to pull 4 molars when I was 14 because they didn't fit in my mouth.

(And no fair making comments about my mouth being so big you should be able to fit my size 11 foot in it, not to mention my teeth!)

mk

MK:

The numbers that are next to your "sociopathy" list might have given it away in the first place, in the fact that you didn't include the numbers 1, 2, or 4. Or the other three necessary criteria beyond this list. And while I might have added a few sentences to explain what I meant (not expand the criteria), you subtracted from the criteria to make it sound better and fit your view.

Let's take a look at what you wrote:

"Antisocial Personality Disorder is a pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others (Definition by the DSM IV).
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others
(6) consistent irresponsibility,
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another"

Now let's look at what the DSM really says:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest [abortion is not illegal, and rarely repeated many times over]
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure [has nothing to do with women getting abortions]
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead [I've never heard of a woman of sound mind decide to get an abortion in an instant without thoroughly thinking about it]
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults [nothing to do with women who get abortions]
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others [I'd hardly say that coming to a difficult decision on an abortion after much thought is "reckless", and I'd say that women avoiding beatings from their family, medical bills and health difficulties from pregnancy is having a "disregard" for her own health]
6. consistent irresponsibility, **as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations** [nothing to do with women getting abortions, it seems you left the "failure to sustain steady work and financial obligations out of this one]
7. lack of remorse, **as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another** [how many women have a lack of remorse after getting an abortion? Are you suggesting that women who felt the need to get an abortion should feel guilty about it for the rest of their lives without ever moving on?]

The three extra criteria are:
* The individual is at least 18 years of age.
* There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.
* The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a Manic Episode.

I'd like to point out that sociopathy is a loose layman's term synonym for Anti-social Personality Disorder. So really what you're saying here is that women who get abortions have a short bout or act of APD? APD is a continuous disorder, there is no one "act" that characterizes it.

Rationalize your thought the way you want, but don't accuse me of pointing out your logical flaws in a flimsy argument.

Scare tactics are a bad idea, and don't work (via scientific studies). Telling women they are being selfish and yelling at them for their choices won't do anything. Maybe a little compassion will go farther.

Additionally, in your anti-contraception argument, I fail to see where tubal ligation, vasectomies, condoms, dental dams, female condoms, sponges, diaphragms, or cervical caps have anything to do with a fertilized zygote never attaching to the lining of your uterus.

hahaha, I'm the opposite, MK. I have really tiny feet. And baby teeth. Ugh. But the small teeth ended up being a good thing...I have near perfect teeth for smiling, without ever needing braces (which the dentist said was a big possibility with my abnormal baby teeth thing).

Bethany, darling, have you ever considered being a high-powered defense attorney? I have no doubt that you could easily shred the fragile cases on which our democracy has "progressed." Not only is it absolutely dispicable that these numbers have been fabricated, but the initial legal vs. illegal abortion debate that centered on the number of complication-related deaths (numbers that MK has repeatedly shown to be false) sparked such a huge following to lead to the legalization of abortion in the first place. To use these kinds of underhanded tactics is, in my opinion, worse than any other aspect of the pro-choice advocacy. I honestly believe that if there werent so many misconceptions about these kinds of statistics, women and providers would be much less compelled to support feticide.

I completely agree, Samantha....I think it's horrible that the whole thing was legalized based on lies...lies that continue today, strong as ever. Hitler said that if you tell a lie loud enough and long enough, people will believe it, and he was right. They really do...even when presented with evidence to the contrary.

Jess,

Where to begin. Not that it matters because you don't actually read anything that I write...but let's try again.

I said: It is egotism to the nth degree. And it is sociopathic. Antisocial. Psychopathic. Call it what you will, it is soulless and unconscionable.

I am well aware that the term is antisocial personality disorder. It doesn't matter what you call it.

The numbers that are next to your "sociopathy" list might have given it away in the first place, in the fact that you didn't include the numbers 1, 2, or 4. Or the other three necessary criteria beyond this list. And while I might have added a few sentences to explain what I meant (not expand the criteria), you subtracted from the criteria to make it sound better and fit your view.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental and behavioral disorders, defines antisocial personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

I listed four.

as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another** [how many women have a lack of remorse after getting an abortion? Are you suggesting that women who felt the need to get an abortion should feel guilty about it for the rest of their lives without ever moving on?]

According to your side women DO NOT have remorse.
If you say that they do, then we win the argument that PAS exists...think carefully.

I'd like to point out that sociopathy is a loose layman's term synonym for Anti-social Personality Disorder. So really what you're saying here is that women who get abortions have a short bout or act of APD? APD is a continuous disorder, there is no one "act" that characterizes it.

Since I have repeatedly said that I DO NOT, let me repeat lest you misquote me yet again, I DO NOT believe that women who abort their babies have Anti Social Personality disorder. I said, and let me repeat again lest you misquote me yet again, Women who have abortions are behaving in an anti social way. Anyone can have a psychotic episode, yet not be diagnosed as "A" psychotic. And I didn't even say that these women had a psychotic episode. Let me repeat that lest you misquote me yet again, I didn't even say that these women had a psychotic episode.

I simply said that abortion is an anti social act.
Let me repeat that lest you misquote me yet again. Abortion is an anti social act..

And lastly: Scare tactics are a bad idea, and don't work

That is precisely why I don't use them. The only truly scary thing here that I can see is people like Diana and SMOG saying that while the "fetus" is a fully human person, it has not got the same rights that they do, and therefore since there right to autonomy trumps the babies right to life, they can murder it conscience-free. Now that

Now that is scary!!!!

"According to your side women DO NOT have remorse.
If you say that they do, then we win the argument that PAS exists...think carefully."

What are you talking about? Women can feel remorse without serious psychological disorders. Just like some people can have once stolen something from somewhere and feel bad about it without developing serious depression or disabling mentalities for life.

"I said: It is egotism to the nth degree. And it is sociopathic. Antisocial. Psychopathic. Call it what you will, it is soulless and unconscionable."

That's because you can only think of the circumstances linearly, and overgeneralize. To the nth degree.

And unless you amend the constitution, fetuses don't have the same rights. The constitution only protects the rights of people "born or naturalized." I.e., you have to be born first. So regardless of how you feel personally, legally they don't have the same rights. And even conservative politicians know that trying to create an amendment that protects the rights of humans from the point of conception is ridiculous and impossible.

So if you aren't suggesting that these women are psychopathic and antisocial, at least in the act of getting an abortion, what's your point of listing it [with your own personal amendments] in the first place?

"That is precisely why I don't use them. The only truly scary thing here that I can see is people like Diana and SMOG saying that while the "fetus" is a fully human person, it has not got the same rights that they do, and therefore since there right to autonomy trumps the babies right to life, they can murder it conscience-free."

I wonder if you support war, or policemen for that matter. Those soldiers and policemen have a license to kill others when they threaten their own life or the lives of others. Do you believe, being [according to yourself] 'fully' pro-life, that we should take away that license, when they have the go-ahead by the government to kill others "conscience-free?" Or rather, we should change the name from "license to kill" to "license to murder."

Not using scare tactics? You think that by telling women considering abortion that what they might do is an antisocial act according to such and such [amended] parameters of APD, that's not a scare tactic? Or of course the old tried-and-false argument of the "cancer" you get from getting an abortion, that the procedure causes pain to the fetus, or other medical misinformation. Or those lovely signs with pictures of fake abortions, that I hope to God you don't use because it's completely insensitive.

No one wants a woman to get an abortion. I may be pro-life but I'd never want a woman to be put into a situation that she felt the need to get an abortion. However, she has the right to choose what is best for her own life, and her body not you or me.

And unless you amend the constitution, fetuses don't have the same rights. The constitution only protects the rights of people "born or naturalized." I.e., you have to be born first. So regardless of how you feel personally, legally they don't have the same rights. And even conservative politicians know that trying to create an amendment that protects the rights of humans from the point of conception is ridiculous and impossible.

And this is written, where?

So if you aren't suggesting that these women are psychopathic and antisocial, at least in the act of getting an abortion, what's your point of listing it [with your own personal amendments] in the first place?

Again if you read before you speak, you'll see that I didn't list them. Midnite did. I just pointed out that HER list met the criteria of sociopathy.

All I said was that Jeffery Dahmer committed murder, and so do women who have abortion.

I never said anyone was a sociopath.

If you come in in the middle of conversations at least have the courtesy of following the conversation from it's inception.

I wonder if you support war, or policemen for that matter. Those soldiers and policemen have a license to kill others when they threaten their own life or the lives of others. Do you believe, being [according to yourself] 'fully' pro-life, that we should take away that license, when they have the go-ahead by the government to kill others "conscience-free?" Or rather, we should change the name from "license to kill" to "license to murder."

When babies threaten peoples lives, shoot 32 people in a school, rape women and start wars, then you can compare them to soldiers and police officers. Until then the slight difference of INNOCENCE remains. Murder is the willful killing of an INNOCENT party. The unborn, to my knowledge, are not guilty of any criminal activity.

