Poor Dominick's/Safeway.

Now they're going to be dragged into this mess when they absolutely just wanted another day in paradise. All because of some grassy space.

When can we start taking up the collection for land purchase?

When can we start taking up the collection for land purchase?

Yes! Let's buy it and put a CPC there! Talk about saves!

I really think that if everyone keeps on protesting, they will have some backlash from surrounding stores. I believe they will eventually be forced to close/move. It's always great to see protesters. I think the world of them.

I like the thought of buying the land and putting in a CPC there. Talk about really giving the women a choice! If that is what they really want than PP should have no problem if that's what happens...

city officials opened this PPPandora's box

Dang, Jill's so worked up about this that she stuttered.

Don't forget that out of Pandora's box there came hope.

It's too early!!

I've always felt that the PC side was filled with major "drama queens."

Dominicks is losing business bc people do not want to shop next to an abortion clinic. They don't want to be buying milk for their children knowing that unborn children are being killed next door.

I love how PP says we harass and intimidate employees. WHAT A LIE. No one when I'm there says anything to employees, and there haven't been very many clients. People sit across the street in the field and pray. WOW now that's harassment for you.

We were told by the police we weren't allowed to open and read our Bibles on PP's side of the street, and we are not allowed to pray on PP's side of the street. Sounds like "1984" to me.

Yesterday, I was out there praying (in the field) and a young girl walked in to PP swinging her rear at us (her way of showing us who's in charge I guess), came right out, got in her car, and whipped out of the parking lot. She got to the end of the access road and stopped her car in the middle of the street, flung her door opened, slammed in shut and litterly stompped over the the police officer and security guards and demanded to know why we were allowed to be there. Meanwhile, cars are backing up behind her (the police didn't make her move - hypocracy), and she is having a fit, bc we are praying. She didn't like the answer she got, stompped back to her car and sped off. Obviously, something is really bothering her if she gets that upset with people praying.

None of us said a word to her. Not one word. Our presence does make people uncomfortable because we are exposing the truth. And by the way pro-lifers have 1st and 14th Amendment Rights also. Pro-choicers aren't the only ones the Constitution protects.

Kelli: I've always felt that the PC side was filled with major "drama queens."

I'd say "filled" is out there in left field, but anyway - Pro-Choicers want women to keep the freedom they have in the matter.

Doug

Tara -

"And by the way pro-lifers have 1st and 14th Amendment Rights also. Pro-choicers aren't the only ones the Constitution protects."

This was such a good statement, I thought it needed to be repeated. ;-)

You can have free speach, as long as you agree with the liberal thought process. You can protest, as long as you are not protesting them. Pretty soon they are going to try to enact laws that you can only pray in a Church. And you will not be able to pray at home if it is in front of your children. I'm waiting for them to say that taking our children to Church is child abuse and make it illegal.

If this upsets them so, why don't they do to us what we do to them? They can protest at the local CPC.

And if Dominick's considers caving to PP's new demands, it should beforehand simply consider who gives it more business, people with children or people without children.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Childless couples - particularly childless gay couples - are the biggest boon to retail grocers.
While families buy mac-a-cheese and gallons of milk, childless people spend their extra disposible income on high-end, high-margin items like seafood, specialty meats, table wines and premium pet foods. Childless people also spend more money on high-margin items like name-brand toiletries, upscale single-serve frozen foods, prepared deli foods, bakery, and entertainment (Magazines, floral, alcohol, patio/barbeque, and paper service items...)
Big ugly truth?
Supermarkets make little or no money on gallons of milk, sacks of Pampers, or Lunchables.

Tara, loved your post! It's always so true. I was working with an attractive woman in her 50's. She and I began to talk about abortion, and she asked me my feelings on it. SHE brought up the topic. I told her that I felt it was murder. Look out! The gates of hell opened right there! She ripped me a new one while I just sat there in utter amazement. Turns out she'd had an abortion, and she was going to get a job at PP along with a NP pal of hers. This lady was an RN. Why was she so angry? Was her anger really directed at herself? So what if my opinion was different from hers? Makes one wonder.

Laura -

Why in your mind do you think that all childless people have money? I couldn't afford any of what you listed when I was childless. I am now able to afford the seafood, the premium dog food, wine etc.... Now that there is (was at least) 2 incomes.

Valerie, that is correct.

Lots of people with children go to Planned Parenthood for birth control, pelvic exams, breast exams, pregnancy tests, etc. Surely you don't think that only pro-lifers have kids, do you?

I'm a pro-choice parent and I get all my gynecological care from Planned Parenthood. Thanks to them, I've never had to have an abortion.

Hi Tara!!! Good to see you post!
Dominick's would be stupid not to let us protest there. I can't tell you how much business they are getting from us protesters! Theirs subs & chicken are great!!! (Not to mention all of the water, pop, ice, snacks, etc. we buy from them!)

BTW...I was watching CNN last night around 10:30...I walked past the TV & saw a commercial with a loving mother holding her child while a gray-haired loving nurse smiled upon them..I thought, "how nice" and then.....in LIGHT BLUE outlined letters w/ voice-over...Planned Parenthood, Happy to be in Aurora, and Happy to help (or care, I can't remember. I looked on youtube, but didn't see it there yet. Can anyone get a hold of this? It seems like their trying to change their image (thanks to their exposure of deception!) Especially going from hot pink to light (or "baby" blue).
I think I'm going to ship them 20 lbs. of salt...they must be running out after trying and trying to rub it in our wounds!

Tara and Laura K. God bless you both for protesting this clinic. If I lived closer, I'd be there too.

Tara and Laura K. God bless you both for protesting this clinic. If I lived closer, I'd be there too.

Posted by: Kelli at October 5, 2007 9:12 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gee, Heather-
They're lettin' you out of the house these days? UNSUPERVISED?

Fasting (in a Christian sense) often includes alms-giving. For example, if you give up fancy coffees or meals, you take that money you would have spent and give it towards the church or other charity.

With over 80 cities in 33 states fasting together, that would be a lot of alms to buy that land and build a CPC. Maybe David Bereit can spearhead that campaign, asking for donations from all the praying folks on the 40 days list? Maybe we can create a PayPal account! I know I would give as generously as possible to this cause.

If nothing else, we could buy the land and secure a place to pray, and maybe put a mobile CPC (ultrasound unit included) until we could build a proper CPC.

Jill, do you have a relationship with David Bereit? We do in Dallas. Do you think this might work?

