Planned Parenthood=Black Genocide

[Guest]

Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger whose objective was to eradicate the black and igorant populations via abortion and sterilization...ie.ethnic cleansing and black genocide. Some might be shocked to read her theories...
http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

You can download her short book "The Pivot of Civilization" for free at this website.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1689

[Guest]

Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger whose objective was to eradicate the black and igorant populations via abortion and sterilization...ie.ethnic cleansing and black genocide. Some might be shocked to read her theories...
http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

You can download her short book "The Pivot of Civilization" for free at this website.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1689

"Here’s what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine: “Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe v. Wade] was decided,” Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

The comment, which bizarrely elicited no follow-up from Bazelon or any further coverage from the New York Times — or any other major news outlet — was in the context of Medicaid funding for abortion. Ginsburg was surprised when the Supreme Court in 1980 barred taxpayer support for abortions for poor women. After all, if poverty partly described the population you had “too many of,” you would want to subsidize it in order to expedite the reduction of unwanted populations."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227883/ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-question-eugenics/jonah-goldberg

[Guest]

Read this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44928812/ns/world_news/t/world-population-nears-billion-can-we-handle-it/#.TpyQWbKVq0o

...and tell me we (as humanity) don't need family planning - and that in some areas it's more than critical. (My preferred method would be education so people don't get unwanted pregnancies in the first place)

And beware about thinking that a founder of an organization represents the current views of that organization.

Washington and Jefferson were slave-owning plantation masters.

Heck, even more recently, Ronald Reagan was a deal-making liberal by today's GOP standards.

[Guest]

Read this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44928812/ns/world_news/t/world-population-nears-billion-can-we-handle-it/#.TpyQWbKVq0o

...and tell me we (as humanity) don't need family planning - and that in some areas it's more than critical. (My preferred method would be education so people don't get unwanted pregnancies in the first place)

And beware about thinking that a founder of an organization represents the current views of that organization.

Washington and Jefferson were slave-owning plantation masters.

Heck, even more recently, Ronald Reagan was a deal-making liberal by today's GOP standards.

Family planning is one thing. Abortion is quite another.

As for the article titled "Can we handle it?"........."WE" don't handle (control) the planet.

Our Creator, God, handles the planet and its inhabitants. The planet was created with its own regenerating properties built into it.

Of course we should care for the planet and curb things that destroy it such as pollution, etc. However, human life is not a pollution nor disease/malignancy to the planet.

[Guest]

Family planning is one thing. Abortion is quite another.

As for the article titled "Can we handle it?"........."WE" don't handle (control) the planet.

Our Creator, God, handles the planet and its inhabitants. The planet was created with its own regenerating properties built into it.

Of course we should care for the planet and curb things that destroy it such as pollution, etc. However, human life is not a pollution nor disease/malignancy to the planet.

How about letting every woman make her own choices and let her and her God deal with it? You say God handles the planet and its inhabitants....so let him handle it.

[Guest]

Read this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44928812/ns/world_news/t/world-population-nears-billion-can-we-handle-it/#.TpyQWbKVq0o

...and tell me we (as humanity) don't need family planning - and that in some areas it's more than critical. (My preferred method would be education so people don't get unwanted pregnancies in the first place)

And beware about thinking that a founder of an organization represents the current views of that organization.

Washington and Jefferson were slave-owning plantation masters.

Heck, even more recently, Ronald Reagan was a deal-making liberal by today's GOP standards.

Well said. I don't get why limiting the number of children you have to the number you can afford to feed and educate is seen as wrong. Family planning is a necessity...we are almost at 7 billion inhabitants....

[Guest]

In theory, if trends continue in Ireland and Italy both nationalities could disappear in 200 years because their birth rate is in negative figures and any population growth stems from immigration. it is why both of these countries and in fact many European countries have become campaigns to limit immigration.

It so happens that both the white and black population here are being diminished while the asian increase and hispanics far outpacing all others.

Making adjustments to a country's immigration policies is one thing but intentionally controlling population growth is quite another.

I personally don't believe that a government gets the right to say who can and cannot be born. China did that with their female population and now they are feeling the adverse effects.

If Planned Parenthood's original goal was as reported then it may give liberals a reason to pause and rethink Roe v Wade

As the commerical says "its not nice to fool mother nature". If a woman does not want a baby then don't get pregnant. If you do get pregnant then carry it to full term and then decide if you want to retain your motherhood or allow carrying people who want a child to adopt.

[Guest]

Rubicon says, "I personally don't believe that a government gets the right to say who can and cannot be born. China did that with their female population and now they are feeling the adverse effects.

If Planned Parenthood's original goal was as reported then it may give liberals a reason to pause and rethink Roe v Wade

As the commerical says "its not nice to fool mother nature". If a woman does not want a baby then don't get pregnant. If you do get pregnant then carry it to full term and then decide if you want to retain your motherhood or allow carrying people who want a child to adopt."

1, The Chinese government did not say they would not allow female babies to be born nor did they make it legal to kill female babies. It is against the law in China to kill a baby. Based on the size of their country, the Chinese government decided to allow one child per couple.

2. Planned Parenthood's original goal was to do away with blacks? That is just a lie. The "Big Lie" is a form of propaganda and the goal is to say it long enough and loud enough and people will start to believe it. Anyone who repeats this particular Big Lie should be ashamed of themself - as we are of them.

3. Allow each mother the choice if she wants to keep her unborn child or not. It is not up to legislation or to public officials but up to each individual woman to decide for herself. Get this out of the political arena. Too many other things to be done politically instead of this.

[Guest]

I do think some of you give God a little too much credit.

[Guest]

Read this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44928812/ns/world_news/t/world-population-nears-billion-can-we-handle-it/#.TpyQWbKVq0o

...and tell me we (as humanity) don't need family planning - and that in some areas it's more than critical. (My preferred method would be education so people don't get unwanted pregnancies in the first place)

And beware about thinking that a founder of an organization represents the current views of that organization.

Washington and Jefferson were slave-owning plantation masters.

Heck, even more recently, Ronald Reagan was a deal-making liberal by today's GOP standards.

Well said!:clap2:

[Guest]

Well said. I don't get why limiting the number of children you have to the number you can afford to feed and educate is seen as wrong. Family planning is a necessity...we are almost at 7 billion inhabitants....

Promoting that families limit the number of children is one thing; deceptively or forcefully imposing it on them due to the color or IQ of that family is quite another. The latter is what PP was founded to do, and still does as shown by ilovetv's post. Have any of you even read the links? I doubt it as the language in these writings is utterly offensive to blacks and those with lower intelligence (moron and imbecile are the terms used)

[Guest]

In theory, if trends continue in Ireland and Italy both nationalities could disappear in 200 years because their birth rate is in negative figures and any population growth stems from immigration. it is why both of these countries and in fact many European countries have become campaigns to limit immigration.

