CNN has reported that on her first day back on the campaign trail after disclosing she had bone cancer, Elizabeth Edwards promoted human embryo experimentation. Speaking at a Cleveland fundraiser, she said:"I think that we're foolhardy to not be engaging in federal funding of stem-cell research in the most aggressive way we possibly can"....
"If people think that you're throwing babies out, dissecting children, to do stem-cell research, I'm not for that," [she] said....
Edwards noted that stem-cell work uses blastocysts containing clumps of 16 or 32 cells that were collected by fertility clinics but are no longer needed and would otherwise be thrown away....
Edwards' statement was wrong on a critical point, that the only human embryos being experimented upon are fertility clinic leftovers....
It was also bizarre of Edwards to say she opposed "dissecting children," although I guess it's a plus.
Those aside, the ironies are profound. In addition to supporting the embryo experimentation, both John and Elizabeth are pro-abortion.
Yet, of all people they should revere the sanctity of life more than most. They lost a son at age 16 in a car accident. Following that, Elizabeth underwent fertility treatments to give birth at the age of 48 and 50.
Now Elizabeth has incurable bone cancer. Bone. Bone is where blood cells are made. Bone marrow is just another term for a certain type of adult stem cells....
Finish reading my column today, "Elizabeth Edwards still lauds culture of death," at WorldNetDaily.com.
[Photo, top right, courtesy of CNN]
Neither do I know you nor do I know Mrs. Edwards, but let me ask you this:
Now that Mrs. Edwards has been diagnosed with bone cancer that you describe as terminal, arenít there other acute and life threatening issues for you to fulfill your journalistic duty with?
What about the rampant child abuse for instance? Just to focus your attention on this issue in the US alone would give you more than enough material to cover a lifetime journalistic job.
Arenít there enough healthy "candidates" for you to deal with? Show at least some restraint (pity?) and if she has to go, let her "face death," as you put it, the way she wants to.
Blessings from the Holy Land.
Yaíara PaldiPosted by: G1 at March 28, 2007 9:23 AM
Interestingly, child abuse has skyrocketed since abortion was legalized, which shouldn't come as a surprise. If mothers are encouraged to kill their children before they are born, why should we not expect them to similarly treat their postborn children?
And to answer your question, no I don't have any other issues to fulfill my journalistic duty with. I write on the pro-life issue, period.
Mrs. Edwards has publicly disclosed she has bone cancer while choosing to remain on the campaign trail and make her views known. If anything, she is more influential than ever. So she is not immune to criticism. She advocates killing preborn humans at all stages. That is worth critiquing.
As for your admonition to "let her 'face death,' as you put it, the way she wants to," it would certainly be nice if both she and you felt the same about preborn children.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 28, 2007 9:27 AM
When a pro-abortionist gets a potentially death-dealing illness, why is it they take their illness out on the most defenseless of us all, the unborn?
Elizabeth Edwards might as well say, "I am sick, harvest me a baby, and give me its saving cells," with an evil laugh.Posted by: Christian at March 28, 2007 9:33 AM
Christian, I wonder that, too. I think of Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox. I don't get it. You would expect them to turn the opposite direction, but they appear to become more virulent than ever with the news they may die.
Yes, you're right, harsh as it sounds, Edwards might as well say that.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 28, 2007 9:34 AM
It is very sad that apparently Elizabeth Edwards will never see the light about how evil abortion is. She is in much spiritual darkness.
What liberals fail to grasp about embryonic stem-cell research (whether they believe in God or not) is that further breakthroughs and cures for cancer will come from Heaven, but God is not going to bless embryonic stem-cell research because it involves innocent fetuses.
Therefore, this will actually get in the way of other gains that could be made concerning the fight against cancer. Embryonic stem-cell research is worse than useless.Posted by: Clay at March 28, 2007 9:38 AM
"Edwards' statement was wrong on a critical point, which is that the only human embryos being experimented upon are fertility clinic leftovers. In fact, only 2.8% of all embryos in IVF clinics are available for research, not nearly enough to meet the demand."
Math's not your strong point is it? Or the alternative is that you are knowingly lying.
The fact that a small proportion of IVF leftovers are used for research does not mean anything with respect to what proportion of embryos used in research are from IVF leftovers. Where else are these research embryos coming from then if not fertility clinic leftovers? Perhaps sperm/egg donation for fertility efforts is actually some sort of front and the clinics are really selling the gametes to covert research entities, otherwise strapped for cash, rather than couples forking-out thousands to get pregnant? Maybe they are being abducted directly from unwitting wombs?
Careful women... guard your embryos from the culture of death!
Finaly, there is only a 35% chance that a person needing a bone-marrow transplant will have a suitable donor. The rest of them die. Of those receiving traditional transplants, the success rate is 30%.
I dont understand the debate over the use of embryos. They are dead and will only decay; there is no reason not to utilize them if there is a possibility of saving a life. It is no different from adults' donating their bodies to scientific research.