Not using scare tactics? You think that by telling women considering abortion that what they might do is an antisocial act according to such and such [amended] parameters of APD, that's not a scare tactic? Or of course the old tried-and-false argument of the "cancer" you get from getting an abortion, that the procedure causes pain to the fetus, or other medical misinformation. Or those lovely signs with pictures of fake abortions, that I hope to God you don't use because it's completely insensitive.

And now who is making false accusations? Back up any one of those comments with facts, and then we'll talk. Fake abortion pictures indeed. What do think abortion looks like? Daisies?

pro-life but I'd never want a woman to be put into a situation that she felt the need to get an abortion. However, she has the right to choose what is best for her own life, and her body not you or me.

HUH?

that should read:

I may be pro-life but I'd never want a woman to be put into a situation that she felt the need to get an abortion. However, she has the right to choose what is best for her own life, and her body not you or me.

again, HUH?

And now who is making false accusations? Back up any one of those comments with facts, and then we'll talk. Fake abortion pictures indeed. What do think abortion looks like? Daisies?

REALLY!

"And this is written, where?"

In the constitution. Born or naturalized, it says. Not unborn.

"When babies threaten peoples lives, shoot 32 people in a school, rape women and start wars, then you can compare them to soldiers and police officers. Until then the slight difference of INNOCENCE remains. Murder is the willful killing of an INNOCENT party. The unborn, to my knowledge, are not guilty of any criminal activity."

Oh right, I forgot that people who are murdered but were also murderers and drug dealers aren't considered murder... If two people shoot at each other, and one ends up murdering the other, I hate to tell you but no matter how much the other party is guilty, the surviving party still murdered. Murder has nothing to do with innocence.

And sorry, meant to put pro-choice. It's a typo, I'm sure you figured it out.

Oh, so you do use those abominations of fake jelly "fetuses" with ketchup. Shameful, and you're also a liar for claiming to not use "scare tactics" if you use them. Those pictures would be highly illegal if they were real, and anyone with any sort of medical training can look at them and tell they're faked for propaganda. It's sick and insensitive to women who have had abortions or worse yet, miscarriages and have done nothing "wrong" [in your eyes], yet pro-lifers still feel the need to stand around with them and remind women with miscarriages what happened to their child. It's disgusting scare tactics that aren't even real, and exactly why I very much disagree with supposed "pro-life" people.

You wouldn't support war if you were truly pro-life. But it seems, just like you accuse pro-choicers of being, that you are being selective in what "life" means. Apparently there's only need to save innocent life, not "guilty" life, regardless of what the quality of life would be for the people affected.

In the constitution. Born or naturalized, it says. Not unborn.

Show me that in the constitutions words, not yours.

Oh, so you do use those abominations of fake jelly "fetuses" with ketchup. Shameful, and you're also a liar for claiming to not use "scare tactics" if you use them. Those pictures would be highly illegal if they were real, and anyone with any sort of medical training can look at them and tell they're faked for propaganda.

Again, you'll have to prove this...

Murder has nothing to do with innocence.

Murder is both a legal and a moral term, that are not always coincident. It may be legal to kill, but still murder in the moral sense. Opponents of the death penalty argue that it is simply murder by the state. Proponents of limited government argue that moral murder is never legal murder unless and until the government meets the limits and standards required of it, such as due process, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, trial by jury, appellate review, etc.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

Apparently there's only need to save innocent life, not "guilty" life, regardless of what the quality of life would be for the people affected.

HUH?

You wouldn't support war if you were truly pro-life

You sure do make a lot of stuff up. The constitution. Faked pictures. The definition of pro-life.

Creative sort are you? Or just livin' in la-la land?

Jess, 11:28a, said: "Those pictures would be highly illegal if they were real, and anyone with any sort of medical training can look at them and tell they're faked for propaganda."

Jess, since when are photos of medical procedures illegal? And explain EXACTLY how photos of aborted babies are faked? Conversely, tell me what you think photos of babies aborted via D&C or D&E or D&X should look like?

Jess, you are terribly deceived or just willfully ignorant if you believe those pictures are faked. I saw with my own eyes, my OWN baby who died at 6 weeks in utero, and I can tell you with certainty that every picture you see of fetuses at those ages are REAL. They really ARE that complex from the time that women find out they are pregnant, and even more so as they grow.
I took pictures but you'd probably consider them faked too, because you're not just blind, you're WILLFULLY blind.

"and anyone with any sort of medical training can look at them and tell they're faked for propaganda"

I have medical training. They are not propaganda. They are not faked. What's wrong? Can't handle seeing the truth? Can't handle knowing you are on the side of the slaughter of human's?

"You wouldn't support war if you were truly pro-life. "

No one wants war. Why would you imply that Pro-life people want war? Who wants that! I support our troops. I support our government trying to protect us from terrorists. I support getting a mass murderer out of his dictatorship role. I support protecting innocent people from being brutilized and murdered. I will support helping Darfur from the rapists and murderers.

This does not mean I support death. It means I don't want death! It means that I believe innocent people should be protected not tortured for the pleasures of the insane.

"Apparently there's only need to save innocent life, not "guilty" life, regardless of what the quality of life would be for the people affected."

I agree with MK. HUH?

Are you saying that we should not have helped the women who were living under the control of the Taliban?

What. That statment under the paragraph centered around war, makes no sense. Who are the "quilty" that we don't want saved?

"I believe innocent people should be protected not tortured for the pleasures of the insane"

okay - my own statment just made me go HUH? I'm just saying that I support protecting people who are being tortured by the insane.

Well, MK, I'm sorry if you haven't read the constitution. But I can't help that, I've stated numerous times that it only protects the rights of those "born or naturalized." It doesn't say anything about unborn.

I'm well aware that medical photos are TAKEN, but displaying them would be ILLEGAL. Bethany, did you sign a release form for public use and display of your medical procedures? No, probably not. And anyone using them as such would be illegal. I'm not afraid of a medical procedure, I know it's generally gruesome but so are ALL medical procedures. I wouldn't want to see a heart operation either on a large poster sign to remind me how my relatives died either. What I'm saying is that you ARE using scare tactics [so you're a liar, MK], which are insensitive to women who have had miscarriages or abortions. Is all you care about preserving life, without any regard to the emotions of them?

Why would you imply that Pro-life people want war?

Because you're being inconsistent in saying that you only support saving the lives of the "innocent." Not all life.

Well, MK, I'm sorry if you haven't read the constitution. But I can't help that, I've stated numerous times that it only protects the rights of those "born or naturalized." It doesn't say anything about unborn.

Jess, you can't even defend yourself using the constitutions actual wording.

You could easily pull out the part which proves your case if it was there. The constitution is all over the internet.

I'm well aware that medical photos are TAKEN, but displaying them would be ILLEGAL.

Care to prove this?

By the way, Jess....what about pictures of the babies that have been found by dumpsters in biohazard bags behind abortion clinics? Is it illegal to show them as well?

Jess,

Well, MK, I'm sorry if you haven't read the constitution. But I can't help that, I've stated numerous times that it only protects the rights of those "born or naturalized." It doesn't say anything about unborn.

I know what you've said, what I am asking you to do is to show me what the constitution says.

Which you don't seem to be able to do...
so...

mk

Jess, if I wanted to publicly display this picture to expose the dangers of smoking:
http://web.med.unsw.edu.au/pathmus/0839044.jpg

Would I have to track down the person who this lung belonged to, and ask for their permission, in order to be able to display it?

Is that really the law?

Perhaps it's different, like, it's not okay to release a photo of someone with a rare disease without their permission, but if stuff is found in the trash or discarded in some way, it is okay?

Samantha, This doesnt really have anything to do with pro-life t-shirts, but it does have to do with the miracle of a life that could have been aborted...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4B-r8KJhlE

I didn't see this post you made till just now. I watched the video and it sure did bring tears to my eyes. What a beautiful, beautiful story it tells.

Bethany, you wouldn't have to go through all that (seeing as the person is dead already), because they're already a scientific donor. If the picture has been released into public domain, then it is legal to use without permission. If those women did not donate their fetuses, nor sign release for the pictures taken of them, then your pictures are illegal and an invasion of medical privacy. Why do you think people need to sign about a dozen forms in order to appear on medical shows during their heart surgery or plastic surgery? I've never heard of these "trashbag" pictures, all I've seen is so-called 'scientific' photos. I'll have to get back to you on the legality of that, given that they are real.

Bethany, I'm sorry for your loss. Truly, even though I've been tagged as a so-called "heartless" pro-choice woman. But if your baby was 6 weeks old, it probably looked nothing like the propaganda photos, the most commonly used of which are fetuses of nearly 10 weeks or more, when the fingers become clearly visible. I also can't believe that you aren't bothered by people taking advantage of women who have been in your situation [miscarriage, I gather? I can't tell from what information you gave me] with complete insensitivity.

I don't have a problem with people who are pro-life. I understand where the pro-life side is coming from even if I don't agree with it. What I don't agree with about the pro-life side is the tactics used. There are plenty of ways to lower abortion rates that do not degrade and humiliate people in desperate situations. I'll gain more respect for it when it gains more respect and compassion for those people.

