Last Friday I posted the first of at least two recently released undercover videos filmed at a CA Planned Parenthood where an informant posed as a 15-year-old girl who had been impregnated by her 23-year-old boyfriend, which constituted statutory rape.

In that video the counselor recommended how to get around parents and the law. She added she wished she had aborted her now 16-year-old.

Today's video spotlights a different Planned Parenthood, in Los Angeles. Same scenario. You'll hear the counselor tell the minor girl to "figure out a birthday that works" to avoid the mill's having to report the rape to authorities.

The best friend statutory rapists, incest perpretators, and pedophiles have is the abortion industry.

HHHMMMM, Someone ought to get Dateline's Chris Hansen in there.

I'm so tempted to try this... Of course, that would require actually going into such a place.

Wow, that would be really interesting to see. If you do, Lauren, please get it taped somehow.

Lauren great idea! Let us know.

"I'm so tempted to try this... Of course, that would require actually going into such a place"

Yes, walking into the devil's chamber cannot be fun..

Perhaps I'll contact Life Dynamics and see about their undercover program. Of course, no one believes this type of thing. Even when faced with flashing signs, some people still defend providers.

Maybe a 23 year old could ACTUALLY CARE about a 15 year old? The provider didn't know their whole story and didn't try to judge them. Judge not least ye be judged was apparently lost on you people. Maybe the 15 year old has abusive parents at home who would really hurt her if she got pregnant, maybe SHE actually was the one who initiated sex with him. Oh but that can't be right because women don't have sexual needs.

Maybe a 23 year old could ACTUALLY CARE about a 15 year old? The provider didn't know their whole story and didn't try to judge them. Judge not least ye be judged was apparently lost on you people. Maybe the 15 year old has abusive parents at home who would really hurt her if she got pregnant, maybe SHE actually was the one who initiated sex with him. Oh but that can't be right because women don't have sexual needs.

sorry about the mutiple posts.

The audio was really soft, I could barely hear it.

Some day... when I have speakers, or bring earphones to the lab, I may actually watch/listen to videos.

I poked around for this one....

In california, the law is a little confusing. All states must report any evidence of violent child abuse, however in California, pregnancy resulting from voluntary sex does not consitute child abuse. What is not clear to many is when and if an adolescent is within or outside of the legal consent window.

"California child abuse law requires health practitioners and other child-related professionals to report statutory rape only when the adult is 21 years or older and the minor is younger than 16 years."

Planned Parenthood will probably fire her, but it doesn't appear that they have actually broken any law given the person was "posing" as a minor. Despite the claimed age, it's apparent the worker, not surprisingly, percieved some appropriate level of maturity. If the discription of the video is correct, the employee at the PP has bent the rules, but I don't think any court would punish her if it had actually been a minor 15 years of age.

I wouldn't expect the fetus-centric however, to understand that the PP worker felt she was doing the right thing... as opposed to desiring nothing more than killing yet one more fetus. That's why you all are the last people any of your friends would go to to confide in about such delicate situations--you have no capacity for it.

Cameron,when does your state consider it pedophilia?

jill/jenny, A 23 year old could actually care about a 15 year old? I think he cares about her vulnerability. I hope PP fired this lady.

Jill

If the young girl comes from an abusive home there are social service agencies she can contact for help, which she should do anyway if she is being abused, pregnant or not. In our state, it is legal for any pregnant minor who fears for her safety to seek and be given shelter without a court order. I'm not sure about other states but I do know a minor can contact a social service agency for assistance.
Since the provider didn't know the story she shouldn't judge? We shouldn't "judge" legal adults who prey on minor girls? Could this 23y/o have her and several other minor girls he truly "cares" about.
Whether she initiated sex or not, as a legal adult that doesn't get him off the hook. As far as I'm concerned it just makes his actions all the more indefensible. Do you know how often older men, and women, have justified their actions by saying some minor child "initiated" it?

In Alabama it is only statutory rape if the child is 15 or younger. Once you hit 16, in Alabama, you can give consent to sexual intercourse. Granted, I dont know the laws in other states, but I do know the law in my state.

But, I believe statutory rape is wrong, and a 23+ year old has no business being with a 15 year old.

Mary -

You're wasting your breath. Didn't you know that? Jill/Jenny has already stated that she thinks it is the women's fault for getting raped by placing the blame on her.

"maybe SHE actually was the one who initiated sex "

See Jill/Jenny doesn't care if the federal law states that a minor cannot consent to sex. It only matters that the girl is at fault.

"Maybe the 15 year old has abusive parents at home who would really hurt her if she got pregnant,"

And the best thing to do for a minor is give them the abortion, pat them on the ass and send them back home so they can be abused even more. Then she can be abused by Mommie and/or Daddie dearest AND be used by a 23 year old. Great plan.

"The provider didn't know their whole story and didn't try to judge them. Judge not least ye be judged was apparently lost on you people. "

Good thing this is also lost by the judicial system. It would be anarchy if no one could judge the action of criminals.

Valerie: It is state law that governs consent to sex, not the federal government.

midnite -

I just noticed that in your previous post.

So I tried to check on California law. So far I found a (perverted) website that says that consent in California is 18. Since this is not a reliable source, I'm still looking.

Did you know that states don't like to tell you what the age to consent is? The only places I have found are the perverted websites giving info to people on how to get around the law. These website are specific, the state .gov website get a little wishy washy on factual information on this.

I did find a website, I don't know if reliable or not, that said federal law 'suggests' 17 be the age, but states have the final say.

I didn't know that!

Valerie,

You make some excellent points, especially about the girl being sent home for more physical and sexual abuse.
A young woman told me of being impregnated by her stepfather as a teen and taken to an abortion clinic against her will. No one at the clinic asked any questions or "judged". The slime began molesting her in the car on the way home.
Abortion does not protect these young victims, it only covers up the crimes of their abusers, who are then free to continue abusing her, as well as any other young girls in their path.

The state I'm currently living in considers 16 the age of consent, and between 14 and 16 there is a sliding scale in which the older person is at 24 to 36 months older than the young partner.

STATE
AGE
Alabama
16
Alaska
16
Arizona
18
Arkansas
16
California
18
Colorado
15
Connecticut
15
D.C.
16
Delaware
16
Florida
16/18 (bill pending)
Georgia
16
Hawaii
14
Idaho
14
Illinois
16/17
Indiana
16
Iowa
18
Kansas
16
Kentucky
16 - [1]
Louisiana
17
Maine
16
Maryland
16
Massachusetts
16/18
Michigan
16
Minnesota
16
Mississippi
16 - [2]
Missouri
17
Montana
16
Nebraska
16
Nevada
16
New Hampshire
16/18
New Jersey
16/18
New Mexico
17
New York
17
North Carolina
16
North Dakota
18
Ohio
16
Oklahoma
16
Oregon
18
Pennsylvania
16
Rhode Island
16
South Carolina
14/16
South Dakota
16
Tennessee
18
Texas
17
Utah
16/18
Vermont
16
Virginia
15
Washington
16
West Virginia
16
Wisconsin
18
Wyoming
16
Puerto Rico
18

FOOTNOTES:
[1]Age 16 if the man is 21 or older.
[2]If the female is over 12, the status applies only to virgins.