It so happens that both the white and black population here are being diminished while the asian increase and hispanics far outpacing all others.

Making adjustments to a country's immigration policies is one thing but intentionally controlling population growth is quite another.

I personally don't believe that a government gets the right to say who can and cannot be born. China did that with their female population and now they are feeling the adverse effects.

If Planned Parenthood's original goal was as reported then it may give liberals a reason to pause and rethink Roe v Wade

As the commerical says "its not nice to fool mother nature". If a woman does not want a baby then don't get pregnant. If you do get pregnant then carry it to full term and then decide if you want to retain your motherhood or allow carrying people who want a child to adopt.

with all due respect -- I am open to hearing someone's views but those views become discredited when they are backed up by hearsay or misinformation -- China did not limit the female population, they limited the number of children one could have (by the way, that is no longer in effect) -- what happened is that because families could only have one child (what do you think happened to the other pregnancies --male and femake -- no one was adopting!) parents terminated female-child pregnancies because they would not be family assets in the same way as male children. So, no matter what government says, some people are going to terminate pregnancies. I remember when young women were doing it with hangers --often terminating their own lives as well. Every religion allows for free will -- if someone makes a poor choice, he or she can answer to God -- he did not appoint any of us to interfere with individual choices -- "judgment is mine, saith the Lord"

[Guest]

with all due respect -- I am open to hearing someone's views but those views become discredited when they are backed up by hearsay or misinformation -- China did not limit the female population, they limited the number of children one could have (by the way, that is no longer in effect) -- what happened is that because families could only have one child (what do you think happened to the other pregnancies --male and femake -- no one was adopting!) parents terminated female-child pregnancies because they would not be family assets in the same way as male children. So, no matter what government says, some people are going to terminate pregnancies. I remember when young women were doing it with hangers --often terminating their own lives as well. Every religion allows for free will -- if someone makes a poor choice, he or she can answer to God -- he did not appoint any of us to interfere with individual choices -- "judgment is mine, saith the Lord"

China mandated a one child family policy. The Cadres (govenor/mayor) in each province have historically been measured by his boss for promotion or pay increase, on how closely his province adhered to this policy. It is therefore more often than not, that these Cadres take matters into their own hands to insure that the policy is taken seriously one way or the other. While the Chinese goverrnment does not condone this, it has certainly turned a blind eye

As far as people terminating the lives of their own unborn children, that is still murder and we live in a moral society who should hold these people accountable. Roe v Wade needs to be overturned as it is an errant law.

[Guest]

In theory, if trends continue in Ireland and Italy both nationalities could disappear in 200 years because their birth rate is in negative figures and any population growth stems from immigration. it is why both of these countries and in fact many European countries have become campaigns to limit immigration.

It so happens that both the white and black population here are being diminished while the asian increase and hispanics far outpacing all others.

Making adjustments to a country's immigration policies is one thing but intentionally controlling population growth is quite another.

I personally don't believe that a government gets the right to say who can and cannot be born. China did that with their female population and now they are feeling the adverse effects.

If Planned Parenthood's original goal was as reported then it may give liberals a reason to pause and rethink Roe v Wade

As the commerical says "its not nice to fool mother nature". If a woman does not want a baby then don't get pregnant. If you do get pregnant then carry it to full term and then decide if you want to retain your motherhood or allow carrying people who want a child to adopt.
Yes, Caucasian population is down everywhere. Muslim population is exploding all around the earth. Check out England when you have the chance. WE have killed around 40 million babies in USA and now they say we need immigration to make up the difference. What a world.

[Guest]

Promoting that families limit the number of children is one thing; deceptively or forcefully imposing it on them due to the color or IQ of that family is quite another. The latter is what PP was founded to do, and still does as shown by ilovetv's post. Have any of you even read the links? I doubt it as the language in these writings is utterly offensive to blacks and those with lower intelligence (moron and imbecile are the terms used)

Where are you getting this information?! If you are following links, you are connecting to biased views. If you connect to the Planned Parenthood website, you will see nothing even remotely similar to the language you are expressing. I know several people who have used their services -- one is black -- and they would strongly disagree with you. What did you use Planned Parenthood for -- what was your direct experience? If you have a personal point of view on abortion, I am more that willing to listen, but unless you have had direct experience, please don't perpetuate hate-mongering -- it is a dangerous thing to do.

[Guest]

Where are you getting this information?! If you are following links, you are connecting to biased views. If you connect to the Planned Parenthood website, you will see nothing even remotely similar to the language you are expressing. I know several people who have used their services -- one is black -- and they would strongly disagree with you. What did you use Planned Parenthood for -- what was your direct experience? If you have a personal point of view on abortion, I am more that willing to listen, but unless you have had direct experience, please don't perpetuate hate-mongering -- it is a dangerous thing to do.

No, what is dangerous is calling someone a hate-mongerer.:ohdear:

[Guest]

Here's what Jane Roe has to say today...Norma L. McCorvey is a healthy Christian woman. In the present day, she is an activist who speaks out against legalized, willful abortion. She was once Jane Roe of Roe versus Wade, the court case that gave abortionists legitimacy to perform the monstrous act of abortion.

“After over 28 years of guilt-induced drug binges and various jobs in abortion clinics in an attempt to justify her involvement in the legalization of abortion, Norma McCorvey did the unthinkable. As the former “poster-girl” for abortion who, in the words of a friend, “jumped off of the poster and into the arms of Christ,” Norma truly began to live her life over, and today seeks to tell the world the truth about abortion. (Roe v. Life, 2)

The belief that is propounded by various pro-abortion groups or individuals says, “Abortion is a safe medical procedure. It is a woman's right. It will not harm you physically or emotionally,” is a lie.

Reportedly, as many as Ninety-one percent of women who have an abortion suffer from a condition known as post abortion trauma. (Diane S. Drew) This is a condition, which always leads to self-doubt, severe depression, and can sometimes even lead to suicide.
http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article96.htm

[Guest]

China mandated a one child family policy. The Cadres (govenor/mayor) in each province have historically been measured by his boss for promotion or pay increase, on how closely his province adhered to this policy. It is therefore more often than not, that these Cadres take matters into their own hands to insure that the policy is taken seriously one way or the other. While the Chinese goverrnment does not condone this, it has certainly turned a blind eye

As far as people terminating the lives of their own unborn children, that is still murder and we live in a moral society who should hold these people accountable. Roe v Wade needs to be overturned as it is an errant law.
well, you really didn't say anything much different about the Chinese situation that I did -- there's no disagreement there. As to your other point, I appreciate your point of view even though I disagree with it.

by the same token then, I assume you disagree with those who murder abortionists. Murder is murder, right?

