Choice on earth

Since 1994 Planned Parenthood has enjoyed poking Christians with sticks at Christmas, mocking the birth of Jesus with their unique holiday greeting cards. This year PP offers the same ole same ole "Choice on Earth" options along with a lie for good measure - pretending to like children.

The creative geniuses at Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, who previously brought us "Superheroes for Choice," a cartoon depicting violence against pro-lifers that included decapitation, have designed their own Hanukkah styled card (last in row). Their festival of lights includes justice, safety, and prevention. We share the same goals but are just 180 degrees separated on how to meet them.

In 2002, then-PP president Gloria Feldt said PP's supporters were "energized by the vicious criticism of our holiday card." But I'm not seeing much attention paid to PP's cards this year. They've apparently become blase.

So as not to disappoint PP, I now present them for your vicious criticism (click to enlarge, except last):

See 6 more festive holiday abortion cards on page 2.

PP%20card%207-2.jpg


Comments:

The second one is creepy...where is she leading that little fella? To the death chamber or sex school?

Posted by: mk at December 4, 2007 9:58 AM


he said she had no difficulty in finding a gynaecologist in Delhi to do a sex determination test and then to have the abortion - both illegal in India.

Ahhh, the marvels of modern travel...

Posted by: mk at December 4, 2007 10:07 AM


Every child of a pro-choicer is delivered the message, "I am disposable."

I wonder how many think, "What if mommy decides she doesn't want me anymore?"

Posted by: Jacqueline at December 4, 2007 10:11 AM


Hey, is that first card the creepy old guy with the underage girl???

Posted by: AB Laura at December 4, 2007 10:31 AM


I wonder how many think, "What if mommy decides she doesn't want me anymore?"

At least they'd get a card before the execution.

Posted by: mk at December 4, 2007 10:33 AM


Hey, is that first card the creepy old guy with the underage girl???

Now that you mention it, maybe that's not a father/daughter depcition. Maybe it's a sex ed card. You know, a happy couple?

Posted by: mk at December 4, 2007 10:34 AM


Every child of a pro-choicer is delivered the message, "I am disposable."

I wonder how many think, "What if mommy decides she doesn't want me anymore?"

Posted by: Jacqueline at December 4, 2007 10:11 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, the message is "I CHOSE to have you because you are Wanted."
The forced-birther message?
"You are here because Mummy had a vagina-based accident. Ignore the fact that Mummy's bitter because she had other plans and now her whole life is OVER!"

Posted by: Laura at December 4, 2007 10:36 AM


Laura, there's also the "But the minute you become troublesome to me, or fail to properly gratify me, I'll rue the day I didn't call Planned Parenthood and snuff you."

There's nothing quite as revolting as promoting abortion with pictures of children. As if there is ANY connection whatsoever between PP and having children!

Posted by: Christina at December 4, 2007 10:55 AM


I think that first card is Planned Parenthood's own George Kabacy!

He just pleaded guilty to having over eight thousand images of child pornography featuring bondage and bestiality and pre pubescent children.

See? Planned Parenthood's abortionists DO like children!

Posted by: Christina at December 4, 2007 10:59 AM


"You are here because Mummy had a vagina-based accident. Ignore the fact that Mummy's bitter because she had other plans and now her whole life is OVER!"

Of course I'm no where near as bitter as I would have been had I not gotten rid of you two brothers and three sisters...Merry Christmas.

Posted by: mk at December 4, 2007 10:59 AM


Christina,

Awwwww...maybe we should send George that Christmas Card...

He was only exercising his "Choice" to look at children after all. Just cuz you thinks it's wrong...I mean if you had grown up in a different culture, you might think it was nifty!

Posted by: mk at December 4, 2007 11:01 AM


I think that should read:

"Pieces on Earth..."

Posted by: mk at December 4, 2007 11:02 AM


There's nothing quite as revolting as promoting abortion with pictures of children. As if there is ANY connection whatsoever between PP and having children!

Posted by: Christina at December 4, 2007 10:55 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wait, that must be a WANTED child, not one that someone got stuck with.

Posted by: Laura at December 4, 2007 11:09 AM


All children are wanted...by someone.

Posted by: mk at December 4, 2007 11:10 AM


All children are wanted...by someone.

Posted by: mk at December 4, 2007 11:10 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No.
There are about 500,000 kids in America's foster care system. At any one time 150,000 of them are available for adoption. Due to the fact that they're not healthy white male infants, most will stay in the system until they turn 18, and get tossed out on the street because no one's getting paid to care for them.
I have a fabulous idea! Why don't you make the problem A LOT WORSE!

Posted by: Laura at December 4, 2007 11:20 AM


PP has replaced PEACE with CHOICE. Which would you rather have?

Posted by: Roger at December 4, 2007 11:49 AM


Laura, ambivalence and rejection are normal in early pregnancy, but PP doesn't tell women that. It tells them that yes, this early rejection means you'll reject the baby. It's a wonder that PP spokespersons don't have petnunias spouting out their ears, they're so full of BS.

The fact that many women who have failed abortions change their minds ought to show that the "need" for abortion isn't as graven in stone as PP likes to pretend it is.

Posted by: Christina at December 4, 2007 11:56 AM


Laura -

When my Mother got pregnant with me, I was unwanted. completely unwanted. But when my Mom gave birth to me her first words according to my Dad was "isn't she beautiful!".

Sorry - the whole unwanted BS is propaganda made up by the abortion industry and feminsists who profit from the abortion industry.

also, we have already proven about a dozen times the BS about the foster care system. The majority of those children are actually NOT up for adoption. I'll repeat: They are NOT up for adoption. The parents either refuse to give up custody or the courts are waiting for the parents to complete parenting classes.

I'll get that info in a sec.....

________________________

OH - "Choice on Earth". Exactly what choice does Christmas bring up? The choice to say Happy Holiday's instead of Merry Christmas? The choice to give presents to the needy?

Exactly how do they correlate the sexual reproductive system to Christmas? Outside of the fact that Jesus was unwanted by Joseph, yet Joseph loved him as his own. Maybe that is what they are talking about? The choice of parents to love their adopted children unconditionally as if they were there own flesh and blood.

Since the "choice" PP is talking about concern only the reproductive system, I'm at a loss as to how that fits into the Holiday Season. It just shows their ignorance and stupidity in my opinion.

Posted by: valerie at December 4, 2007 12:06 PM


Who am I "wanted by"? My wife. Who is my wife wanted by? Me. Does that count? Does just two people wanting each other work, or is there a minimum number of people that need to be present in the circle of wantedness in order for them to be truly wanted? Who is anyone wanted by? Why does wantedness determine whether or not someone lives or dies? If I don't want my daughter next month, can I drown her? This whole concept turns human beings into commodities specifically for the gratification of oneself. Human beings have higher dignity and moral worth than that.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at December 4, 2007 12:12 PM


Here is from another subject we had when foster care came up:
www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/03/the_freakonomic.html

All information was provided by poster "Jen" and questions and comments from "MK"

Jen said:
"Of the 513,000 children placed in foster care, over 20% had case goals of "adoption". That means 102,600 children should have been adopted, but only half actually were."