MK, it's right there. In the constitution. Amendment XIV, Section 1. Look it up if you want to see it so much. Like you said, it's all over the internet. Persons "born or naturalized" are under the jurisdiction of the law, and citizens of the U.S. Not unborn.

Bethany, you wouldn't have to go through all that (seeing as the person is dead already), because they're already a scientific donor. If the picture has been released into public domain, then it is legal to use without permission. If those women did not donate their fetuses, nor sign release for the pictures taken of them, then your pictures are illegal and an invasion of medical privacy. Why do you think people need to sign about a dozen forms in order to appear on medical shows during their heart surgery or plastic surgery? I've never heard of these "trashbag" pictures, all I've seen is so-called 'scientific' photos. I'll have to get back to you on the legality of that, given that they are real.
I have no doubt that they are real...people have found babies in biohazard bags over and over for a long time now, and many of the pictures that are used in pickets are pictures of those very babies.
Are you referring to pictures of babies that aren't even dead? Which babies are you referring to which pictures have been published? I honestly would have to see some kind of document somewhere that said it was illegal to use such pictures before I could believe it was.

Bethany, I'm sorry for your loss. Truly, even though I've been tagged as a so-called "heartless" pro-choice woman.

Thank you, Jess, that really does mean a lot to me. I appreciate it.

But if your baby was 6 weeks old, it probably looked nothing like the propaganda photos, the most commonly used of which are fetuses of nearly 10 weeks or more, when the fingers become clearly visible.

Actually, it did...and it strengthened my beliefs in how complex they are at such an early age.... I had a natural miscarriage, so the baby came out in tact and beautiful....would you like to see the pictures? I will show you a few of them.

(I took these pictures after I placed the baby into a plastic bag full of water. The baby was the size of a lima or kidney bean.)

My favorite:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/bethanyc.jpg

Look closely at this one (below) you can see the toes:
http://www.preciousinfants.com/IMG_1865.JPG

To give you an accurate size measurement of how the baby was, just look at that bag...it is a sandwich bag folded in half:
http://www.preciousinfants.com/babyblessing111.jpg

You can see fingers and toes here:
http://www.preciousinfants.com/babyblessingtwo.jpg

And you can see the hands here, how perfect, aren't they?? I mean, for 6 weeks, don't you think that is absolutely amazing?

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/babyblessing2%20%282%29.jpg

I also can't believe that you aren't bothered by people taking advantage of women who have been in your situation [miscarriage, I gather? I can't tell from what information you gave me] with complete insensitivity.

I'm not really sure what you mean.

MK, it's right there. In the constitution. Amendment XIV, Section 1. Look it up if you want to see it so much. Like you said, it's all over the internet. Persons "born or naturalized" are under the jurisdiction of the law, and citizens of the U.S. Not unborn.

Jess, we've read the constitution and know what it says.
What we want to know is exactly where it says that if you're not born you don't deserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And I need to mention again that the baby's head is shaped funny because of an abnormality, which is what caused the death and miscarriage.

Aww my two year old saw the pictures and said "be be!"

Jess -

"Bethany, you wouldn't have to go through all that (seeing as the person is dead already), because they're already a scientific donor. If the picture has been released into public domain, then it is legal to use without permission."

How is it that autopsy photo's are shown all the time and the family has to go to court to stop it? It is not the M.E. going to court to show it. If you are dead, you cannot consent. If the family doesn't want the pics shown then they file a petition. In normal situations this isn't an issue because who wants to see the average dead joe on the examiners table?

Why would you imply that Pro-life people want war?

"Because you're being inconsistent in saying that you only support saving the lives of the "innocent." Not all life."

When did we say only the innocent? I don't agree with capital punishment. These are people found by members of the peers to be found not innocent.

I do support all life. But what do you suggest we do with the Sadam's of the world? Bin Lauden's? Cameron's and SOMG's?

sorry, couldn't help it..... but seriously........

Bethany, that's a little bit of an anomaly for a 6-week old, since fully formed fingers and toes typically don't develop until 10 weeks, unless your date of conception was off. And yes, I did actually look at the pictures. Also, most abortions performed that early also come out intact. I've seen some of those pictures of "baby parts" on dimes and quarters with blood all over the place claiming that they are abortions, when in truth the baby would not be broken apart into pieces by a saline solution or a hormonal pill.

No one is saying that abortions are not sad. I don't think any woman would want to get one if she didn't feel she had to. That's exactly the reason that supporting better access to contraception is so important. But using some photos of babies that are often not real or are actually pictures of miscarriages or autopsies of pregnant women is wrong and insensitive. There are plenty of ways to support your cause without infringing upon other people's rights to privacy, and rights to bodily autonomy. Support them financially, start groups that help them, give them enough real, actual help [other than saying 'deal with it' or 'adoption!' which is horribly unconvincing] but guilting people into it because of your own personal beliefs with silly scare tactics that don't even work is wrong. I should think that the pro-life movement should be able to make a better case for themselves without that, or medical lies.

Valerie, why do you think those families win those trials? And the mother is the owner of the fetus, she is still alive, so it would still require consent. You cannot get consent from the fetus so you must get consent from the mother, who would be still alive.

As for the constitution, its interprative. That's why this whole thing is a debate in the first place. I'd also like to point out that the while trying to protect the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the fetus, you are consequently taking away those rights from the mother as well. But it's important to remember that the constitution also states that there is no national religion, and freedom of religion. So while you are free to practice the belief that life begins at conception, others do not hold those religious beliefs. And you are not allowed to force that on others.

"Bethany, that's a little bit of an anomaly for a 6-week old, since fully formed fingers and toes typically don't develop until 10 weeks, unless your date of conception was off.

Actually, my date of conception was accurate because I kept a chart of everything in (I was TTC). My doctors also confirmed it, saying that it had died at least 1 1/2 - 2 weeks before I found out (I found out when I was 8 weeks pregnant). I have looked at fetal development pictures online, and from the Lennart Nilsson Photography book, and I have to tell you, very, very similar. It could have been a few days older, maybe closer to 7 weeks, but still very young. If you'll notice, the fingers aren't fully developed, they're still developing. What difference does it make anyway? Babies don't have strong necks when they're born...it takes months for them to develop the strength they need to hold it up on their own. Does that make them less human? Every human is constantly developing. Still developing does not equal non human.

And yes, I did actually look at the pictures.

I believe you looked, I just think if you don't believe that most fetal photography is real, do you just select and choose which ones you want to believe? It seems likely.

Also, most abortions performed that early also come out intact. I've seen some of those pictures of "baby parts" on dimes and quarters with blood all over the place claiming that they are abortions, when in truth the baby would not be broken apart into pieces by a saline solution or a hormonal pill.

Ever heard of D & C? That's what I was offered at 8 weeks to take the baby out early. I refused and decided to have the miscarriage naturally. After watching a tape on an actual D & C procedure the other day, I am so glad I did. The woman was under anesthesia and screamed (How? I have no idea)... the little metal tools the abortionist kept shoving in and out of her womb looked so sharp and painful. Her legs were up in the stirrups shaking uncontrollably. A nurse even had to hold them to keep them steady.
Then they suctioned the baby out of her, and there was a LOT of blood going through that tube. You can't tell me that it's not a bloody process. Even with a pill there's lots of blood!

No one is saying that abortions are not sad.

Why are they sad, in your opinion? Shouldn't be, if you believe that they're not persons. Honestly, if I thought they weren't persons, I wouldn't give a second thought to abortions. I wouldn't think they were any sadder than having your tonsils removed.

I don't think any woman would want to get one if she didn't feel she had to. That's exactly the reason that supporting better access to contraception is so important.

Can you show one unbiased study that shows that unplanned pregnancy rates have actually dropped since people have been getting more contraception?
It's already widely available. How much more available could it be?

But using some photos of babies that are often not real or are actually pictures of miscarriages or autopsies of pregnant women is wrong and insensitive.

Why is it insensitive? I wouldn't have a problem with people waving pictures of my placenta in the air.

There are plenty of ways to support your cause without infringing upon other people's rights to privacy, and rights to bodily autonomy. Support them financially, start groups that help them, give them enough real, actual help

We already do that. Read Valerie's post about Pregnancy Centers, and the comments below it.

[other than saying 'deal with it' or 'adoption!' which is horribly unconvincing] but guilting people into it because of your own personal beliefs with silly scare tactics that don't even work is wrong.

Actually they do work, and they're not scare tactics. They're the truth of what happens, displayed openly for people to see. When abortionists consistently lie to women, they're obviously not making an informed choice. We give them the information that they need to know, that they're being told is a lie. A picture is worth a thousand words. If we just "told" them the fetus is a baby, they wouldn't believe. Many women are convinced after seeing the pictures, and after having their babies come and thank sidewalk counselors or pregnancy centers for helping them not to make a horrible mistake. They are so happy to be blessed with their child.