Thank you Kelli!!! It is a blessing to be there!
At least you can pray wherever you are! There are sooooo many people to pray for these days!
God bless you also!!!

Valerie: Now that there is (was at least) 2 incomes.

Posted by: valerie at October 5, 2007 8:49 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah, but back when you were 2 incomes and childless, you were a retail grocer's dream.

BTW...I was watching CNN last night around 10:30...I walked past the TV & saw a commercial with a loving mother holding her child while a gray-haired loving nurse smiled upon them..I thought, "how nice" and then.....in LIGHT BLUE outlined letters w/ voice-over...Planned Parenthood, Happy to be in Aurora, and Happy to help (or care, I can't remember. I looked on youtube, but didn't see it there yet. Can anyone get a hold of this?

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/ppchicago.mov

'Yeah, but back when you were 2 incomes and childless, you were a retail grocer's dream.'

---------------------

No, you were a restaurant owner's dream!

Laura -

"Yeah, but back when you were 2 incomes and childless, you were a retail grocer's dream."

Nope. You see, when we were childless we had alot of debt. Couldn't afford anything. We worked our behinds off to pay off our debt before we had children. If we decided not to have children we would still be in debt as there would be no real motivation to pay it all off.

There are alot of parents out there that are like us. We've met them. You can't buy a decent house with bad credit or too much debt. Nor can you rent a decent apt/condo/townhome/house with bad credit or too much debt. Actually we have more money and better credit now that we have kids than we did before kids.

Doug, glad you liked my "PPPandora's box" line. Thought it was quite witty myself.

Jacque, yes, I've met David and anticipate seeing him in the next couple weeks. I'm sure we'll discuss this. As for the mobile cpc, that has been discussed but in my mind is premature. It would be premised by PP staying, which is way too early to conclude.

It would be premised by PP staying, which is way too early to conclude.

Your right. I'm definitely not conceding to PP staying AT ALL. But I know an extra CPC in that neighborhood would be a good thing. PP only sets up shop in minority neighborhoods with high pregnancy rates, so those ladies likely will still need help.

Jill,

I too liked the "PPPandora's box" line.

With any luck, maybe it'll become a new meme, along with the aforesaid (in another post of yours a while back) "The Wal-Mart of the Abortion Industry".

"It should also be noted that stupid, ballless ('scuse me) city officials opened this PPPandora's box"

Love it.

According to DuPage county records, Dominicks/Safeway pays over $240,000 a year in property taxes for that address. I wonder if PP really wants them to start sniffing around about how this place got zoned and built next door to their store?

Laura,
I'm always trying to cut our grocery budget. Could you send me your information on how much markup the grocery store gets for everything - I really wouldn't want to overpay.

They make a FORTUNE on diapers, BTW - it costs 33% more to buy a pack of Pampers at my local grocery store than it does at the local discount store, for example. Formula costs twice as much at the grocery store, often.

Have you taken into account how often DINKs (Double Income, No Kids) eat out and/or don't prepare their dinners at home?

Although I can see how Safeway must take quite a hit on all those free kid cookies to us breeders.

Fasting (in a Christian sense) often includes alms-giving

I posted last year about how to slash a grocery budget for a week to make room to give money to Crisis Pregnancy Centers during Advent (Under $30, feed 7 people). I'll be happy to email the link to anyone who wants it.

Laura,

Supermarkets make little or no money on gallons of milk, sacks of Pampers, or Lunchables.

Prove it.

And those "singles"? They're shopping at Trader Joes and Whole Foods...not Dominicks!

Re: Planned Parenthood commercial

When did they start doing pediatrics?

mk

Ahhh...the web of deceit gets more intricate!!!

tp
Thanks for the link, but it wouldn't open on my computer..

Laura wrote-
"Childless couples - particularly childless gay couples - are the biggest boon to retail grocers."

That is just too funny. Please don't ever leave, Laura. You are the entertainment factor, I look forward to your looney posts :)

posted last year about how to slash a grocery budget for a week to make room to give money to Crisis Pregnancy Centers during Advent (Under $30, feed 7 people). I'll be happy to email the link to anyone who wants it.

Milehi- I'd like that link...

Laura, have we met?

Laura, is that diet of yours making you cranky? Hey, I just pigged out on a cheesburger, fries and a piece of cake. I don't ever gain a pound.

planned parenthood = the WalMart of the abortion industry!! Love it and think that it is very appropriate.

I read that in an earlier post...that you were dieting and had a need to visit "fat suckers."

I posted last year about how to slash a grocery budget for a week to make room to give money to Crisis Pregnancy Centers during Advent (Under $30, feed 7 people). I'll be happy to email the link to anyone who wants it.

I want it. Although I only have myself, a dog and a cat to feed. :)

Laura, have we met?
-------------------------
Kelli,
which Laura..Laura K. or just Laura?

Laura.

I am aka Kelli. I thought I'd try a newbie screen name. Laura K. Nice to meet you.

Laura,

Childless and gay couples are the biggest boon to retail grocers?
Didn't these same people eat when they were single?

Mary, lol!

Kelli/Heather....nice to meet you, also! I should try a new screen name...don't want anyone confusing me with Laura!!! Got any ideas for a new name?

Laura K. I have done this before, but since someone busted me, I fessed up. Any name will do, and I know I'm not the only one here who has done it.

How about PL Laura? Since the other one is PC.

SOLD! I love it...Thanks!

Well, that was easy!

I lack in the "idea department" every now & then (especially on Friday!) I can't believe you came up with it so quick!

MK-

What a great question. Since when did PP start doing pediatrics?

Are they going to start offering prenatal care? That's women's reproductive health care!! Very important health care!

That's because they view unborn babies, as I was so duly told, as invaders and parasites. They leech off a woman's body. Wow, that explains it.

Why didn't they open this is downtown Naperville, Oakbrook, or Wheaton. Becasue they are affluent areas with smaller minortiy populations!!!!

For $30 you could buy like 300 packs of Ramen, that'll fix you for a while.

Tara,

Did you see their commercial yet?

What commercial? Can you share?