Thanks MK

"[2]If the female is over 12, the status applies only to virgins"

curious

First of all what the heck "the status applies only to virgins" Can non-virgins not be victims of statutory rape? If that's what the law is saying, it's pretty messed up.

Jill/Jenny- I know that as a teenager it's hard to see that 15-23 is a very large age difference, but it is. My husband is about 23 and the thought of him being with a freshman in highschool is more than distubing. A 23 year old man is at a far different place in his life than someone just beginning highschool. If you are in this type of relationship I urdge you to really look at the type of man you're with. I'm sorry, I know that I hated it when people told me that I'd "understand when I was older", but age really changes perspective on this type of thing.

These type of men are predators.

WoW, That's messed up!

Valerie:

The only reason I knew what the age was in my state is b/c both of my parents are cops. I also didnt know that the federal government had a "suggestion" to the age. I always assumed the state was the only requirement.

MK: Thanks for the list. I cant believe some states actualy have *14* as the age to consent. That is just too messed up for words! A 14 year old doesnt have the mind mentality to decide something that big!

My parents didn't get married until my dad was 27 and my mom was 21 or so...and it's sooo gross to think that the year my dad GRADUATED from HIGH SCHOOL my mom was in 6TH GRADE and at the time wanted to be the flying nun.

*shudders*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America

This gives more details on the finer points and exceptions in many of the states...

Also:

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

And:

Section 2243. Sexual Abuse of a Minor or Ward

* Whoever, in the territorial jurisdiction of the Unites States or in a federal prison knowingly engages in a sexual act (or attempts to do so) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but not 16 years and is at least four years younger than the person so engaging.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/federal.htm

Hey Rae:

My dad is 64, and my mom is 49. He was drinking beer legally when she was crawling in diapers, lol. Imagine that *big* of an age difference.

Rae, things change a bit after college. While it is weird and creepy for a 23 year old to be with a 15 year old, it's not so weird for a 25 year old to be with 32 year old. The reason is because in the case of the 25/32 year old relationship, both memebers are adults. I think people undervalue how different adolesents are from adults in terms of maturity. Our minds work so differently at 15 than they do even at 20.

Older men know this. That's why it's so much worse for an older man to be with a young girl than a man of her age. The older man is almost certainly capitalizing on her youth.

Lauren,great point.

Thanks, Heather. I'm close enough to the situation (I graduated in 04) to remember how it felt to be 15 and *know* that a person *really* cared about you. I never believed it when people talked about men in their 20's preying on younger girls. I was nieve enough to believe that we were all just "mature". It really hits me where that innocence could have led. I'm just thankful that I had a mother who would never allow me to date a man more than 2 years older than me.

Jill/Jenny,
Any 23 year old who impregnates a 15 year old should be JUDGED.
A 15 year old is not a "woman". She is a teenager. Say it with me....TEEENNAAAGER. There are laws in place to protect minors. A fifteen year old is not allowed to get a driver's licence or go into a bar or liquor store and by alcohol. I bet in most states she wouldn't even be allowed to get her ears pierced or get a tattoo without parental consent. But these mills think it's ok to cover up statutory rape.

Maybe she has loving parents at home who would support her in any way they could if they knew her situation. A 23 year old could be her coach or teacher.

@Lauren: I know that's the case (the after college thing)...it still gives me the heebie-jeebies sometimes. XD

Hey, a little bit og Government trivia for everyone:

Does anyone know another age that the Federal Governement made a suggestion for age, even though the actual State had the final say so?

Rae: Haha Iknow what you mean. My grandparents have a 7 year age difference and it does me too!.

Midnite: Would that be drinking alcoholic beverages?

Both of my grandparents have a 6-7 year age difference. My late uncle was living with a woman in her 50's and he was in his late thirties...I always found that odd. *shrugs*

Yes Lauren you are correct!

If the state didnt change the legal alcholo consumption age to 21, they got no federal money for highways. Louisiana resisted this change for a couple of years but then their highways were going to he$l and back so they had to change it to get their federal funding. We have a *sneaky* Governement

Yep. It's kind of like telling your child "well you don't have to do this, but if you don't no dinner for you!"

That happened in South Dakota too, they held out for years because they made a LOT of money off Minnesota and Nebraska and North Dakota kids crossing the border on weekends to get smashed.

My mom told me that when I was younger. Her and her friends would drive to LA to buy a stock pile of alcohol, b/c they couldnt *legally* purchase it in Alabama. That made me laugh.

My mom has to drive 45 minutes to get to a liquor store. Dry county!

I used live in a dry city. I remember my mom driving around frantically trying to find a bottle of wine for some guests. She must have stopped at 4 places before someone explained that she had to go to a liquor store for *that*.

Even funnier, my husband had to become a member of a special "club" at our favorite steak house in order to have a beer with dinner.

While I appreciate not having liquor stores in the city, outlawing wine seems a bit silly.

Dude...can you even really get drunk off of wine?

Ok, that's a lie...you can...I got incredibly sleepy after a small glass of really cheap wine (and a small glass of Bailey's...)

It's been my experience that you get a headache long before you would ever get drunk.

Of course, my husband would disagree with this theory. He claims I could get drunk off of the alcohol in cough medicine! I think he's right, sometimes I feel a bit light headed after communion.

"Of course, my husband would disagree with this theory. He claims I could get drunk off of the alcohol in cough medicine! "

same for my wife, one glass of wine gets her loopy.

Rae, I absolutely cannot get drunk off of wine. I've drunk a beer pint glass of cheap wine and I got a bit warm, and that's it.

As for statutory rape, many factors go into it. There are some states where as little as two years can get someone labeled as a sex offender for life; that's not right. Planned Parenthood provides the opportunity for many girls and women to take care of their reproductive health; many clinics also offer services for males. Reducing all Planned Parenthood like this would be akin to reducing all of the pro-life group to those who call women walking into clinics whores.

Less, I believe life dynamics did a wide spread telephone interview with PP affiliates in CA. I remember something like 70 seperate instances of this policy. It seems like this might be company policy and not isolated instances.