MK said:
"Okay, I'm worse at math than science but 102,600 is a lot less than 513,000. And if half of those 102,600 were adopted that leaves about 51,000 adoptable babies/children. "

Jen said:
"Of the children waiting for adoption that had adoption listed as a case goal at the time of this report, 21,003 were under the age of 2. "

(Facts from Jen are from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System from the US Department of Health and Human Services from the most recent report available, from FY 2005 as confirmed in Sept. 2006)


There are more people in my town than 51,000. also something to consider, didn't the US just celebrate 300,000,000 people in America? also, the report did not list how many of the 51,000 kids were in the process of being adopted but paperwork wasn't completed and hadn't been filed yet.

There was a recent report that I read - I think in the Wall Street Journal, but mayby it was USA Tody - that many people adopt from out of the coutry because they are afraid of the US adoption laws. The birth mother has 6 months to decide if she wants the child back. Many people who wait years for a baby do not want to be faced with having to give up a baby they have loved and cared for 6 months later. also, some birth mothers have been able to get custody back well after 6 months. This very rarely happens (well less than 1% of women who choose to give their baby up for adoption change their minds) but people in America are afraid to adopt from the government because of this. This is why private adoptions are becoming so popular. There are many legal adoption agencies that provide different types of adoption, the "open adoption" is becoming very popular. This is when the birth mother has contact with the family who adopted their child. There are no "what if's" in their mind because they get to be a part of their childs life.

So the "lets dismember our children in their Mother's womb because there are too many children in foster care" is a bunch of BS and doesn't make any sense. Why murder a growing, developing human being when there ARE adopting parents willing to adopt through private adoptions?

Posted by: valerie at December 4, 2007 12:33 PM


Laura-

Being pregnant shouldn't be equivalent to "my life is over." Pro-lifers want to live in a world where pregnant women are a blessing and empowered. There is no worse message than "you are no longer welcome because you are pregnant." I think that is why so many college women, among other groups, abort. This shouldn't be.

Posted by: prettyinpink at December 4, 2007 12:50 PM


Laura,


No.
There are about 500,000 kids in America's foster care system. At any one time 150,000 of them are available for adoption. Due to the fact that they're not healthy white male infants, most will stay in the system until they turn 18, and get tossed out on the street because no one's getting paid to care for them.
I have a fabulous idea! Why don't you make the problem A LOT WORSE!

Posted by: Laura at December 4, 2007 11:20 AM

It isn't so easy to adopt kids out of foster care. I know folks who have applied many times and were denied because they are homeschoolers. So much for embracing diversity. Even though it costs the state plenty to keep them in foster care, they charge thousands of dollars in fees for folks to adopt. One of the principals at a school where I worked spent almost $10,000 to adopt a girl out of the state system. Part of the problem is that the state doesn't terminate the parental rights for so long that a lot of the kids who entered as infants and toddlers and spent their lives in foster care aren't available till they are in middle school. Often they have been in and out of foster care too, because the state keeps letting the parents have them back only to lose custody again.

It would be nice if there were a simple answer to every complex problem, but please don't assume people don't want to adopt out of foster care. It isn't that simple.

Posted by: hippie at December 4, 2007 12:58 PM


I think we should return the favor to PP for spreading the holiday cheer...I'm picturing the Grim Reaper holding a sign "All I want for Christmas is.... (my imagination goes wild!) outside of their mills.
What great Holdiay fun!

Posted by: AB Laura at December 4, 2007 1:18 PM


I heard they really "loved" the Grim Reaper around Halloween!! So much, indeed, that they shared the joy with the police department!

Posted by: AB Laura at December 4, 2007 1:20 PM


Let's see.

The christmas story. Pregnant teen tells her fiance who then plans to dump her till he has a dream(plot device) that he is supposed to marry her anyway.

Assuming this story has a moral as most religious stories do, what moral could one glean from it regarding unwed mothers?

Should we..

love and support her even sacrificing our own plans?

dump and run?

Keep in mind that according to the story, he isn't the father.
Sorry if I offend anyone's religious beliefs. I am just looking at the story as a story.
........

Shifting here a little. Christmas cards often say "Peace on Earth" which is short for let there be peace on earth. To me peace is the opposite of violence. Clearly mom and baby in the story are spared violence.

Interestingly PP holiday cards say "Choice on Earth". Of course choice in this context refers to abortion which is the choice of violence resulting in the loss of human life.

So literally "Choice on Earth" means "Let there be Violence on Earth"

Posted by: hippie at December 4, 2007 1:30 PM


wow, these sickos at PP have alot of nerve.

Posted by: jasper at December 4, 2007 1:34 PM


Those are really pretty cards.

Posted by: Hannah at December 4, 2007 1:53 PM


in what way, Hannah?...please do share!

Posted by: AB Laura at December 4, 2007 1:55 PM


Hannah,

Yes, I suppose if you're into celebrating the slaughter of millions of unborn babies, and want to spread the "cheer" around, those would be lovely cards.

Happy Holiday.

Posted by: mk at December 4, 2007 1:56 PM


that one card says "Happy Planning for the New Year". I bet it says inside "don't forget your birth control and condoms" or some such nonsense.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at December 4, 2007 2:07 PM


Aw, Laura. People don't have value because other people want them. A homeless man with no family or friends, murdered on the street would still be vindicated through the penal system. The murderer couldn't use, "But he was unwanted" as a defense for murder, because that homeless man was a human being and had inherent value.

The forced-birther message?
"You are here because Mummy had a vagina-based accident. Ignore the fact that Mummy's bitter because she had other plans and now her whole life is OVER!"

Heard of adoption? There are 10 million people wanting Mummy's "vagina-based accident".

Posted by: Jacqueline at December 4, 2007 2:09 PM


Lest PP forgets, this holiday is about celebrating a BIRTH, and not just any birth.

Birth just doesn't happen with abortion. Unless it failed, of course.

Posted by: carder at December 4, 2007 2:11 PM


That 2nd one really creeps me out.."Happy Planning this year." What IS that? If you don't plan on a baby, you can kill it, because it wasn't part of your plan? "Plan your next abortion at PP!"--THAT is what is should say in parenthesis. Ick..I'm all grossed out now.

Posted by: Elizabeth at December 4, 2007 3:13 PM


Jacqueline -

Excellent point!

Posted by: valerie at December 4, 2007 3:43 PM


I don't think the cards are particularly inciting.

I agree with Hannah...they're pretty.

Posted by: Stephanie at December 4, 2007 4:35 PM


"A homeless man with no family or friends, murdered on the street would still be vindicated through the penal system. The murderer couldn't use, "But he was unwanted" as a defense for murder, because that homeless man was a human being and had inherent value."