I should think that the pro-life movement should be able to make a better case for themselves without that, or medical lies.

They're not lies, Jess.

Jess, 2:31p, said: "Bethany, that's a little bit of an anomaly for a 6-week old, since fully formed fingers and toes typically don't develop until 10 weeks."

Jess, you must have gotten that information from the abortion industry. According to science, fingers and toes become separate entities at 7 weeks.

Jess also said, "Also, most abortions performed that early also come out intact... when in truth the baby would not be broken apart into pieces by a saline solution or a hormonal pill."

Jess, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're another one I would caution to stop typing lest you betray your ignorance even more. Most abortions this age are suction or D&C. RU-486 is not typical.

Yeah, a lot of women would rather have suction than pill abortions because the pills have bad side effects, and the recovery process is quicker and less painful in general.

That's what I've read, anyway.

As for the constitution, its interprative. That's why this whole thing is a debate in the first place. I'd also like to point out that the while trying to protect the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the fetus, you are consequently taking away those rights from the mother as well.

Sorry, I don't think killing your young is a "right"...it's like MK said the other day, a "license".

Valerie,

Firstly, capital punishment is totally biblical. Government was instituted by God to restrain evil. How on earth could we have gone to war against Hitler if killing evil people wasn't justified by God?

Remember Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 50,000,000 plus people. He was guilty of horrendous crimes and therefore, had to give the only thing he had in this life, his life as punishment for his evil. Unfortunately he killed himself and was never tried. However, isn't that the ultimate punishment, killing yourself because you were evil (and I am not talking about mentally ill peopel who kill themselves)? Now he is paying with his soul, unless by some reason, he repented before death (even for him I would hope so).

Babies are innocent and defenseless. Therefore, killing them is the most heinous of evils.

Don't let the pro-deahers try to equate being pro-life with being pro-justice.

His Man: I think a better punishment for murderers and rapists or whatever would be to lock them up in solitary confinement 24/7. Don't let them out for "exercise", no cable TV, no "comforts" at all. Just a cell, with a bed and a "toilet" and sink. That's it. Then everyday they have family members of the victim (if the prisoner was a murderer) or the victim him/herself (if the prisoner was a rapist) and have them tell the prisoner what exactly they took away from them. Every day for the rest of his life.

Guilt is a far better punishment than death.

Jill, did I say hormonal or saline is the most popular? No. So don't put words in my mouth. I have no interest in speaking with the "woman" who indicated that domestic violence is an acceptable reaction to abortion. And you call yourself a Christian, it makes me sick.

Abortion industry? Abortionist? Nice fantasies for extremist pro-lifers who like to scare vulnerable people, but those don't exist.

HisMan -

"Firstly, capital punishment is totally biblical. Government was instituted by God to restrain evil. How on earth could we have gone to war against Hitler if killing evil people wasn't justified by God? "

HUH? How did we get from capital punishment to being forced into war? Hitler has nothing to do with the idea of Capital Punishment.

Maybe you missed one of my earlier posts: 'No one wants war. Why would you imply that Pro-life people want war? Who wants that! I support our troops. I support our government trying to protect us from terrorists. I support getting a mass murderer out of his dictatorship role. I support protecting innocent people from being brutilized and murdered. I will support helping Darfur from the rapists and murderers.
This does not mean I support death. It means I don't want death! It means that I believe innocent people should be protected not tortured'

I know that death has to happen. How else can the innocent be protected from the torture if the person doing the torture doesn't surrender? I understand that until everyone in the world agrees 100% on everything there will always be conflinct.

I know exactly how many people were killed by Hitler. My Grandmother and her family barely got out of Poland in time. Some cousins stayed behind and have never been heard from since. We have proof that one cousin died in Auschwitz. Trust me, I know about Hitler.

Hitler was a cowardly SOB who couldn't handle it when he lost. A good punishment for Hitler? Put him in Auschwitz and let the survivors have a go at him. Death is too easy for some people.

I am all for justice. But for 99.9% of criminals, capital punishment is not the way I think it should be. Imprisonment is justice too. Never seeing the light of day is punishment. Personally, I would like to see Chain Gangs back. Whose that one warden in AZ that has all the prisoners wear pink outfits? I just love that guy!

Wait... what were we talking about?

Jess -

*sigh* autopsy records, including photos are a matter of public record. In some states, ID, WY, NM, KS, AL, KY and NC, have open records when it comes to autopsy reports. Other States, OR, NV, MT, CO, AZ, SD, NE, MO, AR, WI, IL, TN, MS, MI, OH, PA, VA, VT all have limited access to public records, but it can still be retrieved. The other states keep autopsy reports confidential.

In FL it wasn't until the Dale Earnhardt media frenzy that autopsy photo's, video's and recordings became confidential. The Earnhardt Family Protection Act was passed in 2001 in FL. Any records to that date were not confidential.

These photo's are not illegal.

Does this info help?

His Man: I think a better punishment for murderers and rapists or whatever would be to lock them up in solitary confinement 24/7. Don't let them out for "exercise", no cable TV, no "comforts" at all. Just a cell, with a bed and a "toilet" and sink. That's it.

Personally, I've always thought that they should be dropped in the middle of the ocean sans food, water and a boat. If they can swim 2000 miles to shore without drowning, dehydrating or being eaten by sharks, then what the heck, let 'em have another go at being an upstanding citizen. If not, oh well...:)

MK: Better yet, remember those "Discovery Zone" places? Those like...indoor-tunnel-ballpit parks for kids? Stick them in one of those with hundreds of hyperactive-sugar-crazed smelly little brat-children. They would be crying like little babies after that. :-p

Jess -

"Also, most abortions performed that early also come out intact. I've seen some of those pictures of "baby parts" on dimes and quarters with blood all over the place claiming that they are abortions, when in truth the baby would not be broken apart into pieces by a saline solution or a hormonal pill."

I really don't think Jill has to put anything in your mouth. Your words speak for themselves.

"Most abortions performed that early also come out intact ... "

"when in truth the baby would not be broken apart into pieces by a saline solution or a hormonal pill."

Rae -

"Stick them in one of those with hundreds of hyperactive-sugar-crazed smelly little brat-children"

You're are a cruel human being! I think that would definately fall under the cruel and unusual punishment clause!

;-)

@Valerie: Bwahahahahahahahaha. I try, I try. ^_^

But I do miss those Discovery Zones...I had so much fun in those places. :)

Jill, did I say hormonal or saline is the most popular? No. So don't put words in my mouth. I have no interest in speaking with the "woman" who indicated that domestic violence is an acceptable reaction to abortion. And you call yourself a Christian, it makes me sick.

Well, you did say "most".

Autopsy is not equal to fetuses of women who are still living, Valerie, though I appreciate the information. Regardless, the photos are insensitive and scare-tactics to people in vulnerable situations. Psychologically, scare tactic information is effective for short periods of time, but behavioral suppression reaches extinction shortly after. It's exactly why abstinence-only, "just say no," and other similar programs are overwhelmingly ineffective. What I'm saying is that if you want to reduce the number of abortions, scare tactics are not only insensitive and backhanded, but statistically ineffective.

Autopsy is not equal to fetuses of women who are still living, Valerie, though I appreciate the information.

Isn't Dale Earnhardt's wife still alive?

Psychologically, scare tactic information is effective for short periods of time, but behavioral suppression reaches extinction shortly after. It's exactly why abstinence-only, "just say no," and other similar programs are overwhelmingly ineffective.

Prove that statement...

...but with a better source than "SEICUS".
(Less tried that once- a site begun by a pedophile- I mean, really!).

What I'm saying is that if you want to reduce the number of abortions, scare tactics are not only insensitive and backhanded, but statistically ineffective.

They're not scare tactics. They're the truth.

Aaaahhhhh Bethany,

Sometimes the Truth can be scary....

mk

Unfortunately, I don't have my book at hand for easy reference to such studies, but I'll refer you to some peer-reviewed professional journal articles that hopefully you have the resources to look up. If not, let me know and I'll c/p the abstracts.

Is There an Unconscious Conspiracy Against Teenagers in the United States? Strasburger, Victor C.; Clinical Pediatrics, Vol 45(8), Oct 2006. pp. 714-717.

Parent Opinion of Sexuality Education in a State with Mandated Abstinence Education: Does Policy Match Parental Preference? Ito, Kristin E.; Gizlice, Ziya; Owen-O'Dowd, Judy; Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol 39(5), Nov 2006. pp. 634-641. Note: this addresses the fact that the majority of parents want comprehensive sex-education, not abstinence-only

Letters to the editor: Abstinence and Abstinence-Only Education. Elster, Arthur; Fleming, Missy; Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol 39(2), Aug 2006. pp. 150-151. Talks about how the SAM and the AMA recommend including abstinence into comprehensive programs within a family values subtext, but not getting rid of the rest of sex-education

Additionally, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy has found that the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country occur in:

Texas
New Mexico
Mississippi
Arizona
Nevada

Where, consequently, abstinence-only sex education is practiced [Texas in particular, which in 2004 had the highest rates in the country]. Most likely because teens who have sex have no idea how to protect themselves. In some cases, virginity pledges actually increased the likelihood of sex.