Look at this story about a girl who was raped and Planned parenthood helped her cover it up--oops, I mean, "deal with it":.... on Planned Parenthood's own site...apparently it's a testimony they proudly share!

http://web.archive.org/web/20041022181955/http://www.ppgg.org/action/stories.asp?ID=15

"It Keeps Us Safe"

I was raped at 11, by my 17 year old boyfriend. I chose not to tell my parents because I didn't think their involvement would help, that was the right choice for me. Planned Parethood helped me deal with the aftermath of the rape allowing me to deal and cope as best as I could in my own way. I was 14 when I decided to start having sex, the day I made that choice I made an appointment to get birth control pills. I'm 17 now, I've been with my current boyfriend for about two years. During that time i've been HIV and STD tested four times. Right now I'm sitting in the waiting room while my boyfriend gets the results for his HIV test. We love each other so we're responsible and Planned Parenthood helps us to do that.
- name withheld -

Wow. Ok newsflash: Planned Parenthood

If an 11 year old girl is having sex...it's rape. Period.

"Planned Parenthood" preys like vulchers on young woman.

Ugh. I just thought about how young 11 really is. I have a 10 year old nephew and thinking about his maturity level made me do a double take. At 11 I was concerned about getting my period, not fending off rapist boyfriends. I don't think there's a single 11 year old in the world who is mature enough to handle being in a sexual relationship. Can you even imagine the firestorm that would result if a a school covered up this crime?

This is really disgusting.

I can imagine my 14 year old niece having sex. I still think of her as a child.

It certainly is disgusting.

You can listen to the conversations with planned parenthood (the Life Dynamics investigation that Lauren just mentioned) here

To view transcript while listening, click here.

Thank's Bethany!

Jasper, I've been to Planned Parenthood: that's always where I get my testing done, and should I ever need to have an abortion, that would be where I would go. They have done absolutely nothing but help me.

Bethany, some parents just don't help. Less than 16% of all rapes are reported each year due to the social stigma. Ever heard of the just world hypothesis? It refers to the believe of people that most victims have done something to "cause" their crime: a rape victim walking around in a skimpy skirt, for instance, is seen (erroniously) as partially to blame for the crime. Why would you report a crime if you're just going to get blamed for it?

Less, that's why we have mandatory reporters. Physicians are mandatory reporters! If an 11 year old girl walks into your office pregnant, 15 red flags should start waving.

I've gone to PP and had horrible care. While I don't doubt they offer acceptable care to some people, I hardly think they are such a shining beakon of excelence that we dare not think to question their policies.

"that's always where I get my testing done"

what testing?

Jasper, STD/HIV testing, and pregnancy testing should I need it. I prefer PP over my college's nurse's clinic for any female issues that may crop up, as the doctors there are wonderful. Frankly, she was far more professional and informative, as well as generally nicer, than my family ob/gyn.

Lauren, councelors, teachers, therapists, and doctors are mandatory reporters. But still, less than 16% of rapes are reported. I'd rather a girl not report a rape and get proper care, as she chooses it, than see a girl forced to report a rape and not get the care she deserves. Believe me, I'm all about punishing the rapists: but I know that if I had the choice between reporting a rape and not recieving care, and not reporting the case and recieving care, I'd choose the latter every single time.

Or they can give care to the girl & report the rape. I fail to see how reporting sexual abuse precludes care. If the parents will not be supportive of an 11 year old rape victim, perhaps the parents need to be investigated along with the rapist.

"Jasper, STD/HIV testing, and pregnancy testing should I need it. I prefer PP over my college's nurse's clinic for any female issues that may crop up, as the doctors there are wonderful. Frankly, she was far more professional and informative, as well as generally nicer, than my family ob/gyn"

If I were you, I go to my doctor, if I didn't like him/her, I'd find another one. I don't mean to preach, but you shouldn't be having sex unless you're married.

I listened to that clip Bethany, I wish Cameron would listen to it.

PP --yea, their really looking out for young girls...

Jasper, its none of your concern if I have premartial sex. It's not against my morals or my religious beliefs, and as I don't stick my nose into your sex life, please give me the same respect.

As its also cheaper for me to go to PP than it is my regular family doctor, and as STD tests show up on the insurance paperwork and I highly value my autonomy, it's simply easier for me to go to PP. The doctors are professional and much more pleasant, it's cheaper, and it allows me to keep my privacy. What more could I want?

Less -

"Jasper, STD/HIV testing, and pregnancy testing should I need it. I prefer PP over my college's nurse's clinic for any female issues that may crop up, "

I think it is safe to say that everyone here knows my opinion of PP. But, having been in college and having female issues at that time, I have to say that if it wasn't for the fact that my Dad still had insurance on me, I would have gone to PP instead of the college health center. (we called it the death center because you never actually got treated for anything there.)

When I went to the Death Center for my female issues, I was told it was an STD. ummm.. I was a virgin and had never had any contact with anything that would have caused an STD. They wouldn't believe me! When I went to my Mom's Dr, the problems were due to stress, low iron and problems with hormones. Vitamins, proper diet and more exercise was the answer to relieve the symptoms. But the college death center wanted me to go through painful testing because it just had to be an STD. ugg....

I completely understand your position!

Well, to be fair, the nurse at our school is fairly competent. She treats us well and gives out medications when needed, and from what I hear the campus doctor is also pretty great. I've not heard about the ob/gyn, but the doctor at PP was so great that I doubt I'd go on campus anyway. She was very causual, joking around with me and making me relaxed. It was so much better than the sterility and impersonalness of what I've seen to be the usual ob/gyn experience: I've been to quite a few due to insurance changes, and haven't liked any of them.

I was raped at 11, by my 17 year old boyfriend.

Not only should the rapist be punished, but also the responsible adult who let this child be in such a situation.

SamanthaT

Could this girl's sexual activity at 14y/o hve been the result of her being raped at 11y/o? Did it occur to anyone at Planned Parenthood that this girl needed some kind of help to cope with this assault? What was a family situation that permitted an 11y/o girl to have a 17y/o boyfriend? Did PP have any concerns about this at all?
With their pills and their silence, PP allowed the sexual abuse of this girl to continue. It sounds like she's had multiple partners and has been exposed to multiple diseases. But PP made certain she didn't become pregnant and has enabled her to be "responsible". What a truly wonderful organization.

Also, one of the diseases she is continually exposed to, HIV/AIDS, could be fatal. We have seen over the years that AIDS victims can endure great suffering before dying as well.

Mary -

Planned Parenthood only cares about their pocket book.

Who cares if someone actually needs more help than the usual. They just test for STD's and throw BC at the problem. They want promiscuity among the teens. They get more money that way. And when the girl gets pregnant send her to the abortionist if that is her 'choice' or send her away to a "referal" if it is her "choice" to have the baby. Either way, they don't have to deal with it and they get money.

Planned Parenthood has so much money from donations and government, it amazes me that they haven't started a program like Project Gabrial or Project Rachel. But that would mean they truely cared about women and their health.

You're right Valerie, what better way to prove how truly "pro-choice" they are than to start services like Project Rachel or Gabriel. Its not like they don't have the money.

Jasper, I've been to Planned Parenthood: that's always where I get my testing done, and should I ever need to have an abortion, that would be where I would go. They have done absolutely nothing but help me.