BTW...I was watching CNN last night around 10:30...I walked past the TV & saw a commercial with a loving mother holding her child while a gray-haired loving nurse smiled upon them..I thought, "how nice" and then.....in LIGHT BLUE outlined letters w/ voice-over...Planned Parenthood, Happy to be in Aurora, and Happy to help (or care, I can't remember. I looked on youtube, but didn't see it there yet. Can anyone get a hold of this? It seems like their trying to change their image (thanks to their exposure of deception!) Especially going from hot pink to light (or "baby" blue).
I think I'm going to ship them 20 lbs. of salt...they must be running out after trying and trying to rub it in our wounds!

--------
one of my earlier posts today...the commercial was quite delusional!!! Still can't find it yet on youtube!

PL Laura, sure they are! They have an obligation to act like they care about women and children. If the only thing that PP did was provide low cost health care to women, I wouldn't have a problem with them. However, abortion is not health care.

They ought to show some pictures of deceased children. The end product of an abortion. I wonder how many women would turn back.

Is PP able to care for the women during the whole pregnancy & deliver babies, too? What a deceitful commercial!!! Who on earth would go to PP instead of a licensed OBGYN!!!

I am SO GLAD that this mess in Aurora has exposed them for what they truly are & do! I LOVE to watch them squirm!!!

I predicted that the clinic wouldn't open. I was wrong, but I do think it's going to have some problems remaining opened. I can only hope so. How many abortion clinics do you people need? You are already killing 4000 children a day. 1.3 million a year. It's been legal for 34 years, and what has it solved?

It's been legal for 34 years, and what has it solved?

Heather, it's solved many an unwanted pregnancy. It's prevented untold abuse. It's enabled many women to have better lives, emotionally, financially, career-wise, etc.

Doug

Laura - Why in your mind do you think that all childless people have money?

Valerie, obviously there are billionaires who have kids, and there are paupers without kids.

Still, for most people it makes a heck of a difference.

Doug

Doug, glad you liked my "PPPandora's box" line. Thought it was quite witty myself.

Jill, I had to laugh, as with the "brouhoho" deal a while back. Keep up the good work.

Doug

Doug, I doubt that, but hello anyway.

Ahhh, hi heather! You feeling better now?

Supermarkets make little or no money on gallons of milk, sacks of Pampers, or Lunchables.

I would think the Pampers are a high-profit item. Usually, the basic food items are break-even or small profit while paper goods, etc., bring in the dough for the store.

Stuff like cleansers, beauty products and the like are good to get at a "dollar store" - same stuff just cheaper usually.

And then three of my co-workers and I went to Cheeseburger in Paradise and blew $600.00....

Doug

Kelli: Laura, is that diet of yours making you cranky? Hey, I just pigged out on a cheesburger, fries and a piece of cake. I don't ever gain a pound.

:: laughing :: Now that was a low blow.

Doug

Erin, hi! Ya, all better. But I never included you on my list when I was bein baaaad. We all have our bad days, but today I am refreshed. Also, I was sick with a bad cold that day. I hope you are doing well. Hope school is going okay for you.

Oh, it's fine, I was just worried. I figured something had to be wrong. I'm glad to see you back!

Doug, I know, but I just couldn't help myself. *evil grin* Chocolate milkshakes anyone? Apple pie?

Erin, thank you. My friend had an abortion last week. That made me quite sad, but I'm glad to hear hat a PCer actually missed me.

meant that

I'm really trying to work on more understanding when it comes to this issue. It's a topic that angers me, but I will try not to allow my temper to flare too much.

*evil grin* Chocolate milkshakes anyone? Apple pie?

Heather, how about a nice 96 oz. steak?

Yum.

Doug -

"Heather, it's solved many an unwanted pregnancy."

According to Guttmatcher and the CDC 40% of abortions done now are on women who have had one or more abortions. All it has done is enable irresponsible behavior with a quick fix for the consequence of that behavior. It gives people a false sense of security. I've read it on here a million times. Women know that sex causes pregnancy but they will do it anyway with full intentions of having an abortion if they get pregnant. Because of this false sense it has allowed STD's and STI's to skyrocket in numbers. It has allowed 9.1 million new STI's a year in people aged 15-24. And more than 18 million new STI's in people of reproductive age.

____________________________

"It's prevented untold abuse."

Prove it. The U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse estimates between 3.3 and 10 million children are exposed to domestic violence allually.

Here's some more stats for ya...

Studies show that child abuse occurs in 30-60% of family violence cases that involve families with children. ("The overlap between child maltreatment and woman battering." J.L. Edleson, Violence Against Women, February, 1999.)

From the National Studies for Children Exposed to Violence:

3,195,000 abused or neglected children were reported in 1997--a 41% increase since 1988.

In 1996 1,185 children died of abuse or neglect. 82% of the victims are under the age of five, 42% never reached their first birthday.

Every year, 3 to 10 million children witness domestic violence.

So......abortions numbers have stayed approx. the same according to Guttmatcher:

1974 - 898,600
1983 - 1,553,900
1990 - 1,608,600
1995 - 1,363,690
2000- 1,312,990

Yet child abuse continues. I just don't think abortion helps with abuse. oh - there are more women abused every year than there are children abused every year.Aaccording to a Guttmatcher 1998 study 51% of women indicated that relationship problems contributed to the decision to seek abortions. If this is the case, and abortion solves abuse; and relationship problems is a major factor in abuse then the numbers should be going down considering abortion is suppose to help prevent this.

I've also read about a study done at Southern California University around 1980 (?) that said 91% of abused children were wanted. I have no idea where I read that or if it is true, but thought I would throw that out there.

_________________________________

"It's enabled many women to have better lives, emotionally, financially, career-wise, etc."

The latest poll stated that women are more unhappier than men right now. (Saw that on TV the other night, I think ABC local news).

Also, how does "controlling" ones reproductive system help a career? There are day cares, insurance, 6 weeks paid leave and much more for working mothers. Also, how horrible would it be for someone to get an abortion to advance her career only to find out that her career is stagnant and isn't going to advance. What a horrible sense of security the thought that abortion will help advance a career or help in making you a success.

Why do we believe that woman have to be artifical sorrogates of men in order to be a success? We want equality - not to be "just like them". Why do we have to submit to being Eunucs to be happy and financially secure? Why do we have to consent to being "childless" in order to gain equality? How does our reproductive system have anything to do with the ability of women to be equal to men?

I don't know who said it first, but this is a true statement: Motherhood does not pose a threat to women's rights.

Here's that link.
The prices are a little off now that beef/milk dairy is up, but I think you could still do it $40 and under if you tried.

http://milehimama.blogspot.com/2006/11/twofer-works-for-me-wednesday-and.html

There are only 6 meals listed because one night is leftover night.