Adults do not have pluripotent stem cells, which are found in embryos. The stem cells in adults are somewhat limited to their potential fates. Embryonic stem cells are not.Posted by: SamanthaT at March 28, 2007 10:11 AM
Here's a thought. Maybe this "God" is creating all of these unwanted fetii so that there can be enough for stem cell research. Perhaps he's sending them to be sacrificed for everyone else as he did his own son.Posted by: Danielle at March 28, 2007 10:17 AM
Cameron, 2.8% translates to 11,000 embryos (www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9038/index1.html.
If you track this topic, you'll learn there is a shortage particularly of human eggs for research.
And actually, although you post in jest on the connection between IVF clinics and embryo/cloning researchers, of course there is a connection. Do you think researchers are going to enter into the business of egg harvesting, which is quite complicated, or leave that to the clinics?
Do you think the recent phenomenon of huge advertising campaigns cross the nation for college women to donate eggs to IVF clinics is strictly for infertile couples?
ON your 35%-30% point, first, I'd like to know your source. Second, what are traditional transplants? Third, if the only barrier between successful treatment is finding a match, doesn't it make sense to promote bone marrow donations? Fourth, also now included in the donor pool is umbilical cord blood, for which fewer marker matches are required. Umbilical cord blood offers huge promise in this area, btw, and Elizabeth Edwards would do far more good to promote this than human embryo destruction.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 28, 2007 10:22 AM
Here's a thought. Maybe this "God" is creating all of these unwanted fetii so that there can be enough for stem cell research. Perhaps he's sending them to be sacrificed for everyone else as he did his own son.
God sent His only son, yes, but His son accepted the challenge. He didn't force Him to die on the cross. But these embryos are not given a choice. The same choice that you ardently fight for.
mkPosted by: MK at March 28, 2007 10:53 AM
I feel sorry for Mrs. Edwards, for like so many seriously ill people they are looking for the miracle to save them.
I have been through over a year of melanoma treatment and can sympathize, but I hope God will not allow me to take a position of embracing an evil solution to my problem.Posted by: W. O. at March 28, 2007 10:53 AM
Samantha, 10:11a, said: "They are dead and will only decay; there is no reason not to utilize them if there is a possibility of saving a life. It is no different from adults' donating their bodies to scientific research."
1) They are not dead. 2) The difference is adults give prior permission.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 28, 2007 11:03 AM
I love how you people call yourselves pro-LIFE, but don't give two sh*** about the people who are actually suffering.
When you say stuff like that, not only is it not true, but it actually makes you come off as cold and uncaring.
If you can point to specific people who have shown that they don't care about "people" then go ahead.
But to make a broad statement like "Pro-lifers don't give a s* about people who are actually suffering" is really unfair.
Many of us have told about various things that we do to help all parts of humanity...volunteering at homeless shelters, visiting nursing homes, caring for sick parents, donating money to overseas genocide victims, donating money to victims of natural disasters...
Even the fact that there are now twice as many crisis pregnancy centers as abortion clinics that help the mothers as well as the babies shows that we actually do care about "born" individuals as well as "unborn".
Our motto is pretty much "Respect Life from the womb to the tomb", "from conception to natural death, and every stage in between".
So, while you may feel that we are cold and heartless, our actions speak otherwise.
I know you get angry when you read some of these posts. But I'd wager to say that everyone on here, on both sides, gets angry. The difference is we take our anger out on the topic and not each other.
Making accusations like that is hurtful (at least to me) and certainly counterproductive to getting your point across.
Words can be used as weapons or as a way to communicate.
When you feel that someone is getting on their high horse, remember you have the option of taking the high road...
Thanks for hearing me out.
"Mrs. Edwards has publicly disclosed she has bone cancer while choosing to remain on the campaign trail and make her views known. If anything, she is more influential than ever. So she is not immune to criticism. She advocates killing preborn humans at all stages. That is worth critiquing."
This may seem like a no-brainer but unfortunately it isn't (kudos to Jill). We, who are close-to-death often do some deep reflection and make some transformational changes. Some do not ... and would prefer to just keep avoiding. [I have some very good friends who play-house rather than seek a marriage!] There are also a few others like me who have been-there for a number of years and seem to act as peacemakers to those in anguish ....
Finally there are folks like Danielle ... she says, "I love how you people call yourselves pro-LIFE, but don't give two sh*** about the people who are actually suffering." ... I just want to take out my imaginary fiddle and play a tune ... the 'poor-me' bit is a bit too much! She claims to be depressed and runs for charities.
Don't use depression as a crutch! Get off your ass and go-visit/hug a dying kid at a local hospital! I promise you will grow up fast!Posted by: John McDonell at March 28, 2007 11:29 AM
Those looking for Danielle's post that Mary Kay and John referenced won't find it. They responded before I could delete it. I have emailed Danielle 3x in 2 days telling her to knock of the swearing.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 28, 2007 12:00 PM
Jill wrote at 9:27 a.m., "it would certainly be nice if both she and you felt the same about preborn children."