Congratulations Less, you fell into their trap.
You need to follow-up on a past abortion worker (Search under "Meet the abortionists") who's testimony acknowledges their clinic sells very low dose b/c pills knowing their customers will eventually come back pregnant and ask for an abortion. It is purely for profit. Don't you feel used?????
Sandy

Sandy, I don't get my BC there. As my BC is a brand name, however, and it is not low dose, I would not be incredibly concerned if I did have to get my birth control there.

As you're the one making the allegations, you provide the proof. Unless you can provide evidence of your allegations, however, I'm going to believe my own experiences.

You also have to remember that Projects Gabriel and Rachel are both religious oriented. That's why Planned Parenthood doesn't refer to them, and why such an organization does not exist within Planned Parenthood itself.

They just test for STD's and throw BC at the problem. And when the girl gets pregnant send her to the abortionist if that is her 'choice' or send her away to a "referal" if it is her "choice" to have the baby. Either way, they don't have to deal with it and they get money.

That's what most family doctors/general practicioners do. They test a girl for STDs, give her BC if she wants it. If she tests positive for pregnancy, they refer her to either an abortion clinic or an ob for care. Do they do it solely for the money?

Hi Less,

please read the info on this site. It is from former clinic workers ....... http://www.prolifeaction.org/providers/appleton.htm

Although some of the conversions are religious, the person who started this group is a psychiatrist. Very interesting reading ...........

John, she never provides proof of her allegations. Never once does it link to actual statistics, a study, any sort of empiracal proof. Planned Parenthood, from what I understand, is required to give the full box of pills, should they give them out at all: these boxes contain all the information that the woman needs. If the woman doesn't read the information she's given, that's not the doctor's fault. My OB/GYN gave me the box and told me to read the instructions, and that was it: and this was an OB/GYN not affiliated with PP.

right Less,

the woman who had been head-nurse for years at an abortion clinic needs a pile of stats to tell us what went on there ... she was not a student doing a research paper ... your concept of 'proof' needs a bit of revamp.

Next time you have an interview for a job ask the interviewer that you require proof that you will be paid. I think I can guarantee that you will still be unemployed.

John, for all I know she could be making the entire story up, exaggerating claims, or simply not telling the whole truth. I am extraordinarily distrustful of stories such as this unless proof can be provided.

"John, for all I know she could be making the entire story up, exaggerating claims, or simply not telling the whole truth. I am extraordinarily distrustful of stories such as this unless proof can be provided."

....Yet you trust wholeheartedly the erroneous claims that Crisis centers lie and deceive and are violent to women, with absolutely no proof provided....

Bethany, I've done research on crisis centers: they do tend to give out false information, from what I've seen. I highly, highly, doubt that they are violent to women, however: I have never seen proof of that.

Bethany, I've done research on crisis centers: they do tend to give out false information, from what I've seen.

Yes, I remember. You told me about the supposedly false information, and when we looked at it, the information was valid from a scientific viewpoint, and were verified with many, many objective studies. You never gave us proof otherwise. Only your opinion. We asked you to back up your claims but you could not. I should go back and find that thread so we could continue our discussion about it, since you disappeared for a while afterwards.

Its also been established that most crisis centers put forward the unestablished claim that abortion causes breast cancer as a fact. In reality, this is under investigation, and the it seems to be that it isn't the abortion that causes breast cancer. Yet the clinics put this forward as a fact.

Jill herself has said she would lie to keep a woman from having an abortion: I find this repugnant. It seems as though the clinics would do the same.

Less, that's ridiculous.

27 out of 35 studies published since 1957 have linked abortion with breast cancer.

"There is a great deal at stake here. When the public learns that the causal link between abortion and breast cancer has been downplayed by the scientific community- for reasons that are idealogical rather than factual -- the feeling of betrayal will be strong."

-- Edward J. Furton M.A., Ph.D. (Editor: Ethics and Medics, The Corruption of Science by Ideology Dec. 2004; vol. 29/12)

Worldwide studies confirming the link...

Abstracts are available from the National Library of Medicine, an online medical
research service.

M. Segi, et al "An Epidemiological Study on Cancer in Japan", GANN, Vol. 48, Supplement: April, 1957

Pike et al (1981)Br Journal of Cancer 43 Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women

Nishiyama (1982) Shikoku Ichi 38:333-43 (in Japanese)

Laing et al (1993) J National Med Assoc. 85:931-9 Breast cancer risk factors in African - American women: the Howard University Tumor Registry experience.

Laing et al (1994) Genetic Epidemiology 11:A300 Bu et al. (1995) Am J Epidemiol 141:S85

Brinton et al. (1983) Br. Journal of Cancer 447:757-6 Reproductive factors in the etiology of breast cancer.

Rosenburg et al. (1983) Am J Epidemiology 127:981-9 Breast cancer in relation to the occurrence and time of induced and spontaneous abortion.

Marcus et al. Am J Public Health 1999 Aug; 89(8): 1244-7 Adolescent reproductive events and subsequent breast cancer risk.

Palmer et al. (1997) Cancer Causes Control 8:841-9 Induced and spontaneous abortion in relation to risk of breast cancer.

Lazovich et al. Epidemiology 2000 Jan;11(1):76-80 Induced abortion and breast cancer risk.

Daling et al. Am J Epidemiol 1996 Aug 15;144(4):373-80 Risk of breast cancer among white women following induced abortion.

Daling et al. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994 Nov 2;86(21):1584-92 Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion.

Laing et al. J Natl Med Assoc 1993 Dec;85(12):931-9 Breast cancer risk factors in African-American women: the Howard University Tumor Registry experience.

White et al. (1997) J Natl Med Assoc 86:505-14 Breast cancer among young US women in relation to oral contraceptive use.

Newcomb et al. (1996) JAMA 275:283-7
Pregnancy termination in relation to risk of breast cancer.

Howe et al Int J Epidemiol 1989 Jun;18(2):300-4 Early abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40.

Rohan et al. Am J Epidemiol 1988 Sep;128(3):478-89 A population-based case-control study of diet and breast cancer
in Australia.

Andrieu et al. Br J Cancer 1995 Sep;72(3):744-51 Familial risk, abortion and their interactive effect on the risk of breast
cancer - a combined analysis of six case-control studies.

Hirohata et al. (1985) Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 69:187-90 Occurrence of breast cancer in relation to diet and reproductive history: a case-control study in Fukuoka, Japan.

Ewertz & Duffy (1988) Br J Cancer 68:99-104
Risk of breast cancer in relation to reproductive factors in Denmark.

Lipworth et al. (1995) Int J Cancer 61:181-4
Abortion and the risk of breast cancer: a case-control study in Greece.

Rookus & Van Leeuwan J Natl Cancer Inst 88:1759-64 Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall)
bias in a Dutch case-control study.