I'm really trying to work on more understanding when it comes to this issue. It's a topic that angers me, but I will try not to allow my temper to flare too much.

Posted by: heather at October 5, 2007 3:22 PM

It's hard, isn't it?

Just read this and wanted to share:
http://shovedtothem.blogspot.com/2007/09/pro-lifers-experience-with-ru-486.html

A prolife woman takes RU-486

The prices are a little off now that beef/milk dairy is up, but I think you could still do it $40 and under if you tried.

I don't eat beef or dairy, so I'll substitute tofu and soymilk and the price will still be pretty cheap.

carder, yes.

Doug, I'll take you up on that steak. You buyin? LOL!..mmmmmm!

Valerie,

An excellent post on child abuse. I'm old enough to remember the bumper stickers of almost 40 years ago that said "Stop child abuse, support abortion reform". That's like arguing we would stop wife abuse by killing engaged women.
Not only would abortion supposedly stop child abuse, which had tremendous emotional appeal, it would solve every other imaginable social problem that existed.
I can tell you over the years these problems have not disappeared, they've gotten worse.
When we still hear people arguing that abortion will solve this social problem or that, we can always ask why these problems even exist after almost 40 years of legal abortion.

Mary, they have gotten much worse. Excellent post!

Mary, now the bumper stickers read " ABORTION..THE ULTIMATE CHILD ABUSE!"

Heather,

Thank you. Now that you mention it, I have seen those more recent bumper stickers.

Hi Heather!
Glad to see you back in action! I have to go pretty quick here, but I missed you!
_______________________
Just read this and wanted to share:
http://shovedtothem.blogspot.com/2007/09/pro-lifers-experience-with-ru-486.html

A prolife woman takes RU-486

This story is so sad and it disgusts me but doesn't surprise me. How incredibly sad that some cold uncompassionate so called "doctor" would treat a family in such a way during their difficult loss. The PCers have hijacked pregnancy loss and this is just another group of women that have been thrown under the bus so PCers can continue to have their "choice"

Posted by: Milehimama at October 5, 2007 5:41 PM

Just read this and wanted to share:
http://shovedtothem.blogspot.com/2007/09/pro-lifers-experience-with-ru-486.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1) This woman was given RU-486 to expel an 18-week failed pregnancy?
2) She passed over 20 blood clots - some bigger than her fist? (That would be greater than the volume of her uterus.
3) The MAYBE 18-week dead fetus was "perfect" and the size of her hand?

This entire story sounds like hysterical fetus-fetish BS.
You people need to learn to lie better.

you people

Why Laura, that almost sounds like prejudice and bigotry!

you people

Why Laura, that almost sounds like prejudice and bigotry!

Posted by: Milehimama at October 6, 2007 8:40 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Referring to pro-lifers as "you people" is bigotted?
Wow. News to me.

Laura has raised some valid points here and they have me thinking. I have just read the article.
Why would this woman choose such a drawn out and emotionally trying method? A patient is bleeding this excessively and no one is doing anything or even particularly concerned?
Quite honestly, I would think a D&C would be the fastest, least traumatic, and easiest way to go. I've done several D&Cs at this point in pregnancy and patients do very well and are discharged the same day. In fact, I've never seen it done any other way, and certainly NEVER the way it was described in this article. I only saw one case of excessive bleeding with an 18 week D&C, and it was nothing like what was described in that article. We put the woman in intensive care overnight more as a precaution than because she was in any danger. She went home the next day.
I have seen patients postpone the D&C as long as possible, but this was usually because of denial. Usually patients do not want to go through the emotional trauma of labor and miscarriage, induced or natural, and one can hardly blame them. As far as I know, pitocin is the drug used for inducing an early labor in a more advanced pregnancy, not RU486.
If they did not go into labor or began spiking fevers, they went to surgery, period.
It is a very touching story folks, but I'm sorry to say, I'm beginning to smell a rat.

I am not a doctor, and also I do not personally know the blogger.
However, I found some links indicating that RU486 is used after fetal death: (IUFD)
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2203&page=174

It has also been tested as a drug to induce labor is postterm mothers.

An 18 week old baby in the womb is about 5 inches long.

The alternate procedure was a D&E, not a D&C - perhaps the family did not choose this method because they wished to hold/and or bury their baby. Again, this is just speculation, I don't know for sure.

Milehimama,

The procedure can be called D&C or D&E and varies from one facility to the next. Ours call it a D&C. This does generate a lot of confusion.
The article you point out is excellent. Thank you. I did not see though that RU486 is routinely used, there have only been clinical trials. Perhaps some hospitals are using it, but that is certainly news to me.
Pitocin remains our drug of choice, and we certainly do not see the bleeding this woman describes, which I find alarming. I don't see where RU486 would have any great advantage over pitocin. In fact, we use pitocin to control uterine bleeding. The amount of bleeding this woman experienced may well have necessitated emergency surgery.
Its possible that in her emotional state, the blood loss and other circumstances could be exaggerated.
She describes this as an horrific experience. I agree. I have not heard patients describe pitocin as horrific, though of course it was emotionally trying. I saw the delivery of a dead 5 month fetus with pitocin and there was limited blood loss. D&Cs were traumatic as well, especially for women trying so hard to become pregnant.
However horrific, she did make the choice to go this route. Was she advised of all the risks? She was told she could bleed to death at home if she decided not to stay in the hospital. Didn't this set off any alarm bells? You can bleed to death in the hospital too! She may have wanted to expel an intact fetus but would this be worth risking her life for, especially if she has other children? There's no guarantee the fetus would be intact or what size it would be. It may have been dead several days prior to her procedure and development may have slowed down or stopped before then as well. She could have undergone a D&C and spared herself this trauma, as well as reduce her risk, for whatever reason she chose not to. Fine. But as sympathetic as I am, the bleeding, drawn out procedure, and the trauma and fear it generated was the consequence of her decision. No route would have been perfect or simple.

Mary,
I do agree that there are several options, each with benefits and risks. But before we leap to judgement as to whether this was the best decision - let's remember that this woman had just found out her child was dead, and was alone. I do not know what access to information she may, or may not have had at that point, but not every hospital is *wonderful* at clearly explaining all of the risks and benefits, especially to a bereft mother.
I also do know that the risk of bleeding goes up with each delivery, especially if it has happened with past delivieries - this was her sixth child.