My dear, now you are jumping to conclusions to say the least.
Kindly note that you are assuming and interpreting things I did not write! I do not advocate the killing of preborn babies for any reason whatsoever, definitely not for the sake of research!
The fact that I feel sorry for someone facing a terminal illness doesnít make me a sympathizer or supporter of "the killing of pre born humans at all stages." Donít put words in my mouth I did not say!
As for "legalized abortion and mothers crossing the line to abuse their postborn children," I am quoting out of Andrew Vachss' article, "You Carry the Cure In Your Own Heart," originally published in Parade Magazine, August 28, 1994:
"People who know what I do always ask: 'What is the worst case you ever handled?' When you're in a business where a baby who dies early may be the luckiest child in the family, there's no easy answer."Posted by: G1 at March 28, 2007 12:05 PM
G1, your sympathies are certainly misplaced. You are more concerned about Mrs. Edwards' feelings than the preborn humans she advocates killing.
And by your quote are you advocating killing children as the solution to child abuse, rather than stopping and punishing the abuser?Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 28, 2007 12:07 PM
Nice Strawman Jill!
"And actually, although you post in jest on the connection between IVF clinics and embryo/cloning researchers, of course there is a connection. Do you think researchers are going to enter into the business of egg harvesting, which is quite complicated, or leave that to the clinics?"
I was countering your accusation that Edwards is wrong. Do I have to parse this out again, or do you think you could maybe act like an adult and at least acknowledge that what you are saying now is wholly divorced from your accusations regarding Edwards?
Now, kindly point us to the numbers which suggest that most of the embryos used for stem cell research are not in fact from IVF clinics... per your asinine suggestion.
"ON your 35%-30% point, first, I'd like to know your source. Second, what are traditional transplants?"
In reality, 25-35% (wikipedia) of those in need of transplants don?t have ?ideal? or perfect matching donors. Those who need transplants otherwise, still get transplants, just not from perfect matches. Worse yet, the 30% (www.healthatoz.com) I quoted is the not the success rate, it's the opposite.
I hastily put that together and have since found that what I said is not entirely correct (this is called humility Jill). My bad!
You talk all you want about cord blood and what not. What of the eggs at IVF clinics though, which is really what we're talking about?
Should infertile couples be denied IVF because so many embryos are consumed and discarded? Should we discard all embryos that aren?t used rather than find alternative uses? Should infertile couples be forced to use all embryos even if they only want one or two kids?
Edwards clearly is on the defensive by saying she does not advocate 'dissecting children'.Posted by: Ryan at March 28, 2007 12:36 PM
Cameron, I was not suggesting most human embryos and eggs being experimented on don't originate in IVF clinics. My point was they are not leftovers bound for the trash. Edwards was wrong to say that. There are not enough of those. Eggs and embryos are now being sought specifically for research.
As for your 25%-30%-35% figures and arguments, you lost me.
Your IVF rant was 2/3 ridiculous. Your only valid question was, "Should we discard all embryos that aren?t used rather than find alternative uses?" No, we should look for adoptive parents.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 28, 2007 1:21 PM
Jill Stanek at March 28, 2007 11:03 AM
"1) They are not dead. 2) The difference is adults give prior permission."
I apologize, Jill. I should have been clearer in my statement. I do not understand why there is a problem with using the embryos that are aborted, as they are dead. I certainly do not understand opposition to using embryos that have never even been inside a mother.
I love how you get defensive when I say that pro-lifers don't care about life. But when Jill calls pro-choicers pro-abortion I don't see you complaining. Or what about her saying that all liberals support porn and child porn? This is also a lie but I didn't see you coming to our defense.
I've had pro-lifers tell me that I should just "blow my brains out" if I want. I've been told that woman who have abortions should be murdered, by a pro-"lifer."
Do these sound like pro-life statements to you?Posted by: Danielle at March 28, 2007 1:58 PM
Danielle, I still don't know why you are so squeamish about being called pro-abortion, which you are. Look at your posts.
As for you saying, "Or what about her saying that all liberals support porn and child porn?", please find where I have said that - and I mean direct quote, time, date, and post.
And oh puleeze on your assertion that pro-lifers have told you to blow your brains out or that aborting mothers should be murdered. That's either untrue, or you hang around with crazy people. Debate intelligently.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 28, 2007 2:09 PM
"My point was they are not leftovers bound for the trash."
I guess I do have to parse it out.
Your point, first and foremost, was to declare that Edwards was wrong, and you did so by engaging in semantics.
The comment you initially made is as follows: "Edwards' statement was wrong on a critical point, that the only human embryos being experimented upon are fertility clinic leftovers..."
For semantics' sake, let's look at it backwards just in case anyone would be wondering how your latest faux version of the argument somehow pertains to this: Fertility clinic leftovers are not the only human embryos being used in experiments as Edwards has wrongly stated.
This could mean one of two very ridiculous things. A) that embryos are being taken from people even though they were planning to use them or B) researchers are getting embryos from somewhere other than fertility clinics.