[Guest]

Where are you getting this information?! If you are following links, you are connecting to biased views. If you connect to the Planned Parenthood website, you will see nothing even remotely similar to the language you are expressing. I know several people who have used their services -- one is black -- and they would strongly disagree with you. What did you use Planned Parenthood for -- what was your direct experience? If you have a personal point of view on abortion, I am more that willing to listen, but unless you have had direct experience, please don't perpetuate hate-mongering -- it is a dangerous thing to do.

One of my dearest friend in the whole world, Brenda who has spent many years smuggling bibles into China. I have heard this information first hand from this honest woman who has given me the honest truth. I can only tell the truth, it is up to you to consider me a liar or not. I cannot force anyone to hear the truth. Additionally, the kind Chinese people pray for Americans! The reason is that we have too many things that blind our eyes to truth, and they pray that we will not turn out like China. China was once a great Democracy that was destroyed from within similar to how we are destroying our great Democracy.

[Guest]

Here's what Jane Roe has to say today...Norma L. McCorvey is a healthy Christian woman. In the present day, she is an activist who speaks out against legalized, willful abortion. She was once Jane Roe of Roe versus Wade, the court case that gave abortionists legitimacy to perform the monstrous act of abortion.

“After over 28 years of guilt-induced drug binges and various jobs in abortion clinics in an attempt to justify her involvement in the legalization of abortion, Norma McCorvey did the unthinkable. As the former “poster-girl” for abortion who, in the words of a friend, “jumped off of the poster and into the arms of Christ,” Norma truly began to live her life over, and today seeks to tell the world the truth about abortion. (Roe v. Life, 2)

The belief that is propounded by various pro-abortion groups or individuals says, “Abortion is a safe medical procedure. It is a woman's right. It will not harm you physically or emotionally,” is a lie.

Reportedly, as many as Ninety-one percent of women who have an abortion suffer from a condition known as post abortion trauma. (Diane S. Drew) This is a condition, which always leads to self-doubt, severe depression, and can sometimes even lead to suicide.
http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article96.htm

I am a psychotherapist and what you say about the psychological aftermath of abortion is quite true -- no one terminates a pregnancy easily; HOWEVER, that same aftermath occurs after rape or any other traumatic event. With proper counseling, these women go on to live psychologically healthy lives. If they do not recover it is most likely that there are other issues in their lives that they have not resolved.

[Guest]

well, you really didn't say anything much different about the Chinese situation that I did -- there's no disagreement there. As to your other point, I appreciate your point of view even though I disagree with it.

by the same token then, I assume you disagree with those who murder abortionists. Murder is murder, right?


I totally disagree with those who kill abortionists. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Guest]

One of my dearest friend in the whole world, Brenda who has spent many years smuggling bibles into China. I have heard this information first hand from this honest woman who has given me the honest truth. I can only tell the truth, it is up to you to consider me a liar or not. I cannot force anyone to hear the truth. Additionally, the kind Chinese people pray for Americans! The reason is that we have too many things that blind our eyes to truth, and they pray that we will not turn out like China. China was once a great Democracy that was destroyed from within similar to how we are destroying our great Democracy.

Well, your dear friend, Brenda, has a religiously biased view, yes. I am not disputing it, just calling it out.

[Guest]

Yes, Caucasian population is down everywhere. Muslim population is exploding all around the earth. Check out England when you have the chance. WE have killed around 40 million babies in USA and now they say we need immigration to make up the difference. What a world.


Why is it that 90+ % of Planned Parenthood facilities are located in poverty and low income and black communities?

[Guest]

I am a psychotherapist and what you say about the psychological aftermath of abortion is quite true -- no one terminates a pregnancy easily; HOWEVER, that same aftermath occurs after rape or any other traumatic event. With proper counseling, these women go on to live psychologically healthy lives. If they do not recover it is most likely that there are other issues in their lives that they have not resolved.

I can understand the trauma from rape, but why from abortion if it isn't a traumatic event? And if it is such a traumatic event, then why is that fact not presented as a possible side effect of abortion? And these post abortion effects are not small things either! I have posted data from gvernmetn studies on a previous thread this summer listing the horrendous side effects. I will try to repost.

[Guest]

Well, your dear friend, Brenda, has a religiously biased view, yes. I am not disputing it, just calling it out.
So becausshe is a Christian, her facts cannot be considered truth?

[Guest]

Why is it that 90+ % of Planned Parenthood facilities are located in poverty and low income and black communities?
because that is the population most in need of their services and the rent is low? All social service agencies have a presence in low income communities.

[Guest]

I can understand the trauma from rape, but why from abortion if it isn't a traumatic event? And if it is such a traumatic event, then why is that fact not presented as a possible side effect of abortion? And these post abortion effects are not small things either! I have posted data from gvernmetn studies on a previous thread this summer listing the horrendous side effects. I will try to repost.

Abortion is presented as a traumatic event. I do agree that more appropriate counseling needs to be provided to patients -- but unbiased, psychological advice, not religion based.

[Guest]

Abortion is presented as a traumatic event. I do agree that more appropriate counseling needs to be provided to patients -- but unbiased, psychological advice, not religion based.

You see, Katz -- there are two things we agree on-- lol

[Guest]

because that is the population most in need of their services and the rent is low? All social service agencies have a presence in low income communities.

Seems a coincidence that the same neighborhoods being served the most by PP today are the same neighborhoods where Margaret Sanger aimed to practice her black genocide and eradication of lower intelligence populations...

[Guest]

So becausshe is a Christian, her facts cannot be considered truth?
If she is expressing a religious point of view that is opinion, not fact -- she certainly has the right to express her opinion, but let's not interpret that as fact.

[Guest]

Seems a coincidence that the same neighborhoods being served the most by PP today are the same neighborhoods where Margaret Sanger aimed to practice her black genocide and eradication of lower intelligence populations...

and where is your proof of that -- many of those neighborhoods have disappeared or have been gentrified.

There is more ground for us to agree if we stick to what we know from personal experience and not to make assumptions or repeat hearsay or information from unsubstantiated website links

[Guest]

Abortion is presented as a traumatic event. I do agree that more appropriate counseling needs to be provided to patients -- but unbiased, psychological advice, not religion based.

I am pretty sure that my opinions on abortion have mainly been presented based on scientific facts everywhere on this forum.
I also am concerned about your apparent belief that Christians lie to promote their agenda...

[Guest]

I am pretty sure that my opinions on abortion have mainly been presented based on scientific facts everywhere on this forum.
I also am concerned about your apparent belief that Christians lie to promote their agenda...

now, Katz, I never said that -- you are losing credibility with me now -- we each have our opinions on things no matter what our political or religious beliefs are -- just because they are opinions and not facts does not mean that anyone is lying.