I've had bleeding problems with past children, and with my last delivery the nurse taped a tube of Cytotec to the bed to have on hand just in case!
It has been my personal, subjective experience that I had heavier bleeding, but for a shorter time, with each subsequent delivery.

Milehimama,

I am in no way unsympathetic. This woman undoubtedly made what she thought was the best decision. As I said, no route would have been perfect or simple. I have certainly seen second trimester D&C patients very traumtized and distraught.
We can't know for certain what risks if any were explained to this woman, but the hospital would certainly leave itself open to some serious legal action if it didn't cover all the bases.
Also, she was told she might bleed to death at home, which makes me think the hospital was trying to take every precaution and cover itself.
When people are bereft or distraught, they don't always make the best decisions. That may well have been the situation here. Also her emotional state could have added more trauma and distortion to what was going on with her.
She did deliver an intact child which may have been important to her and I hope this gave her comfort. The fact is there was no guarantee that she would and is this possiblity worth risking her life for? Again, a woman would have to make that decision.
What concerns me is the blood loss she suffered and the trauma and fear this generated. I would see an increased need for transfusion and possible emergency surgery. Thankfully she did well, but for another woman it could be fatal. Pitocin would seem so much safer and less traumatic and we've used it effectivly for years.

I haven't seen that women bleed more with each successive delivery, though of course this can vary from woman to woman. Its obviously been your experience, but it wasn't mine. Heavy bleeding is part of RU486 abortion and has been reported in early abortions. One woman nearly lost her blood volume and several required transfusions and hospitalization. I would wonder also if this woman was active in the pro-life movement and knew about some of the serious complications of RU486. Her concern for young girls being given this drug and sent home to abort is well founded, as seen with Holly Patterson.

Mary,
Here's some quick info on multipara's and PPH:
http://pregnancy.about.com/cs/postpartumrecover/a/pph.htm
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/uvahealth/peds_hrpregnant/postpart.cfm
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3568.htm

I think the reason has to do with uterine tonality, but I am not sure (again, I'm not a doctor) :)

"It's been legal for 34 years, and what has it solved?

Heather, it's solved many an unwanted pregnancy. It's prevented untold abuse. It's enabled many women to have better lives, emotionally, financially, career-wise, etc."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a crock. Here's the reality:
It's murdered over 50 million innocent children who were very wanted by childless couples waiting, wanting, and able to adopt.

It has enabled many women to have an increased risk of breast cancer, forced many more to undergo emergency hysterectomies to stop hemorrhaging and infection, killed many others.

Before her "safe & legal" abortion, Suzanne Logan rode horses in California. Afterwards, she was confined to a wheelchair, living in a nursing home for the short remainder of her life. Doesn't sound to me like an improved quality of life for her anymore than for her child. There are hundreds more stories of women (or their survivors) who found their actual abortion experiences to be a far cry from the "safe, simple" procedure they were misled by abortion profiteers to expect. For many of their stories, please see http://www.lifedynamics.com/Pro-life_Group/Pro-choice_Women/, www.realchoice.0catch.com, and www.afterabortion.org...for starters.

The degradation, trauma, grief and guilt it entails have made emotional basket cases out of many women who turn to substance abuse, very unsafe sex, and other self-destructive activities in efforts to avoid dealing with what they have done to their own children. Many of them have attempted suicide, and of those, many have actually killed themselves.

China is the only country in the world where the suicide rate is higher among women than among men. Typically, while women are more likely to attempt suicide, men are more likely to kill themselves. With women, it's more a bid for attention...usually. But in China, where women are punished just for being women and wanting to mother more than one child, subjected to forced abortion and sterilization, their suicide is higher than that of the men. The trauma, the violation, degradation, and danger forced upon them is too much for them to bear, and women in the U.S., where it is still somewhat elective, don't fare that much better. Abortion really is not pro-woman, and it is not pro-child. It is not pro-civilization, pro-humanity, or pro-anything else legitimate.

Some men commit suicide in the U.S., too, from the grief and guilt. They don't just grieve for their child, but for the loss/violation of their own manhood. I know of two men who both committed suicide in the space of one year. One was a student, the other a police officer in his mid-30s with two or three other children. Both these men left notes citing the overwhelming grief and guilt over not having protected their children from induced abortion as being the motivating force behind their suicides.

Undermining the sanctity of life, it has destroyed the quality of life for many other children who do get born; child (and other domestic) abuse has increased over 800% since Roe and school shootings, like Littleton, CO and VA Tech, were practically unheard of before 1973. These do not reflect an improved quality of life for anyone concerned; they do reflect the disrespect for life that the Supremes, by judicial fiat in Roe v. Wade and Doe v Bolton, encoded into "law."

Come off your little farm "where life is beautiful all the time" and face the truth...if you dare.

Great post, L'Chaim! :)

school shootings, like Littleton, CO and VA Tech, were practically unheard of before 1973.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Disco was practically unheard of before '73. Clearly disco causes school shootings.

Microwave ovens were practically unheard of before 1973. Microwave ovens cause school shootings.

I know of two men who both committed suicide in the space of one year. One was a student, the other a police officer in his mid-30s with two or three other children. Both these men left notes citing the overwhelming grief and guilt over not having protected their children from induced abortion as being the motivating force behind their suicides.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The last thing this country - and even those 3 children - needs is a mentally unbalanced, armed law enforcement officer.
We're lucky he took himself out before he decided to take somebody with him.

Disco and microwave ovens don't have the callous disregard (at best) for human life that school shootings and induced abortion have in common...As anyone who can solve one of those elementary school object association puzzles can figure out.

Maybe he didn't "decide" to take his child out; maybe that decision was made by the child's mother, and he felt castrated of his natural manly instincts to protect them both, as well as bereaved of his child. Or maybe he did decide to have the child taken out by his local babykiller, then later realized the gravity of what he had done...something you are too cowardly to admit. And it isn't as though you actually give a merry damn about people getting taken out; you support an organization that takes out over 225,000 innocent children a year, and then whines that they didn't kill enough, and plots ways to get at more.

No wonder you gloat over his suicide; at least he had the honesty to face what he had done. You're just a jealous, bloody cop-killer. And you can spare yourself the rant about Eric Rudolph. I don't agree with what he did, but at least he was trying to avenge/protect innocent life, something you don't even recognize. You may do OK by your emus, but the last thing this country, or anyone else, needs is a pseudo-intellectual, emotionally warped, delusional hate-monger like you having any input at all into any kind of human healthcare, especially reproductive.