The bottom line is that these embryos, whether discarded, frozen indefinitely until non-viable, donated to other couples, or donated to research, are, in no uncertain terms, leftovers.
Your glib rhetorical effort to find fault with Edwards is strikingly meaningless.
Rant? yes... a bit. Invalid questions? Of course you'd say that, because they were challenging, but you latched onto something so let's run with it.
Since you think we should look for adoptive parents, do you seriously think people, given a choice, would opt for IVF leftovers? How would you encourage the adoption of IVF leftovers? What if the couple using IVF doesn't want their embryos being implanted in other people? Should we deny them IVF?
Okay, here you go:
Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 12, 2007 12:31 PM: Sorry, Joy, but liberals do support both adult and child porn.
And this is part of a message that I got from a girl on facebook:
From: Tiffany Segress (Oklahoma State)
To: Danielle Burning
Nov 2, 2006 at 8:32 pm
"And as far as a woman having an abortion just because she couldn't keep her legs closed, well, that bitch just needs to be murdered too."
The one where I was told to "blow my brains" out was also on facebook, but a wall post on SAWRTC that happened ages ago and is not gone.
You'd be surprised what fun little high school pro-lifers say.
And while the things I say might be twisted in your mind to pro-abortion, I'm not. I'm pro-choice. If I got pregnant, I would carry it to term and then keep my baby. And that's my choice. I would choose to go through the hardships that having a child would bring me, but I'm not about to force another woman to go through it.Posted by: Danielle at March 28, 2007 2:22 PM
I love how you get defensive when I say that pro-lifers don't care about life. But when Jill calls pro-choicers pro-abortion I don't see you complaining.
Then you didn't read all of my posts. I'm not going back a month to find it, but I did indeed say that I would use the term pro-choice, and if you look you'll notice that I do.
I've had pro-lifers tell me that I should just "blow my brains out" if I want. I've been told that woman who have abortions should be murdered, by a pro-"lifer."
Do these sound like pro-life statements to you?
No they don't and that's probably why you haven't heard any pro-lifers on this site say them. If someone off site has, then I suggest you take it up with them. But I think you owe us an apology.
I have had HORRIBLE things happen to me by folks on the pro-choice side (including having a gun pointed at me) but I am savvy enough to know that what one pro-choicer does, does not accurately reflect on all pro-choicers.
MKPosted by: MK at March 28, 2007 2:27 PM
Cameron, 2:15p: Yes, I did mean this, as you stated: "Fertility clinic leftovers are not the only human embryos being used in experiments as Edwards has wrongly stated."
But that does not only "mean one of two very ridiculous things. A) that embryos are being taken from people even though they were planning to use them or B) researchers are getting embryos from somewhere other than fertility clinics."
It means C) that researchers are getting eggs/embryos from IVF clinics that the clinics have garnered for researchers. I hearken back to the slew of ads we have suddenly seen pop up the past couple years on college campuses offering to pay for eggs. Some of those are wanted by couples. Some are wanted by researchers.
I know the wording of the law in at least the State of IL. It allows for researchers to "reimburse" clinics for eggs and embryos.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 28, 2007 3:07 PM
Danielle, 2:22p: My statement, "Sorry, Joy, but liberals do support both adult and child porn," is far different than your 1:58p assertion that I said, "all liberals support porn and child porn."
As for what Tiffany said on facebook, even you agreed it was atypical: "You'd be surprised what fun little high school pro-lifers say."
MK is right. I've heard pro-aborts say pretty wild things, too. But I know they're on the fringe, and I don't try to attribute what they say to all of you.
And I'm glad to read that if you got pregnant, you would not abort. That's good.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 28, 2007 3:14 PM
I just find it ironic how cold people can be when confronted with a real, live person dying of a disease that could perhaps be cured.
Honestly, I don't know that much about stemcell research, but from what I understand it isn't really that much different than people donating their bodies to science. The embroys are dead, why NOT use them for the betterment of society? It just does not make sense to me.
There are so many diseases out there that people are dying from. If your pro-life I would think that you would support something that could possible save millions of lives.
Posted by: Danielle
at March 28, 2007 4:09 PM
PS- I'm sorry that I've been so crabby this week. I tend to get really, REALLY moody and sinical around the time I get my period. :( I've also been going through a hard time at school. Geneseo is A LOT harder than the college I was previously at and the homework load has caught up with me. I'm just waiting to go home and hear my mom yelling that it's because I'm away that I'm doing worse. It's been rough going from almost a 4.0 to a 3.0...
That's okay babe. I'm goin' through meno so I haven't had a "visit" in months. Which means that I haven't had a "visit" while on this site yet...
Just wait, you haven't seen crabby!
A 3.0 is nothing to sneeze at. Especially considering you've made a great change by switching schools. Lots of adjustment, and what with the depression, the weather changes, your period...So no worries mate.