Talamini et al. (1996) Eur J Cancer 32A:303-10 The role of reproductive and menstrual factors in cancer of the breast before and after menopause.

Watanabe & Hirayama (1968) Nippon Rinsho 26:1853-9 (in Japanese, no abstract available)

Dvoirin & Medvedev (1978) Meth Prog Breast Cancer Epidemiol Res, Tallin 1978. USSR Acad Sci pp 53-63 (in Russian)

Le et al. (1984) British J Cancer 72:744-51

Luporsi (1988) British J Cancer 72:744-51

Wu et al. (1996) Br J Cancer 73:680-6

Bethany, you seem to forget that abortion does not cause breast cancer: it is linked to it for the reason that having children decreases your risk.

As early as 1957, Segi et al noted that women who had induced abortions had at least a two-fold risk in their rate of breast cancer [148]. In 1981, Pike et al published their notable work showing that young women (under age 32) who had experienced an abortion before their first live birth had a 140% increased risk of breast cancer. A number of studies followed but finally in 1994, Daling et al [103] published a large study which noted that women who had an abortion before first birth suffered a 40% increased risk, and that this increased to 150% if the abortion was before age 18.

Finally, in 1996, in what is openly regarded as the most meticulously comprehensive meta-analysis (i.e. a synthesis of all the major studies done in a particular field concluding in an overall risk for the pooled studies) of all the abortion/breast cancer research articles ever done, Brind et al [98] found that women who had an abortion before their first term child had a 50% increased of developing breast cancer while women who had an abortion after their first child sustained a 30% increased risk.

148 Segi M, et al. An epidemiological study on cancer in Japan. GANN. 1957; 48:1-63.

103 Daling J, Malone K, et al. Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. JNCI. 1994; 86:1584-1592.

98 Brind J, Chinchilli M, et al. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J. Epi. and Comm. Health. 10/ 1996; 50:481-496.

Two women that I knew are deceased from breast cancer. They both had abortions.

Correlation, Bethany, does not equal casuation. There is a correlation, this is not denied. The fact that abortion is correlated with an increase in breast cancer, however, does not necessarily mean that abortion causes breast cancer. Have there ever been similar studies done showing correlation between miscarriage and breast cancer? I'm willing to bet they would show the same results.

Less, by whom is it not denied?

From Planned Parenthood's site:

" Anti-Choice Claims About Abortion and Breast Cancer

Studies have shown that abortion is not associated with breast cancer. Undaunted by the absence of compelling evidence, anti-choice extremists insist on making the connection anyway. Once more they are using misinformation as a weapon in their campaign against safe, legal abortion."

Sounds like they're denying there is ANY correlation whatsoever, Less.

Have there ever been similar studies done showing correlation between miscarriage and breast cancer? I'm willing to bet they would show the same results.

Do miscarriages carry the same risk as induced abortion?

Women whose pregnancies end in miscarriage usually do not experience the same increase in estradiol and progesterone (the female sexual hormones) levels that a healthy pregnancy would result in. Therefore, when a woman experiences a miscarriage, there is a less dramatic shift in hormone levels and less of a "hormonal blow" to the breast. Studies have shown that miscarriages, in general, have less of a risk than induced abortions, however, several studies show that miscarriages before a full term birth may still carry a significant risk, e.g. Pike [138]: 140% increased risk; Brinton [101]: 90% increase; Hadjimichael [107]: 250% increase; Ewertz [106]: 163% increase; and Rookus [141]: 40% increase.

So see, if it is proven that miscarriages increase the risk, why is it so difficult to believe that an abortion would increase it as well? Why the adamant denial?

Bethany, I've never denied that there is a correlation. As miscarriages also carry a risk, I'd see no reason why abortions would also carry a risk. By proving that miscarriages also carry a risk, however, we have determined that it isn't necessarily the abortion that causes the increased risk, simply the termination of the pregnancy, just as with miscarriages.

Frankly, I'd rather take the chance and make sure to have monthly breast exams than have a child or endure a pregnancy.

Okay so your point is that I'm right?- that there is indeed an increased risk with abortion- but that you simply disagree it's a big enough deal to be concerned with. Right?

You were the one making the claim that crisis centers "lie" about the link of abortion and breast cancer...my point was, they don't. So there you go.

Actually, Bethany, given PP's use of the word "associated" it sounds like they are denying a causal connection, since generally in statistical science "X is associated with an increased risk of Y" means "greater risk of Y caused by X". When the the EPA says "there is an association between second hand smoke exposure and lung cancer" you think they're just pointing to a correlation? No. They're claiming a causal connection (based on bad science, I might add).

I'm curious, though, what the comparison class is for increased risk with the studies you're citing. Given your theory, that is, that woman who do experience certain levels of hormones that are associated with full term pregnancies are at a higher risk, it would sound like this is a risk not just for woman who miscarry but also for those who never become pregnant. So, the increased risk, if compared with woman who have had children, would make sense if the theory is correct. But to show that *abortion* causes breast cancer, especially given your theory, it seems like you would need to show an increased risk in comparison to a control group of woman who have never been pregnant.

Okay. My bad. I see from your last post, Bethany, that you're not claiming that the risk from elective abortion is any greater than the risk from spontaneous abortion. Sorry. Ignore the last paragraph of my last post.

Do crisis centers mention that miscarriages also are involved with an increased risk, or that these studies have not been compared to women who have never been pregnant? If not, than these centers are not giving women the information they deserve, and are lying by omission.

Diana, the claim is that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Abortion DOES increase the risk, according to 27 out of 35 studies worldwide. Stating that is so is not "lying".

Okay, I answered you before you wrote the amendment. :) Understood.

Do crisis centers mention that miscarriages also are involved with an increased risk, or that these studies have not been compared to women who have never been pregnant? If not, than these centers are not giving women the information they deserve, and are lying by omission.

What purpose would it serve? The women aren't going in because they are worried they're about to miscarry. They're going in because they are considering abortion. The point is to shed light on every aspect of abortion, adoption, and parenting -all their options. If a woman came in and asked questions about the risks of miscarriage, and the pregnancy center was informed on the subject, they would let them know that yes, miscarriage does increase your risk. Leaving it out is no more lying than it would be to leave out the fact that your race can be a factor in breast cancer.

By stating that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, the implication is that the proceedure does something to increase your risk. By stating that abortion as well as other early terminations of pregnancy increase your risk, you're making the woman aware that it isn't the proceedure, its the action of a pregnancy not continuing to term.

The former is lying by omission because it does not give the woman all the information, something that the crises centers swear up and down that they do. It simply furthers the center's own agenda and increases their bias.

By stating that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, the implication is that the proceedure does something to increase your risk.

And .... guess what? It does!

By stating that abortion as well as other early terminations of pregnancy increase your risk, you're making the woman aware that it isn't the proceedure, its the action of a pregnancy not continuing to term.

And thus, abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.