Oh, and speaking of unhinged, the claim that induced abortion can be therapeutic for the "mother's mental health" is also a crock; the evidence since Roe shows that abortions submitted to by women with any history of mental illness/instability only exacerbate those problems rather than coming anywhere close to solving them.

Grow up.

If I were to miscarry (God forbid), I couldn't bring myself to have my child dismembered within me, which is what a D&C and D&E do. I would induce labor with drugs (which is what they used the RU486 for in this account) and give birth to my intact, although dead, baby, hold him or her, say goodbye and then give the child a proper burial.

My grandmother lost my aunt or uncle at 9 weeks. Mind you, this was the 1950's- the doctor removed the baby by fored dialation, forceps and scraping. To the day, my grandmother wishes she could have seen her baby. She talk about mourning someone you can't see and the pain that still causes her.

I think society is so used to going in and killing children and disposing of them like garbage that the thought of someone wanting to birth their dead baby rather than have her torn to pieces and shoved down a garbage disposal is a foreign idea.

There's nothing smelly at all about that story. It's all medically accurate. I think it's seems strange to some because it's obviously from the perspective of a woman that loved her child more than herself and chose the most dignified way to birth her baby. This completely escapes self-centered, pro-abortion women that are all "ME ME ME."

"Heather, it's solved many an unwanted pregnancy."

Valerie: According to Guttmatcher and the CDC 40% of abortions done now are on women who have had one or more abortions. All it has done is enable irresponsible behavior with a quick fix for the consequence of that behavior. It gives people a false sense of security. I've read it on here a million times. Women know that sex causes pregnancy but they will do it anyway with full intentions of having an abortion if they get pregnant. Because of this false sense it has allowed STD's and STI's to skyrocket in numbers. It has allowed 9.1 million new STI's a year in people aged 15-24. And more than 18 million new STI's in people of reproductive age.

Abortion being illegal would not mean that some women didn't have multiple abortions. "Irresponsible" is in your opinion, and it's not up to you where others are concerned. There is risk of diseases, sure, and that's a separate deal.
......

"It's prevented untold abuse."

Prove it. The U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse estimates between 3.3 and 10 million children are exposed to domestic violence allually.

It's obvious. The only way it would not be true is if among all the kids that would have resulted from abortion being illegal, none would have been abused. An impossibility, of course.

Doug

Doug, I'll take you up on that steak. You buyin? LOL!..mmmmmm!

Heather, I have to laugh - that was in 1984, when I was barely more than half my current age. Yes, I'll buy, and it'll be more than enough for the both of us.

You'd think it'd be a crappy piece of meat since they're risking giving it away for free - you had 90 minutes to eat it plus a salad and potato, but it was actually darn good.

Doug

Mary: I'm old enough to remember the bumper stickers of almost 40 years ago that said "Stop child abuse, support abortion reform". That's like arguing we would stop wife abuse by killing engaged women. Not only would abortion supposedly stop child abuse, which had tremendous emotional appeal, it would solve every other imaginable social problem that existed. I can tell you over the years these problems have not disappeared, they've gotten worse. When we still hear people arguing that abortion will solve this social problem or that, we can always ask why these problems even exist after almost 40 years of legal abortion.

Nope, Mary, nobody actually claimed that abuse would be "stopped" by having abortion be legal. It's obvious that as long as there are kids some will get abused. Reporting rates are much higher now, while the actual rates of abuse have declines - back in prior decades there was much that wasn't considered bad, that now is said to be abuse.

Doug

Doug,

Sorry, but that was one of the claims. Why do you think they had bumper stickers? You know what thefavorite argument for abortion was? "I can show you pictures of abused children that are just as horrible as any abortion picture". Even the late and influential columnist Ann Landers was a strong proponent of this fallacy. People believed it Doug, and it was an argument with strong emotional appeal. That's why it was used.
I also recall arguments of why abortion was "necessary" to reduce illegitimacy, ease the welfare rolls, and alleviate a myriad of social problems. Face it Doug, your predecessors were more interested in promoting an agenda, and would do it any way possible. People sincerely believed, and still do, that abortion will solve social problems.
According to your predecessors Doug, child abuse should be non-existent. For that matter, so should most social problems. Gee Doug, it looks like they lied.

Sorry, but that was one of the claims.

Again, Mary, the claim was not that legal abortion would eliminate all child abuse.
....

Why do you think they had bumper stickers?

What did they say?
......

You know what the favorite argument for abortion was? "I can show you pictures of abused children that are just as horrible as any abortion picture". Even the late and influential columnist Ann Landers was a strong proponent of this fallacy.

Why in the world do you say it's a "fallacy"? Good grief, I say better a thousand abortions than one case of what sometimes happens with kids.
......

People believed it Doug,

You gotta be kidding.
......

and it was an argument with strong emotional appeal. That's why it was used. I also recall arguments of why abortion was "necessary" to reduce illegitimacy, ease the welfare rolls, and alleviate a myriad of social problems. Face it Doug, your predecessors were more interested in promoting an agenda, and would do it any way possible. People sincerely believed, and still do, that abortion will solve social problems.

No, not "solve." That is your straw man argument. Legal abortion certainly does greatly reduce "illegitimacy," lessens the Welfare rolls, etc., but that is not saying there is any "cure for them, whether related to abortion or not. Sheesh.....
......

According to your predecessors Doug, child abuse should be non-existent. For that matter, so should most social problems. Gee Doug, it looks like they lied.

Baloney.