I've been keeping an eye out for someone using this defense when on trial for murdering a homeless man for kicks. As of yet I haven't heard anyone convicted of doing this using such a defense.

Posted by: zeke13:19 at December 4, 2007 5:35 PM


poking Christians with sticks

Whoa... Are we talking pointed sticks?

Posted by: Doug at December 4, 2007 5:37 PM


Jacqueline: People don't have value because other people want them.

Actually, that indeed is where value comes from. It is a judgment in the minds of people.

Posted by: Doug at December 4, 2007 5:39 PM


A homeless man with no family or friends, murdered on the street would still be vindicated through the penal system. The murderer couldn't use, "But he was unwanted" as a defense for murder, because that homeless man was a human being and had inherent value.

Nope - there is no inherent value. Society (and of course the courts and penal system) do not say that it is up to the murderer to deem value in that case.

Posted by: Doug at December 4, 2007 5:43 PM


Doug said, "Actually, that indeed is where value comes from. It is a judgment in the minds of people."

So, Doug, if one person values me worthless, and one person values me with worth....what am I then?

Posted by: AB Laura at December 4, 2007 5:46 PM


Doug,

Have you ever used the expression "that wasn't fair"?

Posted by: mk at December 4, 2007 5:50 PM


Yes. When you shoot a deer in the woods, you are providing for your family.
When you shoot a deer in the petting zoo, you go to prison.

Same act.
Same outcome.
Different valuation.

Posted by: Laura at December 4, 2007 6:00 PM


I'm staying out of the woods and zoos!

Posted by: mk at December 4, 2007 6:03 PM


I still don't understand "justice" in PP's mind on the last card...

Anyway, I think they could have come up with much better graphics with a 60M/yr. profit. Looks like stock clip art to me...and the doves do look a bit "high"

Posted by: AB Laura at December 4, 2007 7:13 PM


MK, sure - of course I've said "that wasn't fair."

Posted by: Doug at December 4, 2007 8:05 PM


So, Doug, if one person values me worthless, and one person values me with worth....what am I then?

Laura, then you are somebody about which those two people have differing opinions.

Posted by: Doug at December 4, 2007 8:07 PM


Every child of a pro-choicer is delivered the message, "I am disposable."

I wonder how many think, "What if mommy decides she doesn't want me anymore?"

Posted by: Jacqueline at December 4, 2007 10:11 AM
..........................

Quite the opposite. Every child of a PC person knows that they were truly wanted.

Posted by: Sally at December 4, 2007 8:18 PM


Quite the opposite. Every child of a PC person knows that they were truly wanted.

Posted by: Sally at December 4, 2007 8:18 PM

bah humbug!

Posted by: AB Laura at December 4, 2007 9:23 PM


Sally,

My mom is pro abortion and she dumped us the minute her marriage broke up. She didn't want us anymore. I feel sorry for her.

Posted by: hippie at December 4, 2007 9:46 PM


Yes. When you shoot a deer in the woods, you are providing for your family.
When you shoot a deer in the petting zoo, you go to prison.

Same act.
Same outcome.
Different valuation.

Posted by: Laura at December 4, 2007 6:00 PM******************************************************************* It's not the same thing at all.?????

Posted by: heather at December 4, 2007 9:55 PM


Doug,

When you've used the phrase "That's not fair", what did you mean by it?

Posted by: mk at December 5, 2007 5:14 AM


Laura: "Yes. When you shoot a deer in the woods, you are providing for your family. When you shoot a deer in the petting zoo, you go to prison."

Well, at least you are equating killing a deer with killing a deer (both are deer). Which means you must equate killing a an unborn person with a born person (both are persons). That's progress!

Laura, you're comments about worth coming from being "wanted" sickens me. Nine out of ten unborn babies who are diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted; they are determined to be "unwanted." We are eliminating a whole class of people just because we don't "want" them because of our cold hearts. Their value does not come from whether their mother "wants" them or not! They are precious, precious, precious, (as of course non-ds babies are). And your ilk are allowing them to be killed because of who they are. How tolerant!

You are also equating "planned" with "wanted" and this is not true. There are millions of people living who may not have been "planned" who were definiately wanted. This "wanted" business is pure cold-heartedness and selfishness.

All those situations you say that rationalize this act of violence to babies are solved with LOVE not hate and death.

Posted by: Ellie at December 5, 2007 7:29 AM


Quite the opposite. Every child of a PC person knows that they were truly wanted.

Posted by: Sally at December 4, 2007 8:18 PM

bah humbug!

Posted by: AB Laura at December 4, 2007 9:23 PM
..................................................

Trying out for the roll of Scrooge Laura?

Posted by: Sally at December 5, 2007 8:51 AM


Sally,

My mom is pro abortion and she dumped us the minute her marriage broke up. She didn't want us anymore. I feel sorry for her.

Posted by: hippie at December 4, 2007 9:46 PM
....................................................

If she was strictly pro abortion, you wouldn't be here. I seriously doubt that her marriage ended because she chose to give birth to you. I seriously doubt that she 'dumped' you because she chose to give birth to you.

Posted by: Sally at December 5, 2007 8:55 AM


Quite the opposite. Every child of a PC person knows that they were truly wanted.

No, every child of a pro-abort knows that their mothers have no qualms about dismembering them. They feel lucky to have been conceived at the right time and in the right circumstances, knowing that those two things are all that stood between them and the curette.

Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 9:07 AM


Trying out for the roll of Scrooge Laura?

Posted by: Sally at December 5, 2007 8:51 AM

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

I think that part has already been taken by you! :)

Posted by: AB Laura at December 5, 2007 9:24 AM


Jaqueline,

"No, every child of a pro-abort knows that their mothers have no qualms about dismembering them. They feel lucky to have been conceived at the right time and in the right circumstances, knowing that those two things are all that stood between them and the curette."

This is not true.

I am the child of a pro-choice woman. Growing up, I never thought that my mother might not want me or that I was "two things" away from the curette.

Honestly, most children simply are not aware of the abortion issue. Of if they are, it is a limited awareness and they do not understand the full implications of the issue.

I would further like to add that if my mother had aborted me, I wouldn't have cared. As a fetus, I wouldn't have had the mental capacity necessary to have an independant thought.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 5, 2007 9:54 AM


AB Laura, lol!

Posted by: heather at December 5, 2007 9:54 AM


I am the child of a pro-choice woman. Growing up, I never thought that my mother might not want me or that I was "two things" away from the curette.

Now that you are an adult, isn't it disconcerting that you now know that your mother would have killed you? How comforting is it to have been in the care of such a person, who would kill you if you weren't wanted when you were in utero?

I know my mother would never have killed me. It's a pretty secure feeling.

Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 10:01 AM


No, every child of a pro-abort knows that their mothers have no qualms about dismembering them. They feel lucky to have been conceived at the right time and in the right circumstances, knowing that those two things are all that stood between them and the curette.