Back to the topic: the embryos that we're talking about are not dead by our definition. They might be by yours because we have different definitions of when life begins, but to us each and every embryo is a human being suspended in time and just waiting for a chance to grow and develop. The embyros are frozen, not dead. They are as alive as you or I are.
A woman recently had her "embryos" lost by the clinic where she was storing them, and she is suing for wrongful death. The fact that there are frozen babies sitting in freezers is gruesome enough. I can't imagine doing scientific experiments on them.
And again, all of the research that has done any good has been done on adult stem cells which come from bone marrow, among other things.
Which is the point of this topic. Not that we are glad to see Mrs. Edwards suffering, but the irony that the one thing that has been proven to help people in her situation is the very thing that she has been fighting against by promoting "embyonic" stem cell research instead of adult stem cell research.
Again, I'm not a medical expert, so maybe Mary could help explain it better.
But I hope this helps to show that no one is celebrating Mrs. Edwards misfortune. You're right, if that were the case, it wouldn't be very pro-life.
MKPosted by: MK at March 28, 2007 4:57 PM
I once went to a pro-choice web site.I am going to try to find it again,but let me tell you,it made me sick.One pro-choicer said "I hate all dead aborted babies" "Pop their heads like cherry tomatoes." My stomach was sick as well as my heart.Pro-choice people can be BRUTAL.I was at the DC March for Life this year.I've heard that there were 600,000 rtls there.Before we marched,an eerie calmness came over the crowd.The women from Silent No More led the march.There were no fights and no squabbling.We had a lot of men and women from Rachel's Vineyard as well. All holding signs that said'I Regret my Abortion' I didn't see anyone say an obscene word to any of them!They were accepted with open arms.Perhaps these girls did make such statements.I'd never condone that.However,it really does go both ways.Posted by: momof3 at March 28, 2007 5:13 PM
"It means C) that researchers are getting eggs/embryos from IVF clinics that the clinics have garnered for researchers. I hearken back to the slew of ads we have suddenly seen pop up the past couple years on college campuses offering to pay for eggs. Some of those are wanted by couples. Some are wanted by researchers. I know the wording of the law in at least the State of IL. It allows for researchers to "reimburse" clinics for eggs and embryos."
Holy consumable embryos Batman!
So... to sum up, Edwards is wrong because IVF clinics are actually fertilizing embryos willy nilly, divorced from reproductive efforts, so they can ship them off to the stem cell research???
All descriptions of stem cell research, at least those outside of pro-life sources, say that embryos are "typically" IVF leftovers (some are therapeutic clones). I have not seen anything to indicate that there is this embryo factory scenario going on, per your delusional accusations, such that calling Edwards wrong has any meaningful merit beyond ad hominem.
You really need to support this with some damning evidence beyond your tenuous and vacuous inferences.
What Edwards is ultimately talking about is support for stem cell research and you are crafting delusions that this sort of support is akin to a virtual embryo consuming industry.
Bottom line, and I happen to be certified CITI research assistant, donors must still be fully informed and willing to give up there embryos for research.
Regarding your links... great! Only about 399,912 embryos to go. That should make from some fine teen angst fodder when they get older. "I'm a embryo rescue poster child??"
Again... what if the couple doesn't want to donate their embryos to another couple?
Come on... dare you to answer a question!
Hey Jill, here's a video that might appeal to you. I bet if you were still a nurse and knew you could get away with this you'd do it in a heartbeat:Posted by: Rae at March 28, 2007 6:43 PM
Jill wouldn't do this!!However, I wonder about the abortion clinic nurses and staff.According to numerous web sites, girls have told tales of abortionists yelling at them to "Shut up!" and the nurses were even worse. Cold and unfeeling!In many cases,women claim that they were held down on the table as they cried and screamed!Posted by: momof3 at March 28, 2007 7:16 PM
"Interestingly, child abuse has skyrocketed since abortion was legalized, which shouldn't come as a surprise. If mothers are encouraged to kill their children before they are born, why should we not expect them to similarly treat their postborn children"
Jill do you actually have stats on that? And do the stats explain why? and are the stats from a credibly non biased source? or are you just spouting rediculous stuff to make people believe you??? just a question. I mean you should be reliable if you are so truthful and enlightning the masses.Posted by: Ashley at March 28, 2007 7:47 PM
I'm going to take this in a different direction, a very cynical one. My husband cannot believe John Edwards continues his campaign in light of his wife's illness despite her claims that America needs him. She certainly wasn't on the trail before this diagnosis and he is the beneficiary of a "bump" in his ratings, albeit not enough to make him a real threat. I deeply oppose his politics, and know the Left's dirty little secret--that when the embryonic stem cells they work so hard to make us use, they produce cancer, yes cancer--while adult stem cells have cured up to 89 diseases. But wwe cannot hurt the abortion agenda. I do wish the best for Mrs. Edwards and hope she does not lose her life furthering her husband's ambition. (I am reminded of the lighter case of Tipper Gore, who fought tirelessly against the pornographic lyrics in music, only to drop it like a in a tenth of a second when Bill Clinton offered the VP spot to her husband--she lost all
http://leagueofthesouth.net/rebellion/index.php/site/2006/12/ Scroll down until you see a YouTube video, at which point click Play.Posted by: PJ Moderson at March 28, 2007 8:09 PM
PPJ Here----- My screwy computer posted those two above before I got a chance to finish one, not two. I'm so sorry.