Doug

Doug,

Hogwash would best describe your argument.
Just face the unpleasant truth, will you.
I remember the era well. I remember when "abortion reform" was just talk, I remember the propaganda, lies, and emotional appeals. I remember the promises of an end to social problems. It only made sense didn't it? Unplanned and unwanted pregnancies being terminated would mean no child abuse, no welfare dependency, decreased illegitimacy, no babies born drug or alcohol addicted. Talk to any supporter of abortion and they would tell you how abortion was preferable to children being abused, how poor women would "benefit", i.e. they'd quit producing welfare babies, and how young women would no longer be saddled with illegitimate kids. That's the ploy your predecessors used Doug, live with it.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist and one of the founders of NARAL, then called the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, admitted that abortion advocates deliberately falsified illegal abortion statistics and the number of women dying from illegal abortion for the purpose of, you guessed it, emotional appeal.
Oh, another effective ploy. Pick an enemy against which to rally your supporters. The Catholic Church hierarchy filled the bill and was deliberately targeted for this purpose by leaders of the abortion movement, according to Nathanson. Their supporters in the media quickly picked up this ball and carried it. Nathanson did regard this as blatant bigotry, since many religions opposed abortion, and was in fact surprised the Catholic Church tolerated this bigotry, as he thought any other religious group would not have. But what's a little bigotry for a good cause?
Remember how abortion advocates went ballistic over the Hyde Amendment which stopped federal funding of abortion? Remember being told how much cheaper it would be to abort poor women than to support their children on welfare? Oh yes, and how poor women would be dying in droves from illegal abortion. There was nothing original in these arguments Doug, they had been around from the beginning.
You didn't explain the bumper stickers. Where in the world did the slogan that supporting abortion reform would stop child abuse come from? Do you think it dropped from the sky?
Oh, do you know what else abortion was "necessary" for Doug? To save marriages. Yeah, you read that right. That was according to another abortion proponent.

Doug, I don't know how many ways I can tell you this. This was the mentality and writings of the day, and I did lots of reading, as well as listening. People believed this, people wanted simple solutions, and abortion advocates knew that appealing to people's emotions would get them what they wanted, which was unfettered abortion. I'm glad you are able to see through the claptrap your predecessors perpetrated. Trouble is, they left you and other PC people holding the bag.

Mary: I remember the promises of an end to social problems. It only made sense didn't it? Unplanned and unwanted pregnancies being terminated would mean no child abuse, no welfare dependency, decreased illegitimacy, no babies born drug or alcohol addicted. Talk to any supporter of abortion and they would tell you how abortion was preferable to children being abused, how poor women would "benefit", i.e. they'd quit producing welfare babies, and how young women would no longer be saddled with illegitimate kids.

Mary, you're choosing to remember in faulty and illogical ways. "No child abuse"? Of course not, etc. Reduced abuse, welfare, etc., - sure, of course.

I agree that abortion is preferable to child abuse. Look at the difference in suffering. I realize that doesn't make much if any difference to some people but it sure does to me.

If somebody, today, tells you that abortion being legal will end all child abuse, then of course they are wrong. Heck, there are already kids, so there's going to be some abuse that takes place. I would argue with somebody if they claimed that, and I'd have done it in 1973 (even though I was but 14) - it's just logic/common sense.

It wasn't the Pro-Choice claim then, any more than it is now, however.
......

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist and one of the founders of NARAL, then called the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, admitted that abortion advocates deliberately falsified illegal abortion statistics and the number of women dying from illegal abortion for the purpose of, you guessed it, emotional appeal.

He's such an old fraud.... And he may have been engaged in the same type of baloney way back when, sure. I can believe that some people were lying about statistics back then, but that's not saying that legal abortion will completely end anything.
......

You didn't explain the bumper stickers. Where in the world did the slogan that supporting abortion reform would stop child abuse come from? Do you think it dropped from the sky?

What bumper stickers? If they really said, "Support legal abortion - end child abuse," something to that effect, then I would say that ending abuse is a worthy goal, but of course having abortion be legal won't end all child abuse, because not all pregnancies are willingly ended - heck, most are willingly continued.
......

This was the mentality and writings of the day, and I did lots of reading, as well as listening. People believed this, people wanted simple solutions, and abortion advocates knew that appealing to people's emotions would get them what they wanted, which was unfettered abortion. I'm glad you are able to see through the claptrap your predecessors perpetrated. Trouble is, they left you and other PC people holding the bag.

Again, moving toward the worthy goal of less child abuse, for example, is good - no argument there and I see how people could have been behind it then, as now. And you're right - people do want simple solutions and may go for the "bumper-sticker" mentality. So what? If somebody was actually saying that legal abortion would end a given societal problem, then they were just incorrect. It has nothing to do with the overall issue, any more than saying that banning abortion would "end child abuse," again for example.

We're not "holding the bag," we're just cognizant that many times with an unwanted pregnancy the best thing to do is to end it, and we think that women should be free to make their best choice in the matter.

Doug

Doug,

I'm not choosing to remember what I want, you're just choosing to stick your head in the sand. You know the real irony of this discussion Doug?
YOU are using the same arguments pro-life people used 40 years ago! We were the ones arguing that abortion would not solve these problems and it was ridiculous to suggest it would! We were proven correct.

So one of the founders of NARAL is an old fraud. In what way Doug? Can you disprove anything he says? Funny, but your predecessors certainly held him in high esteem. He was a driving force in legalizing abortion in this country and he ran one of the largest abortion clinics in the country.

Your side was just proven incorrect? I'm glad we both agree with that Doug. It looks like PL people were right when they argued abortion was not the solution to social problems.

Abortion causes less suffering than child abuse???

I'm going to have to come back to that one. Words fail.

Mary: I'm not choosing to remember what I want, you're just choosing to stick your head in the sand.

You still have no proof that what you have related was actually any real part of the pro-choice movement.

If somebody, then or now, said that abortion will stop all child abuse, then that's obvious false. That's not the pro-choice position.
......

You know the real irony of this discussion Doug? YOU are using the same arguments pro-life people used 40 years ago! We were the ones arguing that abortion would not solve these problems and it was ridiculous to suggest it would! We were proven correct.

No, all you have so far is a straw man argument that you conjured up.
......

So one of the founders of NARAL is an old fraud. In what way Doug? Can you disprove anything he says? Funny, but your predecessors certainly held him in high esteem. He was a driving force in legalizing abortion in this country and he ran one of the largest abortion clinics in the country.

Nathanson has lied in order to get support from pro-lifers. If he lied before, that would not surprise me. The point remains that he didn't determine the pro-choice position nor does he really matter, one way or the other, then or now.
......

Your side was just proven incorrect? I'm glad we both agree with that Doug. It looks like PL people were right when they argued abortion was not the solution to social problems./i>

No, your argument is so weak that you feel compelled to pretend what "my side" is.

As before: "We're not "holding the bag," we're just cognizant that many times with an unwanted pregnancy the best thing to do is to end it, and we think that women should be free to make their best choice in the matter."

Doug

Abortion causes less suffering than child abuse?

Yes - considering many of the kids in the world and they way they have things, better a thousand unwanted pregnancies end in abortion versus the suffering of one of those kids.