The former is lying by omission because it does not give the woman all the information, something that the crises centers swear up and down that they do. It simply furthers the center's own agenda and increases their bias.

They give all the information that is relevant, Less. Do the women come to a crisis center be educated about every single risk of breast cancer in the entire world, or was the point of their trip to find out more information about abortion? Breast cancer is one of the risks associated with abortion.

Hi Less ... May 11, 2007 08:19 PM,

I'm kind of a stickler for words ... because they reveal stuff about a person. You said something to Jasper some time ago ...

"Jasper, I've been to Planned Parenthood: that's always where I get my testing done, and should I ever need to have an abortion, that would be where I would go. They have done absolutely nothing but help me."

this is a very strange attitude ... because 'need' eliminates choice. Opposite actually to what a 'choice' is - a wanting. So, if you are pro-choice you do not 'need' an abortion you 'want' one. Sorry, but you cannot willy-nilly shift from OK-status to victim-hood on your own. Or, has PP (with feminist backing) said YOU have the ability to be simultaneously in-complete-control and a-victim too.

Maybe, I wish to know too much ..............

Bethany, you're missing the point. By associating breast cancer only with abortion, you are reducing the risk to only abortion: if you say that miscarriage also increases the risk, you are giving all the risk factors. It is relevant: by associating breast cancer only with abortion, you're inflating the seriousness of the claim.

John, I made my choice before becoming sexually active: I did not go down that path without being educated about my choices, and I came to the conclusion that should I become pregnant, I would seek an abortion.

Hi again Less,

I have little doubt about what you will do. If you would help me to understand how you make the transition from being in-charge (a pro-choicer) to being not responsible for this choice ... to one in-need. Is this a fabrication of your self-image?

I think this 'transition' occurs much too often, not just with you Less.

I don't think that its being in a state of need: I am in charge of my own decisions, in this case, the decision to have an abortion. This is a choice that I have already made, due to my personality and my intense dislike of the condition of being pregnant.

I read recently that black women are dying in greater and disproportionate numbers from breast cancer than are white women. Black women also have a higher induced abortion rate as opposed to white women. You can draw your own conclusions.
If there's even a reason to be concerned about a connection between abortion and breast cancer, don't women have a right to know? We certainly hear about every other possible cause of cancer.
One more thing. If the studies and evidence suggesting a connection between breast cancer and abortion instead showed a connection between breast implants and breast cancer, the feminist and media response would be entirely different, I promise you. A few years back, feminists and the media went ballistic over a lot less evidence against breast implants. While feminists have howled about women controlling their bodies, they have never been fond of women making the choice to have implants inserted.

Jill wants to stop pedophiles?
Why doesn't she work to shut down the Catholic Church?
If 5000 documented pedophiles responsible for victimizing over 30,000 children in the US alone doesn't move you, then make sure you see "Deliver Us From Evil." The 2006 Oscar-nominated story is about one victim who confronts his former priest/abuser in Ireland where the perv fled to escape prosecution. Good 'ol Father Oliver O'Grady was moved from diocese to diocese in the 1970's by the Catholic hierarchy every time he was caught raping children.
Now THERE'S an institution that needs to be shut down - especially if you hate pedophiles and those that aid and abet them!

Laura,

Be careful when you speak of the church, the bride of Jesus Christ.

Christ defines who is in the church and who is not.

If a pedophile uses the church as a cover to be able to practice perversion then that person is not a member of the church for his actions disqualify him from membership apart from confession, repentance and restitution.

Same goes for an abortionist or one who practices, support or has an abortion. To do so without confession, repentance and restitution disqualifies one from entering the kingdom.

The Lord says, "Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will ener the kingdon of heaven but those that do the will of my Father in Heaven."

Pedophilia and abortion, as well as extramarital sex, homosexuality, etc., are not the Father's will, so any that practice such lawless deeds without repentance will not go to heaven.

HisMan, the Bible never says anything about pedophilia or abortion: how would you know that they are not the "Father's" will?

HisMan, neither pedophilia or abortion are specifically mentioned in the Bible. How would you know that they are against the "Father's" will?

Ah Less,

We're back to the midget argument. The bible doesn't specifically mention that you shouldn't kill midgets, but most of know that it's probably not a good thing to do.

Some things are just left to common sense.

So are you saying that since the bible doesn't specifically mention anything forbidding pedophelia, it should be allowed?

Again with the non-christians using a book they don't believe in to prove that those who believe in it are wrong...I don't get it. Again.

HisMan, neither pedophilia or abortion are specifically mentioned in the Bible. How would you know that they are against the "Father's" will?

LOL I'm rolling here. :-D The extent that people like Less will go to....

Jill wants to stop pedophiles?
Why doesn't she work to shut down the Catholic Church?
If 5000 documented pedophiles responsible for victimizing over 30,000 children in the US alone doesn't move you, then make sure you see "Deliver Us From Evil." The 2006 Oscar-nominated story is about one victim who confronts his former priest/abuser in Ireland where the perv fled to escape prosecution. Good 'ol Father Oliver O'Grady was moved from diocese to diocese in the 1970's by the Catholic hierarchy every time he was caught raping children.
Now THERE'S an institution that needs to be shut down - especially if you hate pedophiles and those that aid and abet them!

Laura, would you be interested in shutting down the public school system too?

Bethany, you're missing the point. By associating breast cancer only with abortion, you are reducing the risk to only abortion: if you say that miscarriage also increases the risk, you are giving all the risk factors. It is relevant: by associating breast cancer only with abortion, you're inflating the seriousness of the claim.

No, I didn't miss the point, Less. It's completely irrelevent. There are many different causes for the different types of cancer...but having to mention each and every one of them just because you know of one cause, is ridiculous.

BTW, You still have yet to prove that crisis centers purposely lie to women.

Lie:

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

Bethany, Happy mother's day !!!!!!

Less, thou shalt not kill is in the bible. That covers abortion. I'm pretty sure that most people believe that pedoplillia is a sin. It isn't a natural affection. If you have a 66 year old man, that wants to have sex with a 12 year old girl or boy, is that acceptable to you? If yes, why?

HAPPY MOTHERS DAY ALL!

Heather, you're right, and the Bible verses about not having natural affection are here:
Romans 1:31; 2 Timothy 3:2

Plus, I am reminded of a verse about putting a stumbling block in the way of a child:

Luke 17:

1Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

2It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Sounds like the price for hurting a little one in any way is pretty high to me.

this is a very strange attitude ... because 'need' eliminates choice. Opposite actually to what a 'choice' is - a wanting. So, if you are pro-choice you do not 'need' an abortion you 'want' one. Sorry, but you cannot willy-nilly shift from OK-status to victim-hood on your own. Or, has PP (with feminist backing) said YOU have the ability to be simultaneously in-complete-control and a-victim too.

GREAT point, John!!

John, Excellent point!