What I meant to add was "Tipper lost her moral compass."
And in the 2004 campaign, John Edwards was called the "Breck Girl" because of his hair. If you click on the site I listed, you will surely get a good laugh. It's just plain silly.
Sorry about the post problems.Posted by: PJ Moderson at March 28, 2007 8:15 PM
Induced Abortion and Child-Directed Aggression Among Mothers of Maltreated Children
Abuse risk linked to abortion:
Does abortion prevent crime? (this one was written by someone who is pro-life, however the links inside are from sites you should consider objective).
Or do you think it has to do with the fact that more people are actually reporting child abuse and more things are deemed as child abuse?
I mean now you have physical as well as mental abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect.
I dunno, it's just went ever you search abortion and child abuse all you come up with is pro-life/religious sights. I wasn't able to find any statics on any of the .org child abuse awareness sights, so it does make me kind of skeptical.Posted by: Danielle at March 28, 2007 11:22 PM
Pro-life = for life.
Pro-abortion = for abortion.
Abortion = death, therefore, pro-abortion = pro-death.
Since the abortion of a baby in the womb is not given with that person's or that person's Creator's permission, the one who caused the death, either by choice or act, by definition, is a murderer, or one that causes murder. Therefore, pro-abortion = pro-murder.
x + .................. = live baby
x + .................. = dead baby,
where x is conception and ............ is gestation.
In both equations the x + ................... is the same, therefore, one equation has to be wrong since an equation cannot have the same solution, i.e.,
1 + 1 = 2
1 + 1 = 0
which of these equations is false?
If 1 + 1 = 0 and I believed it, I wouldn't be getting into my car to go to work, expect my engine to start, feel safe going through an intersection, use the elevator, sit at my desk chair, turn on the computer, expect to see through my corrective eyewear, flush the toilet, go back to my desk, go down the elevator, get into my car, expect the keys to work in my front door lock, cook dinner, etc., etc., etc.
Why then do so many pro-abortion murderers somehow believe that supporting, choosing or causing the murder of a baby in the womb will be without consequences?
So, let's just all agree, both pro-lifers and pro-murderers on the semantics, hmmmm? Why are pro-deathers so afraid to admit to what they are. They should hold their chins up and push their chests out and with pride say I am "Pro-choice", which mean I am really pro-death, which means I am pro-murder.
But noooooooooooooooooooo! Pro-deathers want to say they are one thing and then change the meaning of words to say they are not that one thing.
Now, that's the very definition of insanity.
Do you know how the Edwards' made their money?
Yep, by suing people. Yeah, it was legal, just like killing babies in the womb is legal.
Let's see, we had a moral midget (sorry SOMG) and a lesbian in office, so............
Let's try a thief and a murderer now.
I really think our country is lost and beyond recovery apart from a miracle or major catastrophe.Posted by: His Man at March 29, 2007 4:14 AM
His Man,I must agree with your last post.This country is in shambles.I really believe it's beyond repair.Posted by: momof3 at March 29, 2007 6:47 AM
I also know that abortion is murder.Read statements from abortionists themselves.The only reason they say things such as "feti in the uteri" is because they don't want to upset the women that pay them.Trust me,they know what they are doing!Posted by: momof3 at March 29, 2007 6:55 AM
Or do you think it has to do with the fact that more people are actually reporting child abuse and more things are deemed as child abuse?
I mean now you have physical as well as mental abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect.
I dunno, it's just went ever you search abortion and child abuse all you come up with is pro-life/religious sights. I wasn't able to find any statics on any of the .org child abuse awareness sights, so it does make me kind of skeptical.
No, I don't think that has much to do with it at all. I think that there are significant studies that prove that women do get more abusive after having abortions. It only makes sense that there are higher child abuse rates now than ever before 1970.
Associations between voluntary and involuntary forms of perinatal loss and child maltreatment among low-income mothers.