Doug

Doug,

Since you think I'm distorting the history of the movement to legalize abortion in this country, then it is up to you to prove it. You obviously choose to keep your head in the sand about the history of your predecessors.
They relied on emotional appeal to promote their agenda and ending chid abuse was the favorite, as well as perpetrating the lie that women were dying by the thousands from illegal abortion. Even the late pro-abortion statistician, Dr. Christopher Tietsze, referred to these inflated death figures as "unmitigated nonsense".
According to Nathanson, the abortion movement supported "the ends justifies the means" mentality. Whether it was bigotry, distorting statistics, or appealing to emotions, it was justified to promote the cause of abortion.
Yes pro-life people argued that abortion would not solve the problem of child abuse, or any other social problem for that matter. I'm glad you agree that your predecessors were perpetrating a falsehood here. Oh and the bumper stickers Doug, they were very straight forward and unambiguous, "stop child abuse, support abortion reform". They didn't mean it might curb or alleviate it. You never did tell me where that slogan came from if it wasn't the mentality of the abortion reform movement.
You still didn't tell me how Nathanson is a liar or fraud, except in your personal opinion. If you can prove the man wrong, let's hear what you have.
If anyone knew what went on with the hierarchy of the abortion movement, it was him. He didn't determine the position? Please Doug, he was part of the driving force to legalize abortion in this country.
Sorry Doug, but you and your PC cohorts are left holding the bag. When old-timers like me ask you about the social problems we were promised abortion would cure, you have to argue that the abortion movement never lied or appealed to emotion, people who say they did are liars, and then try to excuse what they did say as being, well, incorrect.

Oh another thing Doug. The term "choice" didn't start coming into play until quite sometime after the legalization of abortion. Your predecessors demanded free abortion and abortion on demand, not choice. Pro-choice and choice were utilized later on so as to be a little more palatable to the public.

Mary, your assertion - thus the burden of proof is on you. You are merely making unsupported claims.

If there actually was a bumper-sticker, for example, that said that legal abortion would end child abuse, then that's over-the-top and inaccurate. In any case, it was obviously not any real part of the pro-choice argument back then, nor is it now.

There may have been emotional appeals, sure - I think that's entirely plausible, just as we see many such things from pro-lifers now. What of it? Same for the "ends justify the means" mentality - there may be that sentiment, yes, and to this day, in fact, on both sides of the debate.

It's fact that not all pregnancies are wanted. We know this. It's not the argument. It's not what the debate is about. In general we let people do what they want, unless we have compelling reasoning and motivation otherwise, and thus we have legal abortion - there is no persuasive argument against it. It cannot be demonstrated that we really *need* to ban abortion or further restrict it.

You want to generalize, incorrectly, about Pro-Choicers. Well, okay, but there, what you say is not even the argument. "Free abortion" - maybe. Yet Roe was clear - the states could restrict abortion at viability, if they wanted to, and few Pro-Choicers are against that. If the debate could be settled by drawing the line at 24 weeks, say, with no elective abortions being done after that, the agreement being that afterwards there'd be no more trying to take away women's rights in the matter - I think most Pro-choicers would be okay with that.

"Choice" - what does it matter about the exact timing of the term becoming popular? It is the woman's choice - to end a pregnancy or to continue it. Either she will be legally free to make that choice, or not.

Doug

Doug,

I have the benefit of the literature that was written at the time and the fact that, unlike you, I was in the midst of this movement as a young adult. I remember it as distinctly as I'm sure remember certain eras in your own lifetime, and can speak with knowledge and experience about them. You are welcome to research the writings of that time. Its just like the fact that I well remember the civil rights struggle because I lived in that era and remember the events, people, and mentality.
I'm not generalizing Doug, just giving you some history, obviously history you don't want to hear or acknowledge. Fine. There's history about a lot of things I prefer not to hear or acknowledge, that doesn't change the facts.
I'm glad we at least agree that pro-abortion people (that's what they called themselves back then) were over the top and inaccurate in claiming abortion would end child abuse. Exactly what pro-life people said 40 years ago.

Doug,

I would recommend Bernard Nathanson's book "Aborting America" as one good source. This was written when he was becoming ambivalent about abortion and his role in legalizing it.
He isn't particularly nice to either side of the issue, and I think he is very straightforward because of his ambivalence and not really favoring either side.
Dislike the man as much as you like, but if you really want to know what went on behind the scenes. this is the book to read. The book will verify much of what I personally recall.
Its like when you want to know the workings of a criminal organization. You will find the informant a very distateful character, but still the best source of knowledge on the subject.

I'm not generalizing Doug, just giving you some history, obviously history you don't want to hear or acknowledge.

Yes you are, Mary, by going with stuff like "legal abortion will mean the end of child abuse."

That is just silly, as silly as saying that banning abortion would end it. You are right that people like simple, catchy lines, and may have a bumper-sticker mentality, but in no way does that mean that it was or is any actual significant part of the Pro-Choice movement.

As before, if somebody says that legal abortion would mean that all child abuse would be eliminated, they are simply wrong, be they pro-life or pro-choice.

There may have been some people who said such, way back when, and I'd argue with them just as I argue with you.

Doug

Doug,

Believe what you want. I lived in this era, I remember it, and I well remember how abortion was promoted as a means to stop child abuse. Pro-lifers argued, and now you maintain this argument is nonsense. I agree it was and is. You argue with me Doug, I'm not the one who ever maintained it. It was your side. I argued with many of your predecessors that argument was nonsense, and sometimes still do!
Child abuse had tremendous emotional appeal at that time. Abortion was seen very sincerely by people as a means to end it and the abortion movement played it for all it was worth, just like the distortions about illegal abortion deaths. If you got into a debate or discussion anytime with a PA person, the argument about child abuse came up. Never failed. I also well remember the blatant bigotry against the Catholic Church and even took a few magazines to task for it.
Doug you seem to think I make this up as I go along. Why do you think I have brought up the issue of social problems since I began blogging here? Because your predecessors said abortion would solve them.
When I still hear the argument that abortion will stop child abuse, I remind people that argument was made when abortion was legalized 34 years ago so why do we still have child abuse?
Doug, the only problem here is that I've told you things you do not want to hear or believe. Your reaction is normal. People will simply choose not to believe what they don't want to. If you choose not to believe me, there's little I can do about that.

God doesnt exist. . .and what happens to us people who eat babies for breakfast?