When you begin to twist what someone is saying, that is not a healthy discussion -- I have tried very hard to listen to you -- have even agreed with you on a couple of points -- and yet you remain oppositional and judgmental about my views.

I think the discussion needs to end here because it has ceased to be a discussion and is turning into an attack on my beliefs.

[Guest]

and where is your proof of that -- many of those neighborhoods have disappeared or have been gentrified.

There is more ground for us to agree if we stick to what we know from personal experience and not to make assumptions or repeat hearsay or information from unsubstantiated website links

Let's start with hearsay...When I reported the experience a long loved and trusted friend, you responded that her story is biased since she is a Christian. I am happy to have an open and honest dialogue with you, but the ground rules are that we must both be serious about this and we must both be honest and we must both agree to read the posts and think about what is being said by the other. I am an open and honest person and trust that you are the same. That is why I am on this forum. Not to shove my opinions on anyone, but to learn and share what I know with others. I do not want to be lumped together with anyone nor will I do that to you. What do you say?

[Guest]

now, Katz, I never said that -- you are losing credibility with me now -- we each have our opinions on things no matter what our political or religious beliefs are -- just because they are opinions and not facts does not mean that anyone is lying.

When you begin to twist what someone is saying, that is not a healthy discussion -- I have tried very hard to listen to you -- have even agreed with you on a couple of points -- and yet you remain oppositional and judgmental about my views.

I think the discussion needs to end here because it has ceased to be a discussion and is turning into an attack on my beliefs.

I have not twisted anything. You said that my friend had a religiously biased view, when I only stated the true facts as she has told me. Why would you assume that her view is religiously biased?

[Guest]

Hearsay at the most. Hearsay is never admitted into a courtroom.

You have never been to China and you do not know first hand what is going on there. Just report on what you have personally observed.

You have lost great credibility here. Please go to your facts checker and get them all in a line before posting anymore things that are just hearsay.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

[Guest]

~With some on this forum, I have never had credibility by virtue of being a Christian, a pro-lifer, and a conservative. Therefore, I cannot lose any credibility that I never had.
~With others, I'm pretty sure that my credibility is rock solid, as theirs is with me.
~It is the opinion of the latter that has captured my respect, while the opinions of the former mean nothing to me anymore.

and I quote..."I think the discussion needs to end here because it has ceased to be a discussion and is turning into an attack on my beliefs."

[Guest]

Just say, "Good night, Gracie."

Hope you have a good day tomorrow.

[Guest]

In the battle of wits, some people show up unarmed. Katz, your a wonderful poster and don't let the leftie trolls bother you.

[Guest]

[B]Hearsay at the most[/

Just report on what you have personally observed. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Following your criteria, there sure wouldn't be much posting done here on Political!

Katz' credibility is rock solid with me.

[Guest]

Hearsay at the most. Hearsay is never admitted into a courtroom.

You have never been to China and you do not know first hand what is going on there. Just report on what you have personally observed.

You have lost great credibility here. Please go to your facts checker and get them all in a line before posting anymore things that are just hearsay.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Totally unbelievable . I had to quote this in case this post is deleted. I guess I cannot post here anymore because I have never been to China, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. etc.

[Guest]

The man-made gender imbalance in China is well documented and is no small matter:

"(CNN) Study: China faces 24M bride shortage by 2020
January 11, 2010

Some 24 million Chinese men of marrying age will find themselves lacking wives in 2020, partly because of the country's one-child policy, which has led to the abortion of female fetuses, state media said Monday.

Sex-specific abortions have led to a large male population born since the 1980s, the China Daily newspaper said, citing a study conducted by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

The gender imbalance means that the next decade will see many intergenerational marriages: young men married to women much older than them, the study said...."

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-11/world/china.bride.shortage_1_one-child-policy-female-fetuses-preference-for-male-heirs?_s=PM:WORLD

Gendercide
The worldwide war on baby girls
Technology, declining fertility and ancient prejudice are combining to unbalance societies:
http://www.economist.com/node/15636231

[Guest]

Of course we should care for the planet and curb things that destroy it such as pollution, etc. However, human life is not a pollution nor disease/malignancy to the planet.

We haven't done such a good job of not acting like a pollutant until the last 50 years.

But I do agree with certain aspects of your opinion - just in a bit different way.

[Guest]

I am 70 years old, I have grown through generations of thought and conflict.
Recognizing a woman should have a choice, an opinion on her giving or taking
"life" is why I am still here and focusing on that concept. No one, no one
will take that right away from me...whether by thought, by some conceptual
or religious propoganda, by rape or incest. I have, I have the right to decide.
My children have the right to decide. No individual, no mass, no one person will change my mind. I am shocked and dismayed that people generally my age cling to thought os the last turn of the century. I am not an indentured
servant, nor are my children, nor our their children. This is one of the most
ridiculous and embarrassing posts ever on this forum, and possibly, one of the most racial as well. Too much time on your hands I think. My body, my right,
my desire, my choice. No one should control that destiny, that wish, that
belief whatever color, socio=econonic level, religious thought, or decision to
think for others. My body, my choice. I think I am embarrased about this entire
thread. It is possible the cat's pajama's added these thoughts to subterfuge
a woman's right to make decisions about her body, her progeny her life. It
makes me ill as we approach 2012 and beyond. Sometimes, those discussions were part of my life's work, I understand the complex and difficult decisions, however, ultimately, they are one woman's to make. God is busy with many
other critical aspects of life...and death.

[Guest]

I am 70 years old, I have grown through generations of thought and conflict.
Recognizing a woman should have a choice, an opinion on her giving or taking
"life" is why I am still here and focusing on that concept. No one, no one
will take that right away from me...whether by thought, by some conceptual
or religious propoganda, by rape or incest. I have, I have the right to decide.
My children have the right to decide. No individual, no mass, no one person will change my mind. I am shocked and dismayed that people generally my age cling to thought os the last turn of the century. I am not an indentured
servant, nor are my children, nor our their children. This is one of the most
ridiculous and embarrassing posts ever on this forum, and possibly, one of the most racial as well. Too much time on your hands I think. My body, my right,
my desire, my choice. No one should control that destiny, that wish, that
belief whatever color, socio=econonic level, religious thought, or decision to
think for others. My body, my choice. I think I am embarrased about this entire
thread. It is possible the cat's pajama's added these thoughts to subterfuge
a woman's right to make decisions about her body, her progeny her life. It
makes me ill as we approach 2012 and beyond. Sometimes, those discussions were part of my life's work, I understand the complex and difficult decisions, however, ultimately, they are one woman's to make. God is busy with many
other critical aspects of life...and death.

Correction...it involves a woman's body and a child's body.
PLUS what is embarrassing is the number of people who still hold to the ridiculous opinions expressed on this forum that leave the innocent and defenseless child out.
Correction...God is never too busy to care about anything, especially His unborn children.