Coleman PK; Maxey CD; Rue VM; Coyle CT
Human Development and Family Studies, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA. firstname.lastname@example.org
AIM: This study explored maternal history of perinatal loss relative to risk of child physical abuse and neglect. METHODS: The 518 study participants included 118 abusive mothers, 119 neglecting mothers, and 281 mothers with no known history of child maltreatment. Interviews and observations were conducted in the participants' homes, and comparisons were made between women without a history of perinatal loss and women with one and multiple losses relative to risk for child maltreatment. RESULTS: Compared to women with no history of perinatal loss, those with one loss (voluntary or involuntary) had a 99% higher risk for child physical abuse, and women with multiple losses were 189% more likely to physically abuse their children. Compared to women with no history of induced abortion, those with one prior abortion had a 144% higher risk for child physical abuse. Finally, maternal history of multiple miscarriages and/or stillbirths compared to no history was associated with a 1237% increased risk of physical abuse and a 605% increased risk of neglect. CONCLUSION: Perinatal loss may be a marker for elevated risk of child physical abuse, and this information is potentially useful to child maltreatment prevention and intervention efforts.Posted by: Bethany at March 29, 2007 7:25 AM
Bethany,there is another site that I visit from time to time and I chat with women that have had abortions.These women regret their choice, and some are still stuck in severe grief.Some have become mothers as well and MANY have shared that bonding with their living children was tough.Posted by: momof3 at March 29, 2007 7:38 AM
PS-Bethany It's nice to see you on the boards.Hope you are doing okay!Posted by: momof3 at March 29, 2007 7:39 AM
Oh I know, MOmofthree, I have talked to several women who had abortions too, and every single one of them (though they still adamantly say they are still pro-choice), when talking to me alone and not in a group with other people, have admitted to me how difficult their struggles are since having abortion...how cold and uncaring the abortion doctors were...how the process went, how painful it was...how every single day, even years after the abortion, they think about it every day, and wonder what their child would have been like. They miss having the baby in their tummy. They wish they could take it back...but then after they admit that, they quickly say, "but it was the right choice for that time"
Momofthree, have you ever done something right, and then felt guilty and depressed about it for years? I know I haven't. When I do something that was the right thing, I feel peace. Not guilt and terror.
PS-Bethany It's nice to see you on the boards.Hope you are doing okay!
Aww thank you, momofthree! I'm doing fine! :) Whatever happened with you? I was concerned about you when you said you were going into labor...was it a false alarm?
Boston Globe (make sure you read last paragraph)
Also, why do you suppose the American Society of Reproductive Medicine includes information on embryo research and cloning on its site?
Rae, 3/28, 6:43p: Cute.
Ashley, 3/28, 7:47p asked for proof of the connection between abortion and child abuse. Bethany at 9:16p provided excellent links.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 29, 2007 8:30 AM
First and foremost, out hearts and prayers go out to Mrs. Edwards and her family. This is a tragedy and a time of great difficulty for her and her family.
The other aspect is the exploitation of yet another tragic situation to promote a pro-abortion cause.
Remember when the abortion supporters wanted RU486 approved for use in our country. What was their tactic? Why RU486 is really a potential treatment for all kinds of diseases! Pro-life people are denying life saving treatment to countless numbers of people. The abortion promoters had only the best interests of the sick and disabled at heart. Right. The hopes and fears of the terminally and chronically ill were being played upon, the public was being lied to. The abortion promoters had one goal only, getting RU486 into the country for one use and one use only, abortion. They knew damned well this was no miracle cure for anything.
Can anyone tell me a disease treated or cured by RU486? I work in the medical area and I have heard absolutely nothing.
Remember fetal tissue transplants? Again the same tactic. Play on the hopes and fears of the terminally and chronically ill. Miracle cures are awaiting everyone, its just those pro-life people in the way. Fetal transplants were a dismal failure, they in fact worsened the condition of some Parkinson's disease patients. For some reason abortion supporters never have to explain when they're wrong.
Now we have embryonic stem cells. Again the same tactics. Put badly misinformed yet well meaning and desperate prominent people on display with their illnesses and disabilities to promote embryonic stem cell research. Again, pro life people are standing in the way of miracle cures.
Never mind the fact that adult stem cells, which are produced in our bodies and with which there are no ethical or moral issues, have successfully treated and cured various disorders, including paralysis and genetic disease. Embryonic stem cells have cured no one and their"potential" at this point is only speculation. Why is there even any controversy? Why not go with what has been shown to work? I understand that Hawaiian performer Don Ho, who was disabled by a serious heart condition, was able to return to performing after treatment with adult stem cells. Why wasn't this trumpeted? How many of you heard about this? I happened to find it in our local newspaper. Believe me, it was given as little attention as possible.
Unfortunately the public remains badly misinformed, and the sick and disabled continue to be cruelly exploited and lied to. The abortion promoters in this country can continue to be portrayed as the champions of the sick and disabled and pro-lifers continue to be portrayed as standing in the way of scientific progress and miracle cures.
I find great hope in seeing new mothers banking their umbilical cord blood, which is rich in stem cells that have successfully treated disease, and TV and magazine commercials that promote this. Maybe word will continue get out to the public despite the best efforts of abortions supporters, and the politicians and media who support them.