Posted by: Bethany at December 5, 2007 10:01 AM


Trying out for the roll of Scrooge Laura?

Posted by: Sally at December 5, 2007 8:51 AM

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

I think that part has already been taken by you! :)

Posted by: AB Laura at December 5, 2007 9:24 AM
........................

Nope! I'm trying out for the giant in Jack and the Beanstalk. Fe Fi Fo Fum...................

Posted by: Sally at December 5, 2007 10:09 AM


No, every child of a pro-abort knows that their mothers have no qualms about dismembering them. They feel lucky to have been conceived at the right time and in the right circumstances, knowing that those two things are all that stood between them and the curette.Posted by:
Bethany at December 5, 2007 10:01 AM

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

Bethany, you really aren't intelligent enough to speak for my children about anything. Because you are incapable of rationality doesn't mean everyone is.

Posted by: Sally at December 5, 2007 10:15 AM


I am the child of a pro-choice woman. Growing up, I never thought that my mother might not want me or that I was "two things" away from the curette.

Now that you are an adult, isn't it disconcerting that you now know that your mother would have killed you? How comforting is it to have been in the care of such a person, who would kill you if you weren't wanted when you were in utero?

I know my mother would never have killed me. It's a pretty secure feeling.

Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 10:01 AM
......................................

If you had been aborted or miscarried for that matter, you would neither know nor care. Do you find it disconcerting that God could have killed you in utero?

Posted by: Sally at December 5, 2007 10:18 AM


If you had been aborted or miscarried for that matter, you would neither know nor care.

Yes I would. I'd be in Heaven, fully aware that my life was taken from me.

Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 10:37 AM


Bethany, you really aren't intelligent enough to speak for my children about anything. Because you are incapable of rationality doesn't mean everyone is.

Oh poor Sally.

Isn't it ironic how she calls me unintelligent when she is replying to me about something that Jacqueline said?

Not that I don't completely agree with every word Jacque said....I just think it's ironic.

Posted by: Bethany at December 5, 2007 10:38 AM


Bethany, lol! yes, Sally is right on the money, isn't she?@@. Jacque, I agree that aborted and miscarried children go straight to heaven.

Posted by: heather at December 5, 2007 10:48 AM


I still don't understand how any woman could have an abortion.

Posted by: heather at December 5, 2007 10:51 AM


I don't see how knowing or caring that you were murdered justifies it. If you were murdered in your sleep I doubt you would know or care at the time. In fact, under the secular belief, once the terrible dead was done in any murder case, you wouldn't know or care.

Posted by: MC Anthony at December 5, 2007 11:13 AM


Sally,
God created us and therefore has every right to take our life away.

Posted by: MC Anthony at December 5, 2007 11:18 AM


Sally,


Sally,

My mom is pro abortion and she dumped us the minute her marriage broke up. She didn't want us anymore. I feel sorry for her.

Posted by: hippie at December 4, 2007 9:46 PM
....................................................

If she was strictly pro abortion, you wouldn't be here. I seriously doubt that her marriage ended because she chose to give birth to you. I seriously doubt that she 'dumped' you because she chose to give birth to you.

Posted by: Sally at December 5, 2007 8:55 AM

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

You said that if mom supports legal abortion then her kids know they were really wanted. Well, no. Mom sort of thought she wanted us at first, I guess but when she had problems she got rid of us. We weren't taken away. We weren't abused. She just didn't want us. We weren't wanted anymore.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 5, 2007 12:01 PM


I don't see how knowing or caring that you were murdered justifies it. If you were murdered in your sleep I doubt you would know or care at the time. In fact, under the secular belief, once the terrible dead was done in any murder case, you wouldn't know or care.


MC Anthony,

Good post!

Posted by: Elizabeth at December 5, 2007 1:24 PM


Ah yes, that time of the year again...I propose that prolifers everywhere go carolling at your local baby butcherteriums. After you have sung the traditional Coventry Carol, here are a few others you might consider...

"God rest you merry gentlemen,
Let nothing you dismay;
The herald angels cannot sing, the cops arrest them on the wing, and warn them off the docketing of anything they say.

God rest you merry gentlemen,
Let nothing you dismay;
In your reposeful cities lie deep silence, broken only by the motor horn's melodious cry,
The hooter's happy bray.

God rest you merry gentlemen,
Let nothing you dismay;
For when the song of children ceased,
And Herod was obeyed,
In his high hall Corinthian, with purple and with peacock fan,
Rested that merry gentleman, and nothing him dismayed." -- G.K. Chesterton

"The teachers in the temple,
They would not lift their eyes,
To the blazing star of Bethlehem,
or the wise men grown wise.

They heeded jot and tittle,
Yet heeded not a jot
The rending voice of Ramah,
Or the children that were not.

Or how the panic of the poor
Choked all the fields with flight,
Or how the red sword of the rich
Ran ravening through the night.

They made their notes, while naked
And monstrous and obscene,
A tyrant bathed in all the blood
Of men that might have been.

But they did chide His mother,
And tax her for this thing,
That she had lost Him for a time,
And sought Him, sorrowing."
-also by Chesterton, slightly edited.

Oh, and we just don't understand why PP is so modest and coy about sharing the lyrics to their favorite seasonal song by printing them on these cards. It's probably for the same reason that, for all their boasting and determination for killing children, they are very shy about actually showing the public what their handiwork actually looks like, and strangely hostile to people who do work so selflessly and tirelessly to keep PP's PR honest in that regard... OR might it be a sudden, convenient memory lapse? Well, here, I'll be happy to refresh the memory of any PP staffer or supporter who happens to read this:

I'm dreaming of a white Christmas,
Whiter than you will ever know;
Where no negroes darken our earth,
Nor harken to their children laughing in the snow...

I'm dreaming of a white Christmas,
With every colored womb I smite;
May we soon be rid of their blight;
And may all our Christmases be white!

Oh, OK, OK, in a glow of Christmas charity, here's one more by Chesterton:

Since Christmast time brings charity
For Jix and for the Kaiser,
We wish that they were wise enough
To wish that they were wiser.

-------------------------------------------------
The cheap (or free), chintzy clip art on the cards is typical of PP's dishonesty (no picture of a "choice"...not pretty, but it would offer women a more informed, therefore more authentic, "choice") and greed. Some prolifers in one city gave me, a few years ago, a copy of the minutes of a PP staff meeting, on PP letterhead, which documented a session in which the topic of discussion was whether or not that chop shop could cut expenses by dispensing with the policy requiring the abortionist to change surgical gloves between killings. It was determined that that would be no problem, since the gloves, according to this report, were to protect the abortionist, not the client.

Gross? Yes. Dangerous? You bet. Substandard? Of course. Illegal? Wherever is isn't it should be. But it is typical of PP's priorities, which are to reduce the world population by decreasing the birth rate AND INCREASING THE DEATH RATE. Abortion conveniently does both...and so does spreading life-threatening std's (mainly AIDS, but there are others...).