[Guest]

Those who are the ardent defenders of the murder of innocent life that we refer to as "abortion" will always avoid the discussion of the "baby" if they can. They will also avoid discussing the hypocrisy of their defense of abortion and the religious faith they claim to possess.

Why do you think Planned Parenthood fights so hard to prevent the pregnant woman from having to see an ultrasound image or to even hear the heartbeat of the life growing inside her before she has that abortion. Everyone knows what's being destroyed.

[Guest]

I find it disturbing that some of the very same people who go on and on about animal abuse do not think twice about a baby being violently ripped from a women's uterus. I kind of makes me sick to my stomach.

[Guest]

Those who are the ardent defenders of the murder of innocent life that we refer to as "abortion" will always avoid the discussion of the "baby" if they can. They will also avoid discussing the hypocrisy of their defense of abortion and the religious faith they claim to possess.

Why do you think Planned Parenthood fights so hard to prevent the pregnant woman from having to see an ultrasound image or to even hear the heartbeat of the life growing inside her before she has that abortion. Everyone knows what's being destroyed.

:bigbow::bigbow::bigbow:
Excellent post...NOTHING BUT NET RICHIE!

[Guest]

Terribly sorry. I forgot someone! It's not just a woman's body! It is a woman's body, a child's body, and a man's life!
"Whatever kind of person the lost one might have been, I feel even now that we had no right to take its life. Religion has nothing to do with that feeling. It was a "gut" response that overwhelmed me..."
http://clinicquotes.com/site/story.php?id=482

[Guest]

Those who are the ardent defenders of the murder of innocent life that we refer to as "abortion" will always avoid the discussion of the "baby" if they can. They will also avoid discussing the hypocrisy of their defense of abortion and the religious faith they claim to possess.

Why do you think Planned Parenthood fights so hard to prevent the pregnant woman from having to see an ultrasound image or to even hear the heartbeat of the life growing inside her before she has that abortion. Everyone knows what's being destroyed.

I know I'm going to draw flames for this, but I'll take a shot at explaining some of this. Take it for what it's worth.

"Murder of innocent life" - that's your belief. Murder, by definition, is the illegal taking of life. I would imagine your position is that it is the killing of innocent life. But that's part of the "controlling the language of the debate" that happens in this topic.

"avoid the discussion of the baby". This is what'll get me into trouble. It's not a baby - not yet. I've had graphic experiences in this area (cleaning up a miscarriage that was much further along than the lion's share of abortions). Yeah, prospective parents talk about 'the baby' while the woman is pregnant - no argument there. But, back in the days of film cameras, we also said "we took a photograph" even though a lot of work (developing and printing) had to happen before you had it. This, of course, leads into the sticky question of "viability". Even people who are more strongly pro-choice start to get a little weak in the knees when you talk about "post-viable" - problem is, from the point of making a law, 'viability' isn't a line carved in stone - it varies (to say nothing of the expense).

And as far as Planned Parenhood goes and the issue you raised - it's because the most strident pro-life advocates will distort facts as well. Like talking about 'the heart' when it's a single-chamber heart that has more in common with a frog. They talk about the brain when there's barely any mass. They blow up photographs a hundred times to ply on emotions. They make up statistics about "post-abortion syndrome". (And no, I don't believe that clinic bombers are representative of those who oppose abortion - every movement has their moonbat lunatics)

The problem to me seems to be the activists on both sides pulling at the middle. It keeps this VERY volatile subject in the news.

And this doesn't even BEGIN to get into the post-natal issues. I don't think anyone would argue against the concept that, frequently, abortion is done for financial reasons. But if you force the woman to take the pregnancy to term, who's going to pay for all the care (pre natal as well - and remember, over 90% of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to pre-natal and gynecological care)? These are, by and large, the same people who want to decimate plans for the poor - all while the kids pile up in foster care looking for parents who want babies that look like them.

It's like I've often said - think it through.

I'll be completely honest - I don't like abortion. You may not believe it, but I don't. I don't like the fact that I've been in the room for one. But there are a lot of things in life I don't like. Having been through that and a particularly messy miscarriage, I can tell you that I love and absolutely adore my two daughters.

[Guest]

I know I'm going to draw flames for this, but I'll take a shot at explaining some of this. Take it for what it's worth.

"Murder of innocent life" - that's your belief. Murder, by definition, is the illegal taking of life. I would imagine your position is that it is the killing of innocent life. But that's part of the "controlling the language of the debate" that happens in this topic.

"avoid the discussion of the baby". This is what'll get me into trouble. It's not a baby - not yet. I've had graphic experiences in this area (cleaning up a miscarriage that was much further along than the lion's share of abortions). Yeah, prospective parents talk about 'the baby' while the woman is pregnant - no argument there. But, back in the days of film cameras, we also said "we took a photograph" even though a lot of work (developing and printing) had to happen before you had it. This, of course, leads into the sticky question of "viability". Even people who are more strongly pro-choice start to get a little weak in the knees when you talk about "post-viable" - problem is, from the point of making a law, 'viability' isn't a line carved in stone - it varies (to say nothing of the expense).

And as far as Planned Parenhood goes and the issue you raised - it's because the most strident pro-life advocates will distort facts as well. Like talking about 'the heart' when it's a single-chamber heart that has more in common with a frog. They talk about the brain when there's barely any mass. They blow up photographs a hundred times to ply on emotions. They make up statistics about "post-abortion syndrome". (And no, I don't believe that clinic bombers are representative of those who oppose abortion - every movement has their moonbat lunatics)

The problem to me seems to be the activists on both sides pulling at the middle. It keeps this VERY volatile subject in the news.

And this doesn't even BEGIN to get into the post-natal issues. I don't think anyone would argue against the concept that, frequently, abortion is done for financial reasons. But if you force the woman to take the pregnancy to term, who's going to pay for all the care (pre natal as well - and remember, over 90% of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to pre-natal and gynecological care)? These are, by and large, the same people who want to decimate plans for the poor - all while the kids pile up in foster care looking for parents who want babies that look like them.

It's like I've often said - think it through.

I'll be completely honest - I don't like abortion. You may not believe it, but I don't. I don't like the fact that I've been in the room for one. But there are a lot of things in life I don't like. Having been through that and a particularly messy miscarriage, I can tell you that I love and absolutely adore my two daughters.

It is a baby, a live baby, and Medical Science proves that.

I am very happy that you love your two daughters, no one has accused you of not loving your children. Being pro-abortion and not loving one's children are not synonymous you know.

[Guest]

I am a psychotherapist and what you say about the psychological aftermath of abortion is quite true -- no one terminates a pregnancy easily; HOWEVER, that same aftermath occurs after rape or any other traumatic event. With proper counseling, these women go on to live psycholgically healthy lives. If they do not recover it is most likely that there are other issues in their lives that they have not resolved.