Once I get my other information, which is not at hand, I'll provide the other sources. This will have to do for now.

P.S. I've never even heard of SEICUS, but I generally don't use online sources. Just scientific studies and peer-reviewed articles.

"Autopsy is not equal to fetuses of women who are still living, Valerie, though I appreciate the information."

huh? I have to be reading this wrong. If the fetus is still living than those pictures arent' shown during RTL marches etc.

And anyway, you said the pictures of aborted fetus' were fake. You said that no one could get those pictures without the mothers consent or it would be illegal. I answered that autopsy photo's are indeed a matter of public record in some states and can be obtained without consent. So, these pictures are real.

Now you say that autopsy are not equal to what?

First the pictures were fake.
Then they were illegal.
Now they're not equal.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Valerie, yes I do. I still believe the pictures are fake. I've gone over it numerous times with people who are in the medical field. But I'm saying even if they are not fake, many of them would be illegal. You say that there are open records in 7 states. And in 18 states, there is "limited access." That leaves these photos, if you are to consider them autopsy photos, illegal in 25 states, one half of the country. Unless they weren't real. Even in those 18 states, limited access would mean that you must get permission to use them, and I doubt that every pro-lifer I see with a dead fetus on a sign has explicit permission of public use. Especially my state, which is not one of those 25 with open or limited use. Additionally, fetuses, being under the age of 18, and if you ARE to consider them persons, are spoken for by their parents. They do not have rights to consent, being underage, meaning that the mother has consent. It does not matter if the fetus is dead... a picture of it still requires the consent of the mother, since she has the legal rights to it. And I'm curious to know that although you may have "access" to records in certain states, what the legality of it would be for use in public.

But all that still doesn't change the fact that scare tactics photos are insensitive, exploitive of not only the fetus but the previous mother of the fetus, and only work temporarily. I'm highly disappointed in the pro-life movement for such juvenile and underhanded methods. Again I ask, don't you have an argument good enough to stand on it's own without gruesome photos? At least this tee-shirt depicted above has something in utero, which is a step in the right direction. And knowing high school students, to answer some questions way far at the top, they're probably mocked just for expressing an opinion. A girl wearing a pro-choice teeshirt would get the same reaction. It's not because they're pro-choice or pro-life. It's because they're expressing any opinion at all in a social environment [public schools] that does not permit controversial statements. Not the school itself, but the students.

Valerie:

You said you were against capital punishment:

Well here's the scripture:

Romans 13:1-7
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Jess, 9:55p, said: "I still believe the pictures are fake. I've gone over it numerous times with people who are in the medical field."

Jess, stop on this point. Tell me what your medical experts say a 10-week-old D&C aborted fetus would look like. EXACTLY. TELL ME.

Jess, 10:05p, said: "But all that still doesn't change the fact that scare tactics photos are insensitive, exploitive of not only the fetus but the previous mother of the fetus, and only work temporarily. I'm highly disappointed in the pro-life movement for such juvenile and underhanded methods. Again I ask, don't you have an argument good enough to stand on it's own without gruesome photos?"

Jess, let's also stop on this point. Scare tactics? insensitive? exploitive? juvenile? underhanded? no need for arguments to use photos?

What do you think of photos of Holocaust victims?

Or photos of clubbed baby seals?

Or the photo of the Vietnamese napalmed naked girl that basically stopped the war?

Or the 1955 photo of brutalized and murdered Emmett Till that Jet magazine published and that basically fueled the modern-day civil rights movement?

Or photos of black lynchings?

Or the photos of child labor in late 1800s/early 1900s America that finally stopped it?

Or photos of monkeys being used for animal testing?

Are you that ignorant that you've never heard the phrase, "a picture says a thousand words?"

Study #1:
Is There an Unconscious Conspiracy Against Teenagers in the United States? Strasburger, Victor C.; Clinical Pediatrics, Vol 45(8), Oct 2006. pp. 714-717.

Thank you for the article sources.

Here's a quote from the first article:

Government websites, and many federally funded sex education programs are still labeling condoms as "risky".

Are you kidding me? Of COURSE they're risky. Do you realize how often condoms fail? Or how many times kids do NOT use them, even when they have them on hand?
Don't you know that at least half of all unplanned pregnancies are due to failed birth control, which includes condoms?

As for it's plea that children are watching so much sexual content on TV that they can't help but be sexually aroused...why is the solution to give them condoms? Wouldn't it be better to educate the parents about what their children are watching on TV, and the effects of that, so that more parents would guard what their children were watching? Your study shows that children who watch more sexual content on TV are more sexually active. Wouldn't a better solution be to stop watching so much sex, than to have sex and be encouraged to use condoms?

I think the study is seriously flawed.

Did I mention it uses CNN and Guttmacher for it's references?

Also, it does not answer my question which was, have unplanned pregnancies decreased since contraception began to be more widely available?

As a reply to your quote ( Note: this addresses the fact that the majority of parents want comprehensive sex-education, not abstinence-only):

Zogby Poll Reveals Parents Opposed To Comprehensive Sex Education

By a 5.4-1 margin, parents approve/strongly approve of abstinence education (73.4% to 15.8% disapprove).

By a 2.4-1 margin, parents disapprove/strongly disapprove of sex education (60.5% to 25.4%). By a 4.9-1 margin, parents disapprove/ strongly disapprove of CDC promoted sex education curricula (74.9% to 14.2%). Miscellaneous condom-based "safer-sex" ed – 68.0% disapprove/ 22.5% approve. [Abstinence Clearinghouse, 13Feb03]

More details on the study (when parents are actually told WHAT EXACTLY their children are being taught, instead of being asked abstract, vague questions, this is how they answer):

"WASHINGTON, DC - The Coalition for Adolescent Sexual Health on Feb. 13 released the results of a Zogby International poll showing that parents overwhelmingly reject explicit sex education but support abstinence education. For the first time, such a survey was taken using actual quotes from sex education curricula developed and endorsed by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), Planned Parenthood, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Parents were asked whether they approved, strongly approved, disapproved, or strongly disapproved of 29 different concepts and messages being taught in some K-12 sex education classes in U.S. public schools.

Four questions quoted teaching materials from the CDC's "Programs That Work." Question 25 asked parents to state their level of approval for children ages 9 to 15 to be taught the following: "There are many ways to be close. The list may include body massage, bathing together, masturbation, sensuous feeding, fantasizing, watching erotic movies, reading erotic books and magazines." Seventy-nine percent of the parents surveyed objected to this teaching.

Eighty-eight percent of parents objected to Question 26, which asked them to state their level of approval "for a child in high school (ages 14 to 18)" to be taught the following: "Grape jelly, maple syrup, and honey could be used as a lubricant on condoms." The same percentage objected to Question 28, which asked parents to state their level of approval for a child in middle school or high school (ages 12-15) to be taught: "Use condoms as a method of foreplay. Use different colors and types and textures. Think up a sexual fantasy using condoms. Tell your partner how using a condom can make a man last longer. Hide a condom on your body and ask your partner to find it. Plan a special day when you can experiment."

According to the survey, more than 75% of parents overall disapprove of condom-based sex education, while more than 61% disapprove of comprehensive sex education in general.

Conversely, more than 76% of parents approve or strongly approve of character-based abstinence education. Sizable majorities strongly approve of the following message for teens: "When adolescents abstain from premarital sex, they don't need to worry about sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs), pregnancy, having a baby, or getting an abortion." Sixty-nine percent of parents approve of children ages 9-12 being taught the following: "Sexual or physical intimacy should occur between two people involved in a lifelong, mutually faithful, marriage commitment."

Other survey findings show that 46% of parents either disapprove or strongly disapprove of the idea that teens could obtain contraception without permission from a parent, compared to 39% who approve or strongly approve of the concept. However, when that question is personalized, the figure rises to 70% of parents who either strongly disapprove or disapprove of their own children being able to obtain contraception without their knowledge or consent.

By a more than four-to-one margin, parents also disapprove of teaching 9-12-year olds that "Homosexual love relationships can be as satisfying as heterosexual relationships" (from the SIECUS Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education).

Regarding younger children, 73% of those surveyed approve or strongly approve of teaching 5-8 year-olds that "desires and urges can be controlled by the mind." But parents are much less likely to approve of teaching that "every child should understand the dignity of his or her sexuality," with 49% supporting this statement.

After the survey results were released, the Coalition for Adolescent Sexual Health sent a letter to members of Congress, urging them to take parents' wishes into consideration during deliberations over current welfare reform legislation that includes funding for abstinence education. "The President has stated that federal funding should support an unambiguous message to teens that sex is best reserved for marriage," the Coalition wrote. "This message is contained in character-based abstinence education programs which have been recommended for $135 million in federal funding in the president's budget requests for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004."