Lying, bloodthirsty bastards (illegitimate is as illegitimate does, regardless of the circumstances of one's birth), just like King Herod, who wanted his cruel, unjust, self-serving choice imposed on all male children under two years of age at the time of Christ's advent. Let there be choice on earth, indeed...but let the babies make the choices, not their murderers. That's the only way real peace on earth and real choice will constructively interface/intersect.

Posted by: jt at December 5, 2007 2:32 PM


"Wishing you joy and health this holiday season"... What a sick, cruel joke. No one in his right mind wants a world in which people get joy, pleasure, etc. out of slaughtering children of any stage of development.

If they really gave a rat's ass about health for mankind, they would stop dispensing artificial birth control, and they would stop doing induced abortions.

Induced abortion is a one-way ticket to hell on earth, and the fee one pays the abortionist is only the down payment on a lifetime of sorrow, if not an early death or serious, health-destroying complications.

The healthiest, most joyous way to terminate any pregnancy is the natural way; CHILDBIRTH.

And don't think PP doesn't know that.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 5, 2007 2:39 PM


These are the lamest, least joyous "holiday" cards I have ever seen. Bleah. Even if I was 100% pro-abortion, I would not consider sending these hideous pieces of clip-art tripe to anyone!

Otherwise, all I have to say is Bobby hit the nail on the head re: being wanted. One's "wantedness" by others is not what makes us human, nor what gives us rights as humans.

Posted by: Sue at December 5, 2007 2:41 PM


Anon..I love what you said,
"The healthiest, most joyous way to terminate any pregnancy is the natural way; CHILDBIRTH."

God bless you!

Posted by: AB Laura at December 5, 2007 3:55 PM


jt,
I think I just may have found someone who HATES, HATES, HATES PP more than I do!!!

Posted by: AB Laura at December 5, 2007 3:57 PM


I don't see how knowing or caring that you were murdered justifies it. If you were murdered in your sleep I doubt you would know or care at the time. In fact, under the secular belief, once the terrible dead was done in any murder case, you wouldn't know or care.

Posted by: MC Anthony at December 5, 2007 11:13 AM
...................................................

Quite so. But those that would miss me might wish to exact revenge for my being gone therefore must have a means of retribution through the legal system. Otherwise we have chaos.

Posted by: Sally at December 5, 2007 6:46 PM


ally,

My mom is pro abortion and she dumped us the minute her marriage broke up. She didn't want us anymore. I feel sorry for her.

Posted by: hippie at December 4, 2007 9:46 PM
....................................................

If she was strictly pro abortion, you wouldn't be here. I seriously doubt that her marriage ended because she chose to give birth to you. I seriously doubt that she 'dumped' you because she chose to give birth to you.

Posted by: Sally at December 5, 2007 8:55 AM

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

You said that if mom supports legal abortion then her kids know they were really wanted. Well, no. Mom sort of thought she wanted us at first, I guess but when she had problems she got rid of us. We weren't taken away. We weren't abused. She just didn't want us. We weren't wanted anymore.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 5, 2007 12:01 PM
...............................................

Just like women who give their kids away at birth eh?

Posted by: Sally at December 5, 2007 6:48 PM


Sally,
God created us and therefore has every right to take our life away.

Posted by: MC Anthony at December 5, 2007 11:18 AM
........................................................

Your God belief has no bearing on the subject.

Posted by: Sally at December 5, 2007 6:49 PM


Seeing these PP cards has inspired me to send PP Aurora one of my pro-life Christmas cards. They might not be able to recognize the a picture of a beautiful fetus that's not in pieces in a sink, but I'll send it anyway.

Posted by: JulieC at December 5, 2007 7:38 PM


Juli C,
What an AWESOME idea!
I'm going to do it too!!!
That is soooooo cool! Thanks for the idea. :)

Posted by: AB Laura at December 5, 2007 8:14 PM


MK: When you've used the phrase "That's not fair", what did you mean by it?

Very good question, MK. Not according to what was already agreed upon, not according to what all parties desire at basic levels, not in line with what they feel is is just, and by extention - not in line with what we all want, what we all feel is just, to some degree.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at December 5, 2007 9:46 PM


The healthiest, most joyous way to terminate any pregnancy is the natural way; CHILDBIRTH.

Perhaps, although it's really safer for the woman to have an abortion versus continue a pregnancy and give birth. As far as "joyous," it depends on what is desired. Maybe childbirth is wanted, maybe not.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at December 5, 2007 9:49 PM


Trying out for the roll of Scrooge Laura?
*
Posted by: Sally at December 5, 2007 8:51 AM
*
-------------------
*
I think that part has already been taken by you! :)

*

Nowadays, they would have aborted Tiny Tim. More cost effective. Scrooge would have approved.

Posted by: mk at December 5, 2007 9:53 PM


Doug,

Now try to answer me in English...what do you Doug mean by "That's not fair"?

Posted by: mk at December 5, 2007 10:01 PM


Now try to answer me in English...what do you Doug mean by "That's not fair"?

Como se dice en Ingles?

MK, if the rules have been agreed upon, then I certainly don't see it as fair for them to be broken. I guess I'd see it as saying that it's fair to keep one's promises, while breaking them is not fair - that's what I meant by "what was already agreed upon."

And of course we take quite a few things for granted, at least on a cultural level, like it not being fair to cut in front of people in line. So, in place of "not fair," I would put in "injust."

Doug

Posted by: Doug at December 6, 2007 6:56 AM


So, in place of "not fair," I would put in "injust."

Good, because my next question was going to be "Can we agree that unfair means unjust, and that fair means just"?

Now, Doug, puzzle me this. What is Justice?

Posted by: mk at December 6, 2007 8:43 AM


Not so fast...What is Justice to YOU/DOUG?

Posted by: mk at December 6, 2007 8:44 AM


MK, I think justice is keeping the promises made and implied under a given system, as within our society. The laws and penalties we have are attempts to keep things "just."

Posted by: Doug at December 6, 2007 11:50 AM


Trying out for the roll of Scrooge Laura?
*
Posted by: Sally at December 5, 2007 8:51 AM
*
-------------------
*
I think that part has already been taken by you! :)
*

Nowadays, they would have aborted Tiny Tim. More cost effective. Scrooge would have approved.
Posted by: mk at December 5, 2007 9:53 PM
............................................................

Nowadays Tiny Tim would have been unlikely to be crippled. In those days an uncrippled Tiny Tim would have likely been working in a coal mine. Tiny Tim would have nothing to thank you for in either time frame.

Posted by: Sally at December 6, 2007 1:25 PM


Doug,

MK, I think justice is keeping the promises made and implied under a given system

That's all that justice is to you/Doug? Keeping promises made?

So you get a sense of injustice when hear someone make a promise and then break it?

Why?