Being raped is due to some criminal's forced actions on a victim whereas an abortion is an action taken voluntarily by that person. In my mind they are both criminal acts and unfortunately both type victims suffer from PTSD. What leaves me in disbelief is that many of these women repeatedly return to PP to abort which would leave one to infer that PTSD is a non-issue.

[Guest]

Rubicon says, "I personally don't believe that a government gets the right to say who can and cannot be born. China did that with their female population and now they are feeling the adverse effects.

If Planned Parenthood's original goal was as reported then it may give liberals a reason to pause and rethink Roe v Wade

As the commerical says "its not nice to fool mother nature". If a woman does not want a baby then don't get pregnant. If you do get pregnant then carry it to full term and then decide if you want to retain your motherhood or allow carrying people who want a child to adopt."

1, The Chinese government did not say they would not allow female babies to be born nor did they make it legal to kill female babies. It is against the law in China to kill a baby. Based on the size of their country, the Chinese government decided to allow one child per couple.

2. Planned Parenthood's original goal was to do away with blacks? That is just a lie. The "Big Lie" is a form of propaganda and the goal is to say it long enough and loud enough and people will start to believe it. Anyone who repeats this particular Big Lie should be ashamed of themself - as we are of them.

3. Allow each mother the choice if she wants to keep her unborn child or not. It is not up to legislation or to public officials but up to each individual woman to decide for herself. Get this out of the political arena. Too many other things to be done politically instead of this.

Buggyone: I need to get back with you on the chinese girl issue...However it seems to me Iread years back that chinese mothers were known to drown female offspring in the nearby rivers. Perhaps it was an account in a Pearl S. Buck novel. I could be completely off base here..... and yes I was aware that the government limited families to one child but I believe it was because of the aforementioned drowning issue. Quite honestly I hope I am wrong for obvious issues

[Guest]

It is a baby, a live baby, and Medical Science proves that.

I am very happy that you love your two daughters, no one has accused you of not loving your children. Being pro-abortion and not loving one's children are not synonymous you know.

Take a fertilized egg out of the womb and tell me that. Heck, at that stage, the 'baby' can do things that a 'real baby' cannot - like be frozen, stored for years, defrosted and implanted back into a womb and survive - there's a whole industry that does this.

"Medical Science" has a whole host of names for the various stages of development. Zygote, blastocyte, fetus, etc.

And I believe I've demonstrated respect in referring to those on the other side as "pro life" as opposed to the more politically charged "anti-choice" (and I've heard some worse ones from the radical left). I would appreciate treatment in kind. I am in no way in favor of abortion. I simply prefer a different method to eliminating over 95% of it. (At the source - as in preventing the pregnancy in the first place).

[Guest]

Take a fertilized egg out of the womb and tell me that. Heck, at that stage, the 'baby' can do things that a 'real baby' cannot - like be frozen, stored for years, defrosted and implanted back into a womb and survive - there's a whole industry that does this.

"Medical Science" has a whole host of names for the various stages of development. Zygote, blastocyte, fetus, etc.

And I believe I've demonstrated respect in referring to those on the other side as "pro life" as opposed to the more politically charged "anti-choice" (and I've heard some worse ones from the radical left). I would appreciate treatment in kind. I am in no way in favor of abortion. I simply prefer a different method to eliminating over 95% of it. (At the source - as in preventing the pregnancy in the first place).

djp I obviously can't speak for you but personally I am so grateful that my parents didn't view me as "fertilized egg" but a child who would be nurtured and loved.

[Guest]

Take a fertilized egg out of the womb and tell me that. Heck, at that stage, the 'baby' can do things that a 'real baby' cannot - like be frozen, stored for years, defrosted and implanted back into a womb and survive - there's a whole industry that does this.

"Medical Science" has a whole host of names for the various stages of development. Zygote, blastocyte, fetus, etc.

And I believe I've demonstrated respect in referring to those on the other side as "pro life" as opposed to the more politically charged "anti-choice" (and I've heard some worse ones from the radical left). I would appreciate treatment in kind. I am in no way in favor of abortion. I simply prefer a different method to eliminating over 95% of it. (At the source - as in preventing the pregnancy in the first place).

I cannot call pro-abortion people by the term pro-choice until the choices of all involved are respected.
With your example of freezing the embryo...many premature babies are unable to survive without life support. Should we consider them alive or not? Since they need the help of others humans, such as the embryo/fetus relies on the umbilical cord, should we make it legal for the parents to choose to terminate them also if it is going to be too expensive or inconvenient, etc?

[Guest]

This from djplong........They make up statistics about "post-abortion syndrome". (And no, I don't believe that clinic bombers are representative of those who oppose abortion - every movement has their moonbat lunatics)........



MAKE UP STATISTICS?
from www.afterabortion.org...Over 90 percent are done in freestanding abortion centers. With almost no exceptions, these abortion mills have no supervision, are not state inspected and are not required to have emergency resuscitation equipment. They have inadequate ambulance facilities, often have no RN’s on duty and, most importantly, no qualified surgeon to do the work.

The only requirement to do abortions in almost every state is an MD or a DO degree. You can be a dermatologist and open an abortion facility. You can be a hack, denied surgical or even admitting privileges in any hospital, and still do abortions.

In fact, many abortionists are these kinds of incompetent doctors ~

When confounding factors are eliminated, a picture has emerged of a broad spectrum of problems resulting from abortion. Let us list some:


Maternal Deaths: Compared to childbirth, women who have abortions have an elevated risk of death later from all causes. This persists for at least 8 years. A higher risk of death from suicide and accidents are most prominent. Projected on the national population, this effect may contribute to 2000-5000 additional deaths among women each year.1


Psychiatric Hospitalization: A review of the medical records of 56,741 Medicaid patients revealed that the women who had had abortions were 160 percent more likely to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment in the first 90 days following abortions, as compared to those who delivered. Rates of such treatment remain significantly higher for at least 4 years.