MK, the Bible does, however, say that you shouldn't go around killing people. I do believe that covers killing midgits. But pedophillia is never mentioned. I'm not encouraging it, I loathe it, but if you're going to use the Bible to prove your points, accept that it doesn't cover everything. I think that the Bible is, on the whole, quite a loathesome document to consider holy.

Bethany, omitting the other risk factors for breast cancer and mentioning only abortion is accentuating the risk in a needless way. That's as simple as it gets, and if you still do not understand it, well, I've tried.

Heather4Life, in Biblical times that sort of age gap was quite accepted: indeed, that was fine up until the 1900s. I don't think its right, but if you're talking about God's word, he doesn't say a thing against it.

Less, are you saying that if I was to tell someone that recent studies prove that artificial sweetners can cause cancer, then I would be lying to them, because I am failing to let them know that there are other causes for lymphoma and other cancers, such as exposure to pesticides?

Bethany, I'm saying that when a clinic says that abortion causes breast cancer, without giving out the information that miscarriage does, and that both do because they involve the early termination of pregnancy, the clinic is giving the impression that something about the procedure is going to cause the cancer. The clinic is being incredibly dishonest by not providing the woman with all the information.

clinic is giving the impression that something about the procedure is going to cause the cancer.

And guess what? Something about the procedure DOES increase the risk of breast cancer. (hint: the early termination of the pregnancy).

And no, no, no, Less. No one is saying that the actual process by which the abortion is performed is what causes the cancer (that I'm aware of). There are many dreadful things that happen as a result of the Dilation and Curettage procedure... you know, like perforation of the uterus, sterility, subsequent premature labor, subsequent miscarriage (which could increase risk of breast cancer even more), etc.... Believe me, Pregnancy centers are more than knowledgeable in these risks as well, and make sure that the woman knows all the risks before making her informed choice.

Bethany, by exaggerating the risks of abortion the crises centers are doing no service to the women who visit them. Do they ever speak about the women who feel nothing but relief after abortion? About the women who go on after abortion to be perfectly fine? Sure, they talk about Post Abortion Syndrom or whatever it is, but do they ever talk about the other side?

I'd call that biased.

Bethany, by exaggerating the risks of abortion the crises centers are doing no service to the women who visit them. Do they ever speak about the women who feel nothing but relief after abortion? About the women who go on after abortion to be perfectly fine? Sure, they talk about Post Abortion Syndrom or whatever it is, but do they ever talk about the other side?

Actually, Less, they do explain to women that many women will not feel these things (in fact, a phrase very similar to that is in my pregnancy crisis center manual), but that, however, a great number of women do feel terrible psychological pain after abortion. We don't claim ALL women do feel pain after abortion.

Your side denies women feel psychological pain after abortion, and claim that even if there is someone who is hurting, they're basically just hormonal (and that is demeaning and hurtful to those women who are in pain)....our side agrees that while most women feel regret, there are a number of women who do not feel regret for it.

Bethany, any statistics that show that "most" women experience regret? Of all the women I know who have had abortions (about ten) I know who has experienced any sort of regret. So I'd really like to see some statistics that prove otherwise.

I don't care what a woman feels after abortion, personally: what she feels is what she feels, and whatever support she can get for that, if needed, is great. Whether that's counseling or familial support , it doesn't matter to me. Just as it's her choice to get the abortion, it's her choice to get support afterward.

Sorry, that ought to read "of all the women I know who have had abortions, I know one who has experienced any sort of regret: that would be the girl who came onto this site and posted.

Less,

your testament to feeling no regret is testament to the societal dis-functioning now happening. During WW II the Nazi's did not operate in a total vacuum. They had plenty of strong supporters, who were very pleased with Jewish extermination efforts.

The Jews were caught in a mindset that dehumanized them. [They were not exterminated, all the Nazi's did was collect this 'garbage' at certain disposal centers.]

Is not this very type of dehumanizing now going on with children in the womb? [PP is a woman's friend/a gift.] Even though pregnancy is defined as being with-child ... you refer to the child as a fetus .. and call this 'the proper medical term'. And then you claim abortion does not kill a child but rids a woman of pregnancy. This is intellectual doublespeak if I've ever heard some ... formerly known as bs! [PP =/= an unborn child's friend.]

John, as you just Godwined I really shouldn't even bother answering your post.

I must point out, however, that being "with child" is a euphanism, not a definition:

preg·nan·cy
1. The condition of being pregnant: a test for pregnancy.
2. An instance of being pregnant: Her second pregnancy was easy.
3. The period during which one is pregnant: the first trimester of pregnancy.

It says nothing about being with child in this definition.

Since your definition is laced with "pregnant", let's define pregnant, shall we?

preg·nant1 /ˈprɛgnənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[preg-nuhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. having a child or other offspring developing in the body; with child or young, as a woman or female mammal.
2. fraught, filled, or abounding (usually fol. by with): a silence pregnant with suspense.
3. teeming or fertile; rich (often fol. by in): a mind pregnant in ideas.
4. full of meaning; highly significant: a pregnant utterance.
5. of great importance or potential; momentous: a pregnant moment in the history of the world.

preg·nant1 (prĕg'nənt) pronunciation
adj.

1. Carrying developing offspring within the body.

offspringoffspring - the immediate descendants of a person; "she was the mother of many offspring"; "he died without issue"
progeny, issue
baby - the youngest member of a group (not necessarily young); "the baby of the family"; "the baby of the Supreme Court"
by-blow, illegitimate, illegitimate child, love child, whoreson, bastard - the illegitimate offspring of unmarried parents
child, kid - a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age; "they had three children"; "they were able to send their kids to college"
eldest, firstborn - the offspring who came first in the order of birth
grandchild - a child of your son or daughter
relative, relation - a person related by blood or marriage; "police are searching for relatives of the deceased"; "he has distant relations back in New Jersey"
heir, successor - a person who inherits some title or office

John defined pregnancy as being "with child." This is not true, as per the definition provide. Frankly, it doesn't matter: using euphanisms to define the actual term is a personal pet peeve of mine, and I corrected him for that reason.

As previously stated, John Godwined. I frankly don't care about the rest of his post, as he made an extremely inappropriate reference. To me, making the claim that abortion is akin to the Holocaust is incredibly distateful, disrespectful and shows nothing but ignorance, and erases any point within the post.

Happy Mother's Day to all who will acknoledge that moterhhood requires a conception to birth committment.

Less, I can't even take your question seriously about whether pedophilia or abortion are biblically prohibited. Please, let's not insult the Lord.

Why not, HisMan? It isn't in the Biblical texts, I've checked. If you're going to use solely the bible as your law document, you really ought to follow it to the letter.