Posted by: mk at December 6, 2007 2:31 PM


Doug,

What about when a man rapes a woman and then kills her. Gets caught. The jury finds him guilty. Do you think that that is a form of justice? How long should he be imprisoned for? What sentence would fulfill YOUR/DOUG's sense of justice?

What about that person that cuts in line that you mentioned? Is that fair? Is that justice? No promises were made and as far as I know, there is no law on the books that say it is illegal to cut in line. I know that I never signed any promisary note NOT to cut in line. So why is it unfair when a person does this?

Posted by: mk at December 6, 2007 2:35 PM


The healthiest, most joyous way to terminate any pregnancy is the natural way; CHILDBIRTH.

That is so true. A friend of mine who is a physician recently shared with me that when he was in medical school, an ardently pro-"choice" professor he had told his class that the claim that abortion was healthy for women, or necessary to save any woman's life, was a complete crock. That was at least 30 years ago; the violent nature of abortion itself aside, advances in medical technology since then are hardly likely to make it any less true now than it was then.

Abortion has also been proven to be at least 4 times more dangerous to women than giving birth. Women who already have other children deserve to be told that if they don't want to add another one to the family, a.) it's too late to avoid that; each one is added at conception; and b.) it would be safer for her to kill one of the ones already born, and give birth to the one she is carrying. It wouldn't be right, and it would be traumatic for everyone involved, just like aborting an unborn child is; but it would subject her to less immediate and long-term physical harm.

There is a also a sense in which abortion, while it can and does murder an unborn child, ipso facto can't totally terminate any pregnancy. The scriptures shed some light on this aspect in John 16:21, which states that when a woman is in labor, she experiences suffering; but when the baby is born, she has joy because that suffering is ended, and a new life has been successfully and safely brought into the world. Since that process is initiated at fertilization, it is not unreasonable to expand the truth of that text to embrace the whole experience of pregnancy, with it's various physical and emotional changes.
If that process is aborted, part of her soul remains in travail, and there are naturally negative effects on her body, just as there would be on your car if you revved it up to 70mph and then suddenly slammed it into reverse.
(We shouldn't expect a man to appreciate the intricacies of women's reproductive health - there are still, I'm told, male OB-GYN's who actually believe that menstrual cramps are "all in the woman's head"- so we thought that perhaps the car analogy might provide a few clues for the apparently clueless.)


Posted by: Pat at December 7, 2007 10:55 AM


Abortion has also been proven to be at least 4 times more dangerous to women than giving birth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You do know that telling a lie like that reduces your entire argument to garbage?

Posted by: Laura at December 7, 2007 12:27 PM


Yes, Laura, of course I know that telling lies is discrediting. That's why I check out sources on this sort of thing as best I can; this one is the Finnish Stakes study from the mid-late 90s. You can read all about it at http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html.

To anyone genuinely concerned (no evidence in any of Laura's posts that that category would include her) you can read still more at http://defendmarriage.com/Fact_Sheet_Legal_Abortion.cfm

Even Planned Parenthood admitted, in a 1963 pamphlet on birth control, “AN ABORTION KILLS THE LIFE OF A BABY AFTER IT HAS BEGUN. IT IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR LIFE AND HEALTH. IT MAY. .MAKE YOU STERILE, SO THAT WHEN YOU WANT A CHILD YOU CANNOT HAVE IT…”. This statement is not any less true now than it was then, as verified at realchoice.0catch.com and other sites, but you aren't as likely to hear it from them now that abortion is so legal and lucrative. Former PP president Alan Guttmacher, however, let the cat out of the bag to alert readers/listeners in 1987, stating,
“TODAY IT IS POSSIBLE FOR ALMOST ANY PATIENT TO BE BROUGHT THROUGH PREGNANCY ALIVE, UNLESS SHE SUFFERS FROM. A FATAL DISEASE SUCH AS CANCER OR LEUKEMIA, AND IF SO, ABORTION WOULD BE UNLIKELY TO PROLONG, MUCH LESS SAVE, THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.”

Where is your proof that abortion is not more dangerous to women than childbirth, and the accusations of lying you made against me aren't lies themselves? We all know that you consider anyone who doesn't agree with you that chopped babies are the greatest thing since sliced bread to be an ignorant, worthless asshat; but we won't accept ad hominem slurs as evidence that any particular study/claim is accurate/true or false in itself. We know better. Why don't you?

Posted by: Pat at December 7, 2007 12:54 PM


Hi, Pat!

How the health are you?!

Speaking of health, I just pulled from my archives a story sure to touch all who prefer real peace on earth to PP's chopped baby pieces on earth, definitely expressing more appropriate sentiments for any season than any of their odious blasphemies:

I think you may actually have shared this with me; but it's been awhile, so I could be mistaken about that. In any case, here is it for all men and women of goodwill:

Two years after I came to California, there came to my office one day a fragile young woman, expecting her first baby. Her history was not good from an emotional standpoint, though she came from a fine family.

I built her up as well as I could and found her increasingly wholesome and interesting as time went on, partly because of the effort she was making to be calm and patient and to keep her emotional and nervous reactions under control.
One month before her baby was due, her routine examination showed that her baby was in a breech position. As a rule, the baby's head is in the lower part of the uterus for months before delivery, not because it is heavier and "sinks" in the surrounding fluid, but simply because it fits more comfortably in that position. There is no routine "turning" of all babies at the seventh or eighth month, as is so generally supposed, but the occasional baby found in a breech position in the last month not infrequently changes to the normal vertex position with the head down by the time it is ready to be born, so that only about one baby in 25 is born in the breech position.

This is fortunate, as the death rate of breech babies is comparatively high because of the difficulty in delivering the after-coming head, and the imperative need of delivering it rather quickly after the body is born. At that moment the cord becomes compressed between the baby's hard little head and the mother's bony pelvis. When no oxygen reaches the baby's bloodstream, it inevitably dies in a few short minutes. Everyone in the delivery room is tense, except the mother herself, in a breech delivery, especially if it is a first baby, when the difficulty is greater. The mother is usually quietly asleep or almost so.

The case I was speaking of was a "complete" breech - the baby's legs and feet being folded under it, tailor fashion - in contrast to the "frank" breech, in which the thighs and legs are folded back on a baby's body like a jack-knife, the little rear end backing its way into the world first of all.

The hardest thing for the attending doctor to do with any breech delivery is to keep his hands away from it until the natural forces of expulsion have thoroughly dilated the firm maternal structures that delay its progress. I waited as patiently as I could, sending frequent messages to the excited family in the corridor outside.

At last the time had come, and I gently drew down one little foot, I grasped the other, but for some reason I could not understand, it would not come down beside the first one. I pulled again, gently enough but with a little force, with light pressure on the abdomen from above by my assisting nurse, and the baby's body moved down just enough for me to see that it was a little girl - and then, to my consternation, I saw that the other foot would never be beside the first one. The entire thigh from the hip to the knee was missing and that one foot never could each below the opposite knee. And a baby girl was to suffer this, a curious defect that I had never seen before, nor have I since!