Clinical Depression: Compared to women who carry their first unintended pregnancy to term, women who abort their first pregnancy are at a significantly higher risk of clinical depression, as measured in an average of 8 years after their first pregnancy.3


Substance Abuse: Compared to women who carry to term, women who abort are 5 times more likely to subsequently abuse drugs or alcohol.4
Outpatient Psychiatric Care: Analysts of California Medicaid records show that women who have abortions will subsequently require significantly more treatment for psychiatric illness through outpatient care.5


Effect on Children: The children of women who have abortions, have less supportive home environments and more behavioral problems than the children of women without a history of abortion. This finding supports the view that abortion may negatively effect bonding with subsequent children and disturb mothering skills. It may not only have such negative effects upon the children, but in very significant ways impact women’s psychological stability.6


Substance Abuse During Subsequent Pregnancies: Compared to women delivering their first pregnancy, women with a history of abortion are five times more likely to use illicit drugs and two times more likely to use alcohol during their next pregnancies. Besides the negative effects on the women, these substances place their unborn children at risk of birth defects, low birth weight and death.7


Long Term Clinical Depression: Analysis of a federally funded longitude study of American women revealed that women who aborted were 65 percent more likely to be at risk of long-term clinical depression, after controlling for age, race, education, marital status, history of divorce, income and prior psychiatric state.8


Placenta Previa: After abortion there’s a 7 to 15-fold increase in placenta previa in subsequent pregnancies. This abnormal development of the placenta is due to damage to the lining of the womb from the abortion. It can be fatal for the women. It also increases the risk of birth defects, stillbirth and excessive bleeding during labor.


Premature Birth: Premature birth is a well-documented after-effect of induced abortion. This is due to damage to the cervix, which results in an increased incident of premature births. Preemies die more often than full term babies and have more frequent disabilities resulting from the premature birth. Such problems obviously have continuing negative emotional impact on the women.


Ectopic Pregnancy: Women have an increased risk of subsequent tubal (ectopic) pregnancies. These can be life threatening; they also reduce future fertility.

Other Post-Abortion Problems: Thirty to fifty percent of such women report experiencing sexual dysfunction such as promiscuity, loss of pleasure from intercourse, increased pain and aversion to sex and men. Women with a history of abortion are significantly more likely to subsequently have shorter relationships and divorce more often.

Women with a prior abortion are four times more likely to have a repeat abortion in the future than those who have no abortion history. Note: 45 to 47 percent of all abortions are now repeat abortions.

The significant increase in breast cancer among women who have had abortions is well known. With a higher rate of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) infections, they also have a higher risk of cervical cancer. Since smoking is sharply increased among post-abortion women, one could anticipate a possible greater incident of lung cancer.

And finally, one cannot overlook the fact that 10 percent of women suffer immediate complications. These include infection, hemorrhage, cervical injury, blood clots, anesthesia complications, chronic abdominal pain, Rh sensitization, gastro-intestinal disturbances, vomiting, fever and occasionally, endotoxic shock. Note that while many of the above complications fall under the sequelae included under “Post-Abortion Syndrome,” there is much, much more guilt, distress and heartbreak not directly reflected in the above.

Conclusion
We now have enough definitive studies about women who’ve had abortions to totally refute any attempt by pro-abortion zealots to claim that abortion is safer than childbirth. The above complications are an incomplete list, but space prevents further elaboration.

Our thanks go to Dr. David Reardon, Director of the Elliot Institute, who is the author of most of the studies quoted above. To contact the Elliot Institute for more documentation, visit www.afterabortion.org.

1 Southern Medical Journal 2002
2 Pregnancy Associated Deaths in Finland 1987 - 1994, M. Gissler At All Acta Obstet. Gynecal. Scandi 76, 1997, p. 651-657, graphs from Elliot Institute.
3 British Medical Journal 2002
4 American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 2000
5 American Journal of Ortho Psychiatry 2002
6 Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2002
7 American Journal of Ob-Gyn 2002
8 Medical Science Monitor 2003
[By J.C. Willke, MD, Life Issues Connector, April 2006]

[Guest]

djp I obviously can't speak for you but personally I am so grateful that my parents didn't view me as "fertilized egg" but a child who would be nurtured and loved.

First off, I doubt they knew you even WERE a fertilized egg when you were one.

Secondly, I'll assume that you, like my two daughters, were very much wanted. So was the one we lost via miscarriage.

[Guest]

I cannot call pro-abortion people by the term pro-choice until the choices of all involved are respected.
With your example of freezing the embryo...many premature babies are unable to survive without life support. Should we consider them alive or not? Since they need the help of others humans, such as the embryo/fetus relies on the umbilical cord, should we make it legal for the parents to choose to terminate them also if it is going to be too expensive or inconvenient, etc?

An egg can't make a choice. As heartless as that sounds, it's true.

On your point about preemies. They're born. At least from a legal standpoint in all 50 states, they have rights at that point. Before that, it varies but, for example, there's no state where you can walk into a clinic 8 1/2 months pregnant and get an abortion because you suddenly changed your mind.

But now I ask you this. Please correct me if I'm wrong - but are you not a supporter of the Tea Party? If not, ignore my next question.

Do you know how expensive preemies are? Who pays for this? There aren't many parents who have 6 figures lying around to pay for a troubled pregnancy and many insurance companies have caps on benefits - to say nothing of those who are uninsured. Who pays the $100K-$500K for these situations?

It's what I've always said is the discussion nobody wants to have about health care - end of life discussions - even when that life is just starting out.

When my youngest daughter was born, she was fine, healthy and HUGE - an ounce shy of 10 pounds. She choked on something which was dealt with but the hospital wanted to play things safe and run some tests with a neonatal surgeon on standby. Because no neonatal surgeoun was around for 2 days, she was sent to Boston's Children's Hospital.

When I walked into the Neo-Natal ICU.. I can't describe what I saw. Easily a dozen setups that looked like Darth Vader's Control Center. Monitors, wires, readouts and tiny hoses hooked up to the unbelievably tiny babies. On the back wall was my 10-pound Broad-zilla who was literally over three times the size of these others.

My daughter was only there one night and, back in 1992, that cost well into 5 figures. By my estimation, those kids were costing up to a quarter million dollars a day (10-12x the $10K-$20K the one night cost to our insurance company). That's just ONE hospital in Boston.

Abortion is NOT a simple argument or debate.

If we say that a fetus has legal rights and is entitled to legal protection - what do we do about the woman who doesn't take care of herself in any way shape or form - eats a lousy diet, maybe takes drugs and has a miscarriage. Do we prosecute her for negligent homicide? I mean, right now, in some states, if a drunk driver hits a pregnant woman who is far enough along, they DO charge the drunk with murder if 'the baby dies'.

Do you see what I mean about this not being a simple discussion - no matter how much we as Americans WANT simple answers.

[Guest]

djplong~ To address your first comment about a "fertilized" egg not capable of making a choice...at what point is a new born child able to make a choice?

Thanks for the openness! I gotta go now with my daughter (the only planned child of my 4) to try on wedding dresses! YEAH!:a040:

[Guest]

Our thanks go to Dr. David Reardon, Director of the Elliot Institute, who is the author of most of the studies quoted above. To contact the Elliot Institute for more documentation, visit www.afterabortion.org.


Really?