The Coalition for Adolescent Health is a partnership of pro-family groups including Focus on the Family, Eagle Forum, Christian Coalition of America, the Traditional Values Coalition, and the National Abstinence Clearinghouse. The group's letter warned that, "a number of organizations are seeking to eliminate federal support for character-based abstinence education." While these organizations cite "opinion polls that use carefully crafted questions to demonstrate public support for condom promotion," the Zogby data "strongly suggest that parents want their children to receive a strong message on abstinence."

Perhaps in anticipation of attacks due to the survey's subject matter and results, Zogby International President and CEO, John Zogby, noted in a letter to the Coalition for Adolescent Sexual Health that the survey questions "reflect to some degree what is going on in some sex education classes and point to a need to bring parents into the conversation, course planning, and family discussion."

"In short," he wrote, "we feel the questions were fair. The Coalition has handled the results honestly and we at Zogby International are certainly prepared to publicly defend the entire process."

Zogby surveyed 1,245 parents of children in grades K-12, during January 2003. The parents were chosen at random, and the margin of error is plus or minus 2.8%. Complete survey results can be found at www.whatparentsthink.com.
"

Grape Jelly, Honey and Maple Syrup?

Maybe this is to offset the problem of one night stands leaving right after sex...

You already have the makings of breakfast, so maybe they'll stay til morning!

yuck!
mk

Jess -

I would like to add to Jill's post. How about television? Rodney King comes to mind. That was shown over and over to prove a point.

Any number of police brutality that has been caught on tape being used as proof. Aren't these insensitive to police? especially the few that actually use abuse?

Also, you can show an autopsy photo in all states. Not just the state you got the photo in. It doesn't matter if a state does not have autopsy information open to the public, you can still show the photos. If not, then there are alot of news organizations that are in violation of the law.

Also, do you really think that women want to do DNA testing to see which child that was thrown away was theirs? Some photo's are from trash cans, which means they are public property because they are in a public container; or funeral homes that get the bodies with no information as to who the "owner" is for cremation. And then there are the autopsy photos of the fetus, again with no "ownership" information, because some abortionists like to get statistics for the government on how many babies - sorry fetus- are aborted at what gestational age. Since there are abortionist like Tiller out there that lie to the Mother as to what age the child is before aborting some abortionist like to provide medical proof of this so they cannot be accused. Especially in states that have very strict laws on aborting after viability.

So, once again, they are not illegal. And if you still don't believe that, how about this. If they were illegal don't you think we would have been arrested by now? I remember my Mom having pictures of aborted babies in the early 1980's which means we've been doing it for quite some time. oh - How do you think the photo's from the '70's and '80's were faked? Back then you didn't have computers which means no programs like photo shop were available. Fake photos were extrememly easy to detect back then. Alot of anti-abortion documentaries were done back then as well. Do you really think that we had a special effects group ready and availble to fake the videos?

As for medical proof. Ask a question. I will answer.

" don't you have an argument good enough to stand on it's own without gruesome photos?"

Yes we do. Go to a pro-life function at many Churches and hear our arguments without the pictures. Or - Like the t-shirts above - go to any pro-life high school function and hear the arguments.....

MK -

EEWWWWWW!!!!!

Now I'm really going to be voting for brunch!

Jess, heather just posted a reference to a video of an actual abortion being performed...I watched part of it, but it was just too sick to continue. However, if you're still convinced those pictures of the fetuses by the dimes and quarters are fake, please watch this video and tell me how they faked this.
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/audiovideo.html

Click on the one that says "The Choice Blues". Don't eat anything before watching it.

Bethany, good morning. Isn't that video awful? I dare anybody to say it's fake. That is the real deal! Perhaps Cameron,Dan,Midnite should tune in. Somg,never mind. I get the feeling that you do it for a living. Bethany,thank you for linking that video up!! I don't know how.

Bethany, thank you for your source. But as a person in the research field, let me tell you that the Zogby questions, from what I can see, violate one of the first rules of survey questions. Despite what Mr. Zogby may feel, the questions are loaded, as he accuses the other "opinion polls" of being. No parent would like to think about their child having "sexual fantasies." Of course they will feel uncomfortable with that question. These questions, particularly the ones noted in the article, only reflect repsonses from specific loaded questions, not about comprehensive education overall, or about the safety measures of teaching comprehensive content. Their analysis and correlations are rather useless and instead of significant differences via statistics they use percentages. Also, where exactly was this study surveyed from? And how many parents were surveyed?

The survey I provided is from a professional journal article, which means their survey must go through a rigorous approval process by a board of other professionals to make sure they are not loaded or otherwise skew results -- that is not the point of science. Scientists and professional researchers in academia want accurate results, not necessarily the results they are looking for. Also, the survey was conducted in North Carolina, a generally conservative state. Still Zogby is correct in saying there are many opinion polls from organizations that skew results. What he's not saying is that his is one of them, which is why it is so important to look at peer-reviewed, scientific data: a much more neutral and reliable source.

Ah, so lying to parents and giving them deceptive questions is a much better way to get accurate answers than giving them actual information which is being taught to children and asking their opinion of it. I see.

And since you obviously realize that parents don't like this kind of teaching in schools, don't you think parents should be the ones who decide what their OWN children are taught??

Here's a blog entry that I liked, and thought it might help explain what I mean:

"Over the past few weeks leading up to this New Year and a new Congress, the boldness of certain groups to perform "studies" — and I use that term loosely just as they seem to do — then release their findings as "facts," again following their lead of using loose terminology, has been very evident. Two, in particular, are the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) 'study' on parents/adults "desiring" contraceptive sex ed for children over Abstinence and Healthy Relationship Education and the more recent 'findings' by the Guttmacher Institute stating that a huge majority of adults over the past few decades engaged in premarital sex.

While they have obviously used, and continue to use, these so-called 'findings' to try to persuade public opinion as well as legislation, it pays to take a closer look. If you want to know the real story behind these studies and what they are intended to do, with the help of the liberal media, read on...

First of all, you need to know the source and intent of those who actually commissioned and/or performed the studies. Yes, while the Penn study has a university’s name attached to it, attempting to give 'credence' of higher educational authority to the "findings," the real impetus behind the results are evident in the fact that they used three biased questions as the basis for their 'study' and the strength of an 'editorial opinion' from a long-time contraceptive advocate as further proof of their findings.

If you want to know the objective truth about what adults and parents want, simply look at the best study ever done along these lines. It happened just three short years ago and was done by Zogby, the independent, highly regarded, political pollsters. Yes, I will tell you up front that this study was commissioned by Focus on the Family but the truth lies in the way the questions were presented — very truthful and straightforward.

In this excellent study, they actually took the information directly from the programs/curricula in question, i.e., contraceptive based sex education and abstinence until marriage education. That's right, they told the parents exactly what was being taught to and asked of students in the classroom. These were not shady, vague questions that left the answers, and thus the results, open to a great amount of bias and subjectivity, as the Penn study did.

In the Zogby study (Keyword search: Zogby study, 91%, parents favor abstinence education), they found that 91% of parents wanted abstinence until marriage education for their children and only 7% favored the teaching of contraception to their children.

Which study would you rather believe—the one with vague questioning or the one that states clearly what is reaching our youth? Enough on that study as the results and intent should be clear to any objective thinker. Now for the study on premarital sex.

First of all, you must again know the source. Guttmacher is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, which relies very heavily on teen and unmarried sexual activity for its profits. Guttmacher, however, will occasionally, not very often, present some objective and helpful findings. Having said that, I will also add that I'm not totally surprised by the findings of this study even if a bit biased toward Planned Parenthood ideology (Keyword search: Guttmacher study, 95%, premarital sex). Nor am I surprised by the media and other liberal group's use of the study - to slam abstinence until marriage sex education and promote contraceptive based sex ed.

However, once again, an objective and intelligent look at the study and its 'findings' will actually show just the opposite of what the media, Planned Parenthood, and some of their other liberal cronies, including legislators, are using it for.

The study covers the sexual habits of the "last few decades" which is actually great news for Abstinence until Marriage sex education and bad news for contraceptive ideologists. Think about it.

While advocates of the study claim falsely that billions of dollars have gone to Ab Ed over the past several years with none for contraceptive based programs, the reality is that a recent study actually showed that for every $12 of federal aid used for contraceptive based sex ed there was only $1 of federal support for Ab Ed. A report done right here in Kentucky just a couple of years ago shows the gap in funding to be even wider. All of the funding in this study occurred only after the abstinence funding became available.

Prior to this, "the last several decades," to be more succinct and in line with the Guttmacher findings, almost all funding went to contraceptive based programs! Now isn't that interesting that those interviewed in the study mostly came from the generations that were taught almost exclusively contraceptive based sex ed? Perhaps that is why the results of devastating premarital sex are so high. Maybe, and they certainly don’t want you to know this, high rates of premarital sex is what they were shooting for. Well, their own study shows they’ve achieved their goal with all of the devastating and destructive accompanying effects!