There followed the hardest struggle I have ever had with myself. I knew what a dreadful effect it would have upon the unstable nervous system of the mother. I felt sure that the family would almost certainly impoverish itself in taking the child to every famous orthopaedist in the world whose achievements might offer a ray of hope.
Most of all, I saw this little girl sitting sadly by herself while other girls laughed and danced and ran and played - and then I suddenly realised that there was something that would save every pang but once, and that once thing was in my power.

One breech baby in 10 dies in delivery because it is not delivered rapidly enough, and now - if only I did not hurry! If I could slow my hand, if I could make myself delay those few short moments. It would not be an easy delivery, anyway. No one in all this world would ever know. The mother, after the first shock of grief, would probably be glad she had lost a child so sadly handicapped. In a year or two she would try again and this tragic fate would never be repeated.

"Don't bring this suffering upon them," the small voice within me said. "This baby has never taken a breath - don't let her ever take one. You probably can't get it out in time, anyway. Don't hurry. Don't be a fool and bring this terrible thing upon them. Suppose your conscience does hurt a little; can't you stand it better than they can? Maybe your conscience will hurt worse if you do get it out in time."
I motioned to the nurse for the warm sterile towel that is always ready for me in a breech delivery to wrap around the baby's body so that stimulation of the cold air of the outside world may not induce a sudden expansion of the baby's chest, causing the aspiration of fluid or mucus that might bring death.

But this time the towel was only to conceal from the attending nurses that which my eyes alone had seen. With the touch of that pitiful little foot in my hand, a pang of sorrow for the baby's future swept through me, and my decision was made.

I glanced at the clock. Three of the allotted seven or eight minutes had already gone. Every eye in the room was upon me and I could feel the tension in their eagerness to do instantly what I asked, totally unaware of what I was feeling. I hoped they could not possibly detect the tension of my own struggle at that moment.
These nurses had seen me deliver dozens of breech babies successfully - yes, and they had seen me fail too. Now they were going to see me fail again. For the first time in my medical life I was deliberately discarding what I had been taught was right for something that I felt sure was better.

I slipped my hand beneath the towel to feel the pulsations of the baby's cord, a certain index of its condition. Two or three minutes more would be enough. So that I might seem to be doing something, I drew the baby down a little lower to "split out" the arms, the usual next step, and as I did so the little pink foot on the good side bobbed out from its protecting towel and pressed firmly against my slowly moving hand, the hand into whose keeping the safety of the mother and the baby had been entrusted. There was a sudden convulsive movement of the baby's body, an actual feeling of strength and life and vigour.

It was too much. I couldn't do it. I delivered the baby with her pitiful little leg. I told the family the next day, and with a catch in my voice, I told the mother.

Every foreboding came true. The mother was in a hospital for months. I saw her once or twice and she looked like a wraith of her former self. I heard of them indirectly from time to time. They had been to Rochester, Minn. They had been to Chicago and to Boston. Finally I lost track of them altogether.

As the years went on, I blamed myself bitterly for not having had the strength to yield to my temptation.

Through the many years that I have been there, there has developed in our hospital a pretty custom of staging an elaborate Christmas party each year for the employees, the nurses and the doctors of the staff.

There is always a beautifully decorated tree on the stage of our little auditorium. The girls spend weeks in preparation. We have so many difficult things to do during the year, so much discipline and so many of the stern realities of life, that we have set aside this one day to touch upon the emotional and spiritual side. It is almost like going to an impressive church service, as each year we dedicate ourselves anew to the year ahead.

This past year the arrangement was somewhat changed. The tree, on one side of the stage, had been sprayed with sliver paint and was hung with scores of gleaming silver and tinsel ornaments, without a trace of colour anywhere and with no lights hung upon the tree itself. It shone but faintly in the dimly lighted auditorium.

Every doctor of the staff who could possibly be there was in his seat. The first rows were reserved for the nurses and the moment the procession entered, each girl in uniform, each one crowned by her nurse's cap, her badge of office. Around their shoulders were their blue Red Cross capes, one end tossed back to show the deep red lining.

We rose as one man to do them honour, and as the last one reached her seat, and we settled in our places again, the organ began the opening notes of one of the oldest of our carols.

Slowly down the middle aisle, marching from the back of the auditorium, came 20 other girls singing softly, our own nurses, in full uniform, each holding high a lighted candle, while through the auditorium floated the familiar strains of "Silent Night". We were on our feet again instantly. I could have killed anyone who spoke to me then, because I couldn't have answered, and by the time they reached their seats I couldn't see. And then a great blue floodlight at the back was turned on very slowly, gradually covering the tree with increasing splendour: brighter and brighter, until every ornament was almost a flame. On the opposite side of the stage a curtain was slowly drawn, and we saw three lovely young musicians, all in shimmering white evening gowns. They played very softly in unison with the organ - a harp, a cello and a violin. I am quite sure I was not the only old sissy there whose eyes were filled with tears.

I have always liked the harp, and I love to watch the grace of a skillful player. I was especially fascinated by this young harpist. She played extraordinarily well, as if she loved it. Her slender fingers flickered across the strings, and as the nurses sang, her face, made beautiful by a mass of auburn hair, was upturned as if the world that moment were a wonderful and holy place.

I waited, when the short programme was over, to congratulate the chief nurse on the unusual effects she had arranged. And as I sat alone, there came running down the aisle a woman whom I did not know. She came to me with arms outstretched.

"Oh, you saw her," she cried. "You must have recognised your baby. That was my daughter who played the harp - and I saw you watching her. Don't you remember the little girl who was born with only one good leg 17 years ago? We tried everything else first, but now she has a whole artificial leg on that side - but you would never know it, would you? She can walk, she can swim, and she can almost dance.

"But, best of all, through all those years when she couldn't do those things, she learned to use her hands so wonderfully. She is going to be one of the world's great harpists. She is my whole life, and now she is so happy and here she is!"
As we spoke, this sweet young girl had quietly approached us, her eyes glowing, and now she stood beside me. "This is your first doctor, my dear - our doctor," her mother said. Her voice trembled. I could see her literally swept back, as I was, through all the years of heartache to the day when I told her what she had to face. "He was the first one to tell me about you. He brought you to me."

Impulsively I took the child in my arms. Across her warm young shoulder I saw the creeping clock of the delivery room 17 years before. I lived again those awful moments when her life was in my hand, when I had decided on deliberate infanticide.

I held her away from me and looked at her.
"You never will know, my dear," I said, "you never will know, nor will anyone else in all the world, just what tonight has meant to me. Go back to your harp for a moment, please - and play "Silent Night" for me alone. I have a load on my shoulders that no one has ever seen, a load that only you can take away."

Her mother sat beside me and quietly took my hand as her daughter played. Perhaps she knew what was in my mind. And as the last strains of "Silent Night, Holy Night" faded again, I think I found the answer, and the comfort, I had waited for so long."