Hi.Bethany I have never felt bad about doing the right thing.The wrong thing..always feel bad!I've heard the same horrible stories about these abortionists too.Could you imagine?? One woman said that the abortionist came in-[she aborted as a teenager, and she's now in her 30s]and told her to "Get into the position that got you here."Also another young woman reported cying after her procedure.She claimed that the abortionist yelled at her to "Shut up!!" "You will scare the girls in the other room!!"Posted by: momof3 at March 29, 2007 9:16 AM
Bethany,I am having a girl on the 24th of April.False alarm the other day.Posted by: momof3 at March 29, 2007 9:18 AM
Momof3, did you decide on a middle name yet? :)Posted by: Alyssa at March 29, 2007 9:44 AM
A correction to my post where I said: "In both equations the x + ................... is the same, therefore, one equation has to be wrong since an equation cannot have the same solution, i.e.,"
This should have said: "In both equations the x + ................... is the same, therefore, one equation has to be wrong since an equation cannot have different solutions, i.e.,"
Now SamanthaT, here's an example of me admitting when I am wrong. It was late when I wrote that. I made the mistake of eating some Rocky Road ice cream last night and I just couldn't sleep (must have caffieine or seomthing in the chocolate part). I know, the ice cream made me do it and it wasn't my fault. I now understand what it means to be a true victim and not repsonsible for the choices I make. And....I have done this before. Perhaps embryonic stell cell research can help me stop this nasty habit?
So many chocolate Easter bunnies....so little time.
Posted by: His Man at March 29, 2007 10:46 AM
"You scoffed and demanded proof at my mention that there aren't nearly enough "leftover" embryos for research. I gave you proof. You scoffed and continue to write as if you never read it."
Proof of high demand among researchers does mean Edwards was wrong when she said the embryos are IVF leftovers. What's wrong with you Jill?
"You scoffed and wondered what would pro-lifers do with those embryos instead of agreeing they be experimented upon. I gave you information on embryo adoption. You still scoffed."
You refuse to acknowledge or answer any genuinely challenging questions, like what if the parents of the embryo don't want it being implanted in other couples and raised as their child... would it be a little bit OK if maybe they had an alternative to disposing of it? I scoff because you're coward. But hey, feel free to make me eat my words. Whenever you want to try and gain some legitimate respect from me, by all means, try answering a question, or explain why the question isn't relevant rather than flippant dismissal, or by whining about my lack of respect for you.
"Now you scoff and ask for proof that IVF clinics are supplying researchers with other than "leftover" embryos and eggs, because there is such a huge demand:"
Your IVF.net link is regarding the UK sugar. Edwards was talking about US. Would you like to convince to try and convince everyone here that UK's stem cell research was on her mind, and not US? So again, that doesn?t prove that Edwards was wrong. Nice try though!
"Boston Globe (make sure you read last paragraph)"
Again, nothing about it actually happening. Just a donor's quote that she'd like that if it were so, and reasonable (as opposed to your asinine inferences) suggestion that this may indeed be a future issue, but not currently an issue.
"Also, why do you suppose the American Society of Reproductive Medicine includes information on embryo research and cloning on its site?"
Um.... you mean like this tid bit suggesting no such exploitation is currently going on and that should we go this direction there are guidelines?
"7. Where will the eggs used come from, and won't egg donors be exploited?
Egg donation is already a vital therapy for some infertile couples. The ASRM and SART have in place strong guidelines on how to screen, counsel, and compensate potential egg donors. All these guidelines could be used if seeking donors for stem cell or SCNT purposes as well as for reproduction. The ASRM is already working with the FDA to develop regulations on donated reproductive tissues. These would apply whether these tissues are to be used for reproductive purposes or for stem cells."
Bottom line Jill, embryos used for stem cell research, in the US, are leftovers from IVF clinics, at least right now. You have not demonstrated your outrageous accusations of egg donor exploitation with any of these links. These links only say three things; research demand for embryos is high, the UK goes straight for the egg donors, and that should the US start doing what the UK is doing, a possibility, they will follow the same ethical guidelines they use for IVF leftovers (informed willing consent).
Edwards is not wrong saying that embryos used for research are IVF leftovers.
What's wrong with you Jill?
Hi.Bethany I have never felt bad about doing the right thing.The wrong thing..always feel bad!I've heard the same horrible stories about these abortionists too.Could you imagine?? One woman said that the abortionist came in-[she aborted as a teenager, and she's now in her 30s]and told her to "Get into the position that got you here."Also another young woman reported cying after her procedure.She claimed that the abortionist yelled at her to "Shut up!!" "You will scare the girls in the other room!!"
I have heard stories just like that straight from the women it happened to....they're horrific. I have also talked to nurses who used to work at abortion clinics and they told me some really awful stuff about the conditions there and--- well, goodness... just terrible stuff I don't even want to think about.
By the way, have you ever read the book Lime 5 from Lifedynamics.com? If not, you'd probably be interested in it.
Bethany,I am having a girl on the 24th of April.False alarm the other day.
Aww congratulations...baby girls are so much fun! ... I'm so happy that your labor is holding off till later! I was really worried for you that day.Posted by: Bethany at March 29, 2007 6:09 PM
Thanks so much Bethany.I am going to order Lime5.It looks like a great read!I'm sure I'll uncover more disgusting corruption in the abortion industry!Posted by: momof3 at March 29, 2007 7:49 PM