However, the most recent reports from none other than the Center for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) show that not only is abstinence sexuality education working but even with the minimal funding mentioned above relative to contraceptive based programs, 53% of the positive results of reduced teen sexual activity (from over 54% in 1997 to 46% in 2005) and the lower teen pregnancy rates (lowest rates since the mid-1940s) are directly attributable to Ab Ed as well.

Oh, by the way, even if the 95% number is true, other objective studies on the health impact of early and premarital sex clearly show the damage that is being done. Why would we ever settle for this as a reason to stop teaching what is best for our youth and their future—Abstinence and Healthy Relationship Education? We don't do it when it comes to smoking, drugs, alcohol, driving, nutrition, etc. Why would we even think about the "it’s OK because 'everyone is doing it'” scenario when it comes to our youth and their sexuality and relationships? It's foolish and any objective, intelligent person would know that, see the connections to contraceptive based programs over the past few decades, and know that the positive changes as a result of Ab Ed are sorely needed and must continue.

So, let's recap the two most recent and popular studies of the liberal higher education and/or media and legislators:

1) Biased Penn study with vague questions goes directly against the findings of the objective Zogby study in which actual curriculum questions were presented to adults in the survey. Which do you believe? You can check them both out for yourself.

2) Guttmacher study used to slam Abstinence Education actually makes a great case for it as most of those in the study were educated under contraceptive based ideology. This is especially true when you compare it to the studies on today's youth that show positive trends in reducing sexual activity and teen pregnancy attributable mainly to abstinence until marriage sexuality and relationship education!

Finally, based on the intent and results of these studies, which would you choose: the Objective Truth or biased, contraceptive ideology?"

I don't know where Zogby got his information, but I've been through comprehensive sex education several times since middle school, I've never heard anything about breakfast food, sexual fantasies, homosexual relationships, or the like. What you're asking for is keeping your children ignorant from protecting themselves. They will have sex, you can't stop that by saying "don't do it", which didn't work for the drug wars and doesn't work for abstinence-only. Marriage ages are getting older and older, far past when people reach sexual awareness. Teaching them to strive for abstinence while also preparing them with accurate information is important because many of them don't make it. Less than 28% of girls who take virginity pledges keep it. Say what you will, but Zogby's article is biased and unscientific. And therefore, unreliable. It doesn't even sound like they used statistical analysis to find the significance of their findings.

And no lying to parents and giving them deceptive questions isn't an accurate way of getting measures. Exactly why Zogby's study doesn't hold much water, but scientific, peer-reviewed, strictly controlled studies do.

If parents are that concerned what their own children are taught, they should do it themselves.

Heather, no problem :)

I don't know where Zogby got his information,

Read the article I cited when I first posted about Zogby's poll..it tells exactly where the information came from.

What you're asking for is keeping your children ignorant from protecting themselves. They will have sex, you can't stop that by saying "don't do it", which didn't work for the drug wars and doesn't work for abstinence-only.

Worked fine for me! I was abstinent till I married my husband, and we were both each other's firsts.

...And we were involved in a serious relationship two years before we married, and somehow managed to live without it! Imagine that!

On this issue I am inclined to agree with Jess. They seemed to only show parents the more shocking aspects of "comprehensive education" that most sex ed programs would not employ. All we are asking is for straightforward facts about the use of contraceptives. Although a rising amount of people use it, they also admit to using it inconsistantly and incorrectly. In my opinion, we are bitching about us having such a high pregnancy rate--let's look at Europe. These countries expect their children to be experimenting sexually and the kids there think it's stupid not to consistantly use protection. If they choose to have sex then they are responsible about it.
Only teaching kids to not have sex does nothing to enforce sexual responsibility for those who end up having sex. We need to tell them how to do it responsibly, but we don't have to teach kids all the different ways to "do it"--that should be left up to the parents.

It seemed from what has been posted here that his study focused not on informative teaching about responsibility but the more shocking and questionable statements...of course no parent wants their kids to be taught about food substitutes for lube. It doesn't mean that we should only teach them about abstinence.

That's awesome Bethany. That's real love.There is a huge difference between love and lust. I had to learn the hard way. I know a lot of people really hate the saying about 'Why buy the cow when the milk is free?' However,it still holds true to this day. I've had lots of men tell me that once a woman "gives it up" before marriage, the thrill is gone. Most of them don't respect you anyway. I realize that most independent,strong willed women like to believe otherwise. Sorry,it never has been true and it never will be. Don't fool yourselves ladies.

Also,I do believe that this is why abortion is on the rise! Men and women have a tendency to engage in these 'fly by night' "relationships."When an unplanned pregnancy ocures,nobody wants to take responsibility. Off to the abortion clinic the woman goes.I have seen women that were told by the guy "If you don't have an abortion, I'm leaving you." So the woman aborts. The guy leaves her anyway. On to the next.

I agree, PIP. Additionally, other studies have found that treating children as if they are a problem that needs to be controlled -- and not a whole person with legitimate feelings -- is much less effective than treating them as a whole human being. Yes, including abstinence as your safest option (for some studies, particularly effective within a family-oriented subtext) is very important, and sometimes (apparently in Bethany's case) works. But, for the large percentages of people for whom it does NOT work, in order to reduce the need for abortions, you have to leave them prepared for sexual activity and keeping themselves safe.

I'd like to think I have a better gift to offer my husband than my virginity at the altar. I'm sorry those guys said that to you Heather, and that they can't appreciate you for who you are, not what you've done.

Actually Jess,they were telling me about their past sexual experiences. None were with me. It HAS happened to me though.I learned that playing "hard to get" was the only way to go. I was tired of being used for my body.I am worth more! All women are worth more.

Jess,I'm not saying that this is ALWAYS the case,but most of the time, it seems to be. I'm also not saying that men are bad. I LOVE men! However,there are a lot of wolves out there.

Heather,

I agree when you say that a lot of men have that particular mindset. Sometimes, if you're lucky, you can tell who those men (or "boys" for that matter) are, but that's not always the case.

Personally, I think the idea of waiting until marriage is lovely. I don't think, however, that having more than one partner in a lifetime diminishes the next sexual experience. That's just my opinion, though, and I know most here will disagree. That's fine.

I think I lucked out with Darren. He's a genuinely nice guy (and I've had my fair share of scum). My siblings like him, my MOTHER likes and approves of him, and my friends have not criticism where he's concerned...other than that he's a little "weird" (I prefer the term "quirky" myself).

Heh. We were actually talking about marriage last night. It won't happen for another couple years, but that's fine with me because I'd like to get at least one degree first :). Besides, I'd prefer a long engagement over a short one (we're not engaged yet, but hopefully within the next year....hell, I might even propose to HIM).

...I got off-track. I don't remember what I was originally going to say. Sorry.

Bethany, Heather4life -

Unfortunately America and Europe are going to have to wait until we are in the same position as the people in Africa are in right now before anyone wakes up. Condoms are used in Africa, yet in some area's AIDS is spreading like a common cold.

There are abstinence programs that have been highly successful in Africa. Here is one:

http://www.stayalive.org/stayalive/Creation.cfm

"A recently completed 2 1/2 year independent evaluation found the pregnancy rates dropped 61% in the schools where the Stay Alive program was taught (Panos, Panos and Cox, 2006)."

"Drawing upon her professional private practice and teaching experience, Sheffield wrote the lessons in Stay Alive I based on a bio-psycho-social approach. The Stay Alive lessons teach consequential thinking skills, engender hope and build empowerment, while teaching the importance of families and sexual abstinence before marriage. All these critical concepts are linked to HIV/AIDS prevention in a developmentally appropriate and culturally sensitive manner."

"The overwhelmingly positive response to the Stay Alive program by children, parents, teachers, community and religious leaders and governments has been nothing short of phenomenal. The Stay Alive program has already reached over 750,000 children in 10 African countries, and we cannot even begin to keep up with the demand."

"Those involved with the Stay Alive program believe that a new generation of children can be raised in Africa, and in other countries as the program expands, that will be free of the HIV/AIDS virus and that they will be empowered to live long, loving lives. It has been an exciting journey of love for the children that, although already grand in scope, has only just begun."

“The future of the HIV epidemic lies in the hands of young people. The behaviors they adopt now and those they maintain throughout their sexual lives will determine the course of the epidemic for decades to come.”

One of the footnotes:
"*A study done years later by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, showed that youth using condoms and having sexual intercourse experienced condom failure resulting in pregnancy at a rate of 25.8% over two years. Ranjit, Bankole, Darroch, & Singh, “Contraceptive Failure in the First Two Years of Use: Differences Across Socioeconomic Subgroups,” Family Planning Perspectives 33, 1 (2001). "

How is this for an endorcement:

"On behalf of the Government of Swaziland, I wish to request the Stay Alive Program for Swaziland. I believe that the Program would be beneficial in the overall efforts of the Government of Swaziland to reduce the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the country, particularly to the younger people"
-- Clifford S. Mambe, Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations"

According to The Guttmacher Institute: Approximately 9.1 million new cases of STIs occurred in 2000 among 15–24-year-olds

When will we wake up and realize that we are only killing our children by thinking "They're going to do it anyway."