Hi Less,

never heard of Godwin's Law ... but you'd better read the entire article - especially as it refers to the use of a proper analogy. Be that as it may, the very same concept can apply to numerous genocides that have taken place in the 20th century ... from the Armenian slaughter, to Rwanda, to the Balkan 'ethnic cleansing' .... a euphemism if there ever was one. Maybe you can call abortion: 'womb cleansing'?

PS. You would help your English courses by getting a few more decent dictionaries and a good thesaurus too. A dictionary defining a word (and not how the word is used in speech)using the word itself is IMHO 'poor'.

John defined pregnancy as being "with child."

Hmm, Less... let's see now. Pregnancy is the state of being pregnant. Being pregnant means carrying a child in your womb. Can we put two and two together?

Bethany, I'm pcking at semantics because I had no desire to respond to the rest of his post.

John, comparing genocide to abortion is never appropriate: they are two very, very different things. Genocide is the government endorsed killing of a race or religion: a far cry from abortion. You obviously don't have a dictionary yourself, or you would know this.

Hi Less,

let's nit-pick together,eh? Genocide as you describe it: is the government endorsed killing of a race or religion". Is it not the practitioners or people of said culture or religion that are killed and not the race or religion that is targeted ... except perhaps the Falun Gong of China ... or would this be genocide, too?

gen·o·cide
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

There you go. Does abortion fit ANY of those qualifications? Are fetuses a race, a nation, a political group, or a cultural group? Nope? Than I'm afraid your comparison is flawed.

Excuse me...

The term "genocide" MIGHT apply if one expressed the idea of killing every fetus.
That MIGHT work if fetuses were people (they're not) and if anyone had expressed a desire to kill all of them (no one has.)

Ï just wonder ... is it the government involvement that is your hang-up. Hell, and I thought it was all those dead people.

Just wonder though .... maybe we should call abortion 'mass murder'. Do you think this suits better?

mur·der
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
3. A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock.

Let's se...does abortion require? Nope. Is it illegal? Nope. Is it a flock of crows? Nope. I have heard that abortion is vaguely uncomfortable, however, so I guess you could call it murder if you're particlarly prone to slang. Guess it's not murder, then, and you've tried to label it incorrectly again. Tsk tsk, John, get a dictionary.

That ought to read: "Let's see...does abortion require malice? Nope.

Are fetuses a race, a nation, a political group, or a cultural group?

Fetuses are an unrepresented minority, politically, and more likely to be black, racially. The number of terminated pregnancies in the US since 1973 could well populate a nation, and they belong to the cultural group of children whose mothers value uninhibited sex above human life.

And, Less, back to your comment about how only one woman you know has regretted her abortion; I find it incredibly hard to believe that a woman who felt any remorse for this procedure would confide in you about it.

Samantha, she posted on the site. She presented her story to the entire internet, thank you.

As abortion does not specifically target a race, religion, culture or political group, it is NOT genocide. You can twist the definition however you like, but the fact remains that you are relying upon emotional appeals for your argument. Not a good debate tactic, even if you could do it well.

Hi Less,

"gen·o·cide
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national .... group."

You asked if any criteria applied ... SoMG can give you some idea of abortion protocols ... if you need systematic; and extermination - is a polite word for death ... seems to be what abortions are specifically for ... kill the child ... [there have even been suites of faulty-life when abortion techniques have 'failed'.]

The definition does not specify any necessary cohesion for the word 'group'. I assume it could be a loose group as that described by a class-action. If such is the case then 'group' applies to aborted babies ... and the word 'genocide' is indeed appropriate.

John, you're stretching the definition to its limits. You're also missing the fact that the following adjectives qualify the use of the noun group:

national, racial, political, or cultural...

And that national is taken to mean residence of a specific nation. Women who choose to abort do not do so because they are American, because they are white/black/red/green, because they are liberal/conservative/communist, or because they belong to a culture. Fetuses are aborted because they invade bodily integrity.

Hi Less,

you specifically asked which words apply: The definition does have a list and uses the word 'or' instead of 'and' (which would mean 'inclusive'. You define national in a weird way ... the word I presume refers to a group of people within a set of borders and governed by a set of laws and specific currency ... etc. The definition of genocide that you gave does not include abortion. I debated with you whether this word is appropriate ... it is.

And by the way ... 'fetus' is a development term ... has to do with age, but the word is not species-specific. 'Child' is species-specific of the human species and is therefore, quite appropriate.

fe·tus
n. pl. fe·tus·es

1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

See the second definition, John.

As to national, American heritage dictionary defines it as:

Of, relating to, or belonging to a nation as an organized whole: a national anthem.

As we are not aborting fetuses due to their relation or belonging to a nation, that does not apply and genocide does not correctly describe the circumstances.

Less,

your definition did not say 'because of' ... national [as you read into this definition] but national ... meaning specific territory ... etc. The target is not the nation, but the group [and they just happen to live within a national structure.]

So a national class action ... seems appropriate to me.

Months ago I got into this same debate with Diana about the term 'fetus'. Indeed it is a medical term but it does not refer to any set species, except mammalian. So a pregnant horse, mouse, dog etc all have a fetus. So too do humans that are pregnant. But humans can also utilize language that is descriptive of the human species ... 'child' is one such word. [The medical term for a being post-birth is a 'neonate'. It usually refers to human infants.]

perhaps, refer to a medical dictionary too, for a more technical definition.

"Black Genocide?"

When did that happen?
American-born White and Asian women have been reproducing at less than replacement level for two generations.
African-Americans are second only to Hispanic Americans in birthrate, and Hispanics and African Americans are the only two demographics in America reproducing at rate exceeding the relacement level.
Where is this "genocide" going on? It seems that women who want babies have them, and women who don't want babies DON'T!
Name ONE demographic, or even ONE individual - who was ever forced to have an abortion.
Africn-American women CHOOSE to have abortions for the same reason every other woman does: because they want them, and are more than willing to pay good money for the privledge.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948 and came into effect in January 1951. It defines and outlaws genocide, as a result of campaigning by Raphael Lemkin who had coined the term some years earlier. All participating countries are required to prevent and punish actions of genocide in war and peacetime.. The total number of states who have ratified the convention is currently 137.

The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

The term "genocide" was coined because of Hitler. At the time abortion was not legal. This would explain why it was not included in the "national, ethnical, racial or religious" grouping.

When abortion is finally made illegal, and we look back in history, I'm sure it will be added.

A,B,C,D all fit.

The unborn are a specific group of individuals that are being targeted simply because they belong to said group. For no other reason. The fact that they are "in utero" is the only reason that they are targeted.

You'll notice in "C" it says" calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Much debate about genocides revolves around the proper definition of the word "genocide." The exclusion of social and political groups as targets of genocide in the CPPCG legal definition has been criticized by some historians and sociologists, for example M. Hassan Kakar in his book The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979-1982[11] argues that the international definition of genocide is too restricted [12], and that it should include political groups or any group so defined by the perpetrator and quotes Chalk and Jonassohn: "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by th