Joyeaux Noel

Posted by: jtm at December 7, 2007 1:06 PM


Yes, Laura, of course I know that telling lies is discrediting. That's why I check out sources on this sort of thing as best I can; this one is the Finnish Stakes study from the mid-late 90s. You can read all about it at
Posted by: Pat at December 7, 2007 12:54 PM
........................................

Wrong Pat. The Finnish study was exclusively pertaining to suicide rates in Finnish women. It in no way exhibits any finding pertaining to abortion. You clearly haven't read the study and do not understand the intent or findings. You just copy propaganda from PL web sites don't you?
I have discussed this study with a cousin who happens to be a professor at the University of Helsinki. Your PL folks are dishonest.

Posted by: Sally at December 7, 2007 2:31 PM


The Finnish study not only included suicides, it included accidental deaths.
A woman would have an abortion and eight months later she might be hit by a bus. The study would cite this as another abortion-related death.
You know the whole thing was crap when it was quoted over and over by "Dr." David Reardon - the one with the mail-order degree.

Posted by: Laura at December 7, 2007 6:24 PM


Sally wrote:

Wrong Pat. The Finnish study was exclusively pertaining to suicide rates in Finnish women. It in no way exhibits any finding pertaining to abortion. You clearly haven't read the study and do not understand the intent or findings. You just copy propaganda from PL web sites don't you?
I have discussed this study with a cousin who happens to be a professor at the University of Helsinki. Your PL folks are dishonest.


Objective: To determine rates of suicide associated with pregnancy by the type of pregnancy.
Design: Register linkage study. Information on suicides in women of reproductive age was linked with the Finnish birth, abortion, and hospital discharge registers to find out how many women who committed suicide had had a completed pregnancy during her last year of life.
Setting: Nationwide data from Finland.
Subjects: Women who committed suicide in 1987-94.
Results: There were 73 suicides associated with pregnancy, representing 5.4% of all suicides in women in this age group. The mean annual suicide rate was 11.3 per 100 000. The suicide rate associated with birth was significantly lower (5.9) and the rates associated with miscarriage (18.1) and induced abortion (34.7) were significantly higher than in the population. The risk associated with birth was higher among teenagers and that associated with abortion was increased in all age groups. Women who had committed a suicide tended to come from lower social classes and were more likely to be unmarried than other women who had had a completed pregnancy.
Conclusions: The increased risk of suicide after an induced abortion indicates either common risk factors for both or harmful effects of induced abortion on mental health.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1431

Posted by: Bethany at December 7, 2007 7:13 PM


Sally wrote:

Wrong Pat. The Finnish study was exclusively pertaining to suicide rates in Finnish women. It in no way exhibits any finding pertaining to abortion. You clearly haven't read the study and do not understand the intent or findings. You just copy propaganda from PL web sites don't you?
I have discussed this study with a cousin who happens to be a professor at the University of Helsinki. Your PL folks are dishonest.


Objective: To determine rates of suicide associated with pregnancy by the type of pregnancy.
Design: Register linkage study. Information on suicides in women of reproductive age was linked with the Finnish birth, abortion, and hospital discharge registers to find out how many women who committed suicide had had a completed pregnancy during her last year of life.
Setting: Nationwide data from Finland.
Subjects: Women who committed suicide in 1987-94.
Results: There were 73 suicides associated with pregnancy, representing 5.4% of all suicides in women in this age group. The mean annual suicide rate was 11.3 per 100 000. The suicide rate associated with birth was significantly lower (5.9) and the rates associated with miscarriage (18.1) and induced abortion (34.7) were significantly higher than in the population. The risk associated with birth was higher among teenagers and that associated with abortion was increased in all age groups. Women who had committed a suicide tended to come from lower social classes and were more likely to be unmarried than other women who had had a completed pregnancy.
Conclusions: The increased risk of suicide after an induced abortion indicates either common risk factors for both or harmful effects of induced abortion on mental health.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1431

Posted by: Bethany at December 7, 2007 7:13 PM
.............................................

Let's see. 30 women committed suicide after giving birth, 29 after an abortion and 14 after miscarriages.
What the study says is that the 29 women who had abortions might not have done so if they had not been pregnant. That the 30 women that committed suicide might not have done so if they had not been pregnant. That the 14 women that miscarried might not have done so if they had not been pregnant. Get it?
The study was about the effects of pregnancy in relation to suicide. The clear conclusion is that women in Finland that don't need to make the decision to abort and don't have to worry about being a parent are less likely to commit suicide after a pregnancy.

Posted by: Sally at December 8, 2007 1:02 AM


What the study says is that the 29 women who had abortions might not have done so if they had not been pregnant.

Sally, "not having been pregnant" is a heck of a lot different than "having been pregnant and had an abortion".

Posted by: Bethany at December 8, 2007 7:46 AM


"the one with the mail-order degree"...sounds like Pat had Laura pegged when asking for proof, not ad hominem attacks. Laura still has offered no proof; and the Stakes Study covered more than suicides and accidental deaths. China, with the forced abortion/sterilization policy, is the only country in the world where the suicide rate is higher among women (who are generally more likely than men to attempt suicide) than men (who are generally more likely to actually kill themselves.).

And where is any evidence that any of the other material referenced in Pat's post was incorrect? There are a legitimate reason why some people who acknowledge harmful effects of abortion on women are pro-life? Planned Parenthood knows it, but they are reluctant to acknowledge these things because they are more interested in killing people than helping women.

I agree with both Laura and Pat that if you can prove that someone was deliberately lying, it's discrediting, but that's a bit harsh for the possibility that they may be merely misinformed...like the many, many PA articles & quotes Laura likes to cut & paste. The arguable elements of projection in that one charge against PLers lend, to me, more credibility to Pat's question about Laura's own mendacious tendencies...

Posted by: just thinking... at December 8, 2007 11:12 AM


MK, I think justice is keeping the promises made and implied under a given system

That's all that justice is to you/Doug? Keeping promises made?

If you think about it, isn't that the real deal?
......


So you get a sense of injustice when hear someone make a promise and then break it? Why?

Because that makes it a lie, and I take it for granted that truth is better, mostways. anyhow. It can also cause suffering.
......

What about when a man rapes a woman and then kills her. Gets caught. The jury finds him guilty. Do you think that that is a form of justice? How long should he be imprisoned for? What sentence would fulfill YOUR/DOUG's sense of justice?

Finding him guilty is part of our system of justice. Personally, I say the death penalty when there's no real doubt. No lengthy and expensive appeals process.
......

What about that person that cuts in line that you mentioned? Is that fair? Is that justice? No promises were made and as far as I know, there is no law on the books that say it is illegal to cut in line. I know that I never signed any promisary note NOT to cut in line. So why is it unfair when a person does this?

The understanding is that those who come first will be served first. That's the system, that's the rules. There indeed is the implied promise that that's the way it goes down.

Posted by: Doug at December 8, 2007 7:12 PM