Apparently some people think that pictures do change minds. Oh look, it's the people who saw said pictures...

I never really had a strong opinion one way or the other about abortion. I never really thought it was right, but I wasn't sure if I thought it should be illegal. After I saw you trucks driving around my town I got on your website and cannot believe what I saw. This is in no way right and should be stopped.
Age: 18
Sex: Female
Hometown: Carlisle, PA
Date: July 26, 2006


How has this website influenced your thinking?

This site, other sites, and my son (4yrs) have forever changed my view of abortion. I was a swing voter, now, I'm totally against the "practice" Abortion=MURDER
Age: 47
Sex: Male
Hometown: Charleston, SC
Date: June 27, 2006


How has this website influenced your thinking?

I never really saw how the babies really look after being aborted. Now I know, and I will never do it, ever.
Age: 17
Sex: Female
Hometown: Liberty, MO
Date: June 22, 2006


How has this website influenced your thinking?

When the fetus is only 6 weeks old, it still looks like a baby. I figured it wasnt really anything at 6 weeks.
Age: 15
Sex: Female
Hometown: Nova Scotia, Canada
Date: June 15, 2006


How has this website influenced your thinking?

Well, things have been very depressing lately and my mind and body seemed like they were telling me to get an abortion, but after seeing this my heart lead my mind and body in the right direction!!! I AM TWO MONTHS PREGNANT AND I AM KEEPING MY BABY!
Age: 17
Sex: Female
Hometown: Huntington, WV
Date: June 14, 2006


How has this website influenced your thinking?

I have always thought about abortion as something that could be accepted in such as rape or extreme poverty. Now I think of abortion as killing!
Age: 17
Sex: Male
Hometown: Truth or Consequences, NM
Date: June 9, 2006


How has this website influenced your thinking?

I'm thinking twice about getting an abortion and not listening to my boyfriend, beacause this human being never asked to be conveived but it was and now that it is, it shouldnt be killed just because of its exisitance.
Age: 19
Sex: Female
Hometown: Venice, CA
Date: June 8, 2006


How has this website influenced your thinking?

At first, I thought [abortion] didn't matter. In some situations I thought it would be ok, like if a 13 year old girl got pregnant and coudn't care for it. Then I saw this, and talked to my friends, and we just thought, "then put it up for adoption!" Thanks for changing my mind, in a good way!
Age: 13
Sex: Female
Hometown: Brighton, MI
Date: June 8, 2006


How has this website influenced your thinking?

Before, I wouldn't be against (abortion)... but I realize that it is not fair to destroy these innocent babies..Unfortunately, I've known a couple of women that have had abortions. How Sad!...I loved the article and pictures.Tthey have really impacted my way of thinking. Thank You.
Age: 25
Sex: Female
Hometown: Huntington Park, CA
Date: May 24, 2006


How has this website influenced your thinking?

I thought my girlfriend was pregnant and wanted her to get an abortion. Looking at these pics on this website, I think it would be wrong to abort a child when you can see features like fingers and toes even at 6 weeks.
Age: 20
Sex: Male
Hometown: Australia
Date: May 13, 2006


How has this website influenced your thinking?

I have lots of friends my age that end up pregnant...and ususally I tell them, have an abortion, no biggie, but after looking at this, I cried my eyes out for those innocent lives I helped distroy and I will do all I can to stop abortion.
Age: 16
Sex: Female
Hometown: Richmond , VA
Date: May 13, 2006


How has this website influenced your thinking?

I was completly pro-choice before viewing the website. Even though I knew personally I could never have an abortion... Now after viewing the site I don't think anyone should be able to choose to have an abortion.
Age: 21
Sex: Female
Hometown: Hampton , VA
Date: May 12, 2006


How has this website influenced your thinking?

I use to say "well whatever she wants to do with her body is fine...." but now I say to that "whatever she wants to do with her body is fine, but, what she wants to do with her baby's body is not for her to decide."
Age: 28
Sex: Female
Hometown: Jacksonville, FL
Date: May 9, 2006


How has this website influenced your thinking?

Hearing about abortion has never brough tears to my eyes, but seeing photos of an aborted baby, not only hurts, it makes me WANT to actually do something to prevent this inhumanity.
Age: 23
Sex: Female
Hometown: Houston, TX
Date: May 9, 2006


How has this website influenced your thinking?

Now that I've seen these pictures of embryo's and fetus', and watched the video of an actual abortion, I think it is down right Murder!!!!!!!!
Age: 41
Sex: Male
Hometown: Ranson, WV
Date: May 8, 2006


How has this website influenced your thinking?

I really thought [abortion] was bad before but I allso thought that a women should have a choice, but now iI don't think a woman should have a choice when it concerns killing a baby.
Age: 18
Sex: Female
Hometown: White Plains, NY
Date: May 4, 2006


How has this website influenced your thinking?

Before, I felt that if you could not provide for a new life why keep it, and now I think that if you make it then you have no choice but to keep it or someone who is willing to could adopt it because [abortion is] murder.
Age: 18
Sex: Female
Hometown: Verbank, NY
Date: May 3, 2006


How has this website influenced your thinking?

I never knew how well developed babies were till I saw the pictures. When I was 15 I got pregnent and I wanted to get an abortion but I never did because I knew it was my fault not my babys. And now I'm so happy I didnt go through it because now I have a wonderfull son and I don't regret a thing!!!
Age: 17
Sex: Female
Hometown: Salida, CA
Date: May 2, 2006

want more?:
http://www.abortionno.org/AbortionNO/web_response.html

Valerie,

>>>>

oops, that was

))))))))))) standing ovation ((((((((((((

Bethany -

))))))))))) standing ovation ((((((((((((

Right back at ya babe!

;-)

MK, those pictures really made an impact on me as well! I remember when I first got married and was beginning to look at abortion debate forums, I would hear people say that the fetus was a blob so many times. And they would refer to it as a "ZEF". I mean, over and over and over, in such a callous and unfeeling way. I didn't know how to defend it because I didn't have any pictures or anything to prove it (also this was before I had my first son)....so I actually weakened in my arguments about it. In fact, I started feeling like maybe I was wrong, after they kept wearing me down, and I didnt know where to go to get the research and proof I needed. It wasn't until I did some more research (I was just getting started with computers or I would have easily found the link otherwise), and someone actually sent me a link to these kinds of pictures, and when I saw them I drew back in horror and I just remember crying and crying, realizing that people were REALLY doing this. Oh and I remember the day I looked through Dr Tiller's website... :( My husband had to console me because I was crying so hard at the thought that he would be so cruel as to kill babies, while still calling them babies, and be totally unapologetic about it, describing the whole horrific process with a sense of pride! IT's disgusting!
Those pictures that I took of my baby have made people open their mouths in awe, and almost disbelief, at what beautiful life was there at such an early age.

We don't have windows in our wombs....so it's necessary that we show the pictures we do have, so that people can realize what is actually happening...because lying and deceptive words have kept so many people from seeing the truth!

Behtany,

I know. It makes me so furious when people say that these pictures have no impact and are just a scare tactic.

People should be scared. Out of their minds. Because this is the reality. Period.

I don't understand how these people can spend thousands and thousands of dollars on educations, and be able to use big words, and quote statistics, and demand this survey and that study be unbiased, etc.

All that education, and the simplest, most uneducated child can tell you more about the truth than they can.

I may not have a degree. I may not read textbooks for fun. I may not be able to compete with the Jess's and the SOMG's when it comes to "Formal Education", but when it comes to wisdom two year olds and I are light years ahead of the book smart fools of this world.

God help us.

mk

I couldn't agree more, MK.

These pictures are real. The silent scream video was real. I found that video so hard to watch.In addition to the baby being killed, the woman looked soooo violated. The procedure was bloody.It looked like her body was convulsing when that powerful suctioning hit.A friend of mine had an abortion,and when the abortionist began suctioning she asked "Can you put it back?" "No,it's too late."he replied.

Those pictures helped change my mind...I wouldn't say scare tactics as much as "I had no idea what it actually looked like.."

Thank you Pip,

Now please tell that Jess that we neither payed you nor threatened you to get you to say that...

mk

Jess, it's true.

Whenever I start to feel as if the debating is getting me down and I just want to walk away and close my eyes. I force myself to look at the pictures and video's that are out there. Those beautiful children never asked to be created, yet there they are; torn up and abused. Never having a chance at their first breath. Just because someone out there said they don't have human rights until the first breath. How can anyone say this after knowing that Doctors out there are actually Stopping that first breath so they can legally kill them?

Human rights are not just a privlidge that someone can take away because it is convenient for them to do so. All HUMANS have an unconditional right to live. And a fetus is human. It cannot be anything else. It can't just automatically change to a feline, or a arachnid. The fetus will only and always be HUMAN. Those poor children didn't ask to be placed in the womb of a woman who doesn't "want to share their body". The child did not choose the way nature dictates the act of procreation. None of us chose how Nature works. But we sure are choosing to tell Nature that she is wrong. Our ignorance will be our distruction.

So true, Valerie. Hear, hear.