Here's something from the afterabortion's website:


The Elliot Institute is a non-profit, 501(c)3 tax exempt corporation that was founded in 1988 to perform original research and education on the impact of abortion on women, men, siblings, and society. The Elliot Institute publishes research and educational materials and works as an advocate for women and men seeking post-abortion healing.


Tell me that's not biased.

And it took me a bit to discover this, but afterabortion.org IS the Elliot Institute (or vice-versa).

The TITLE of Elliot's home page is "Who Should Play God?"

Would you accept me quoting something form the Guttmacher Institute? (In case you don't know who they are, they do get funding from Planned Parenthood)

Tell you what. It's been a long time since I've done this debate - I avoid it becuase of the intense emotional responses that happen. But I'll see if I can find reference to some of what you've quoted in peer-reviewed medical journals. I don't have much time for it this weekend but I'll keep this in mind.

So far, this has avoided the name-calling and vitriol that usually walks in the door with an abortion argument - but it's still emotionally charged. After all, we're talking about the number one purpose of our DNA - reproduction.

[Guest]

Really?

Here's something from the afterabortion's website:



Tell me that's not biased.

And it took me a bit to discover this, but afterabortion.org IS the Elliot Institute (or vice-versa).

The TITLE of Elliot's home page is "Who Should Play God?"

Would you accept me quoting something form the Guttmacher Institute? (In case you don't know who they are, they do get funding from Planned Parenthood)

Tell you what. It's been a long time since I've done this debate - I avoid it becuase of the intense emotional responses that happen. But I'll see if I can find reference to some of what you've quoted in peer-reviewed medical journals. I don't have much time for it this weekend but I'll keep this in mind.

So far, this has avoided the name-calling and vitriol that usually walks in the door with an abortion argument - but it's still emotionally charged. After all, we're talking about the number one purpose of our DNA - reproduction.
Funny thing about funding and opinions. The Warmists get all their ammunition for their side of the Global Warming debate from organizations that take government money. Very few organizations are actually unbiased in some way. They all need money.

[Guest]

Really?

Here's something from the afterabortion's website:



Tell me that's not biased.

And it took me a bit to discover this, but afterabortion.org IS the Elliot Institute (or vice-versa).

The TITLE of Elliot's home page is "Who Should Play God?"

Would you accept me quoting something form the Guttmacher Institute? (In case you don't know who they are, they do get funding from Planned Parenthood)

Tell you what. It's been a long time since I've done this debate - I avoid it becuase of the intense emotional responses that happen. But I'll see if I can find reference to some of what you've quoted in peer-reviewed medical journals. I don't have much time for it this weekend but I'll keep this in mind.

So far, this has avoided the name-calling and vitriol that usually walks in the door with an abortion argument - but it's still emotionally charged. After all, we're talking about the number one purpose of our DNA - reproduction.


Why would I call you a name other than djplong? I will tell you that it is not as biased as you claim. I get the impression that the website people gathered the information from reputable sources. Did you miss these references at the bottom of my post?
1 Southern Medical Journal 2002
2 Pregnancy Associated Deaths in Finland 1987 - 1994, M. Gissler At All Acta Obstet. Gynecal. Scandi 76, 1997, p. 651-657, graphs from Elliot Institute.
3 British Medical Journal 2002
4 American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 2000
5 American Journal of Ortho Psychiatry 2002
6 Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2002
7 American Journal of Ob-Gyn 2002
8 Medical Science Monitor 2003

[Guest]

djplong~ Keep in mind that Planned Parenthood has vested interest in the results of any research...money to be made. I, and the anti-abortion.org people, make no money either way.

[Guest]

Katz - It's easy to believe at face value that you certainly make nothing from the debate. However, just because someone claims to be a non-profit doesn't mean there's no profit there. Let me stress I'm not making accusations but we've all see enough cases where the non-profit status is abused that it doesn't mean anything at face value (Churches, anyone?)

And, no, I wasn't saying you were or WOULD name-call. I was appreciating the fact that you didn't as I've gotten into these discussions on other forums and it DOES have a tendency to degenerate quickly.

To be honest, it's one of the reasons I stick around here. Despite the expected frustrations, there's a lot more civility here than in other places and that's something to be applauded.

[Guest]

Katz: Just for the heck of it, I started looking at your first reference.

First, it's hard to find the actual article, but I did. I'm a bit curious as to why they limited the study to women who's first pregnancy was either an abortiion or live birth. I mean, why not include more for a bigger sample?

Either way - I found the following passage very enlightening:


Higher death rates after abortion may be explained by a number of factors. Women who have children may be more likely to avoid risk-taking and to take better care of their health.


Once again, abortion looking like the SYMPTOM, not the disease. I'd love to know what the numbers would be for those who had abortions AND live births.

To it's credit, the study DOES say that there are a lot more factors they would have liked to have been able to include in their study.

[Guest]

Katz: Just for the heck of it, I started looking at your first reference.

First, it's hard to find the actual article, but I did. I'm a bit curious as to why they limited the study to women who's first pregnancy was either an abortiion or live birth. I mean, why not include more for a bigger sample?

Either way - I found the following passage very enlightening:



Once again, abortion looking like the SYMPTOM, not the disease. I'd love to know what the numbers would be for those who had abortions AND live births.

To it's credit, the study DOES say that there are a lot more factors they would have liked to have been able to include in their study.

For this study to make any sense it would have had to compare death rates of those who first had a live birth and then had an abortion with those who had an abortion without a live birth.

[Guest]

For this study to make any sense it would have had to compare death rates of those who first had a live birth and then had an abortion with those who had an abortion without a live birth.


Not sure who can refute these stats...The data that I presented on my earlier post had referenced footnotes as follows:
1 Southern Medical Journal 2002
2 Pregnancy Associated Deaths in Finland 1987 - 1994, M. Gissler At All Acta Obstet. Gynecal. Scandi 76, 1997, p. 651-657, graphs from Elliot Institute.
3 British Medical Journal 2002
4 American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 2000
5 American Journal of Ortho Psychiatry 2002
6 Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2002
7 American Journal of Ob-Gyn 2002
8 Medical Science Monitor 2003

Are you saying that all of these medical journals are in error?

[Guest]

No, I said I took a look at the first one, for starters, and I'll take a look at more over time.

I even quoted from the study. I think ladydoc's point is that the sample was a bit restrictive - concentrating on "first and only" pregnancies. Remember, the study hypothesized why the numbers came out the way they did - because of other factors before the abortion or live birth.

[Guest]

No, I said I took a look at the first one, for starters, and I'll take a look at more over time.

I even quoted from the study. I think ladydoc's point is that the sample was a bit restrictive - concentrating on "first and only" pregnancies. Remember, the study hypothesized why the numbers came out the way they did - because of other factors before the abortion or live birth.


OK, I understand after a good nights sleep! Sorry djplong...I replied after a few Killian's and a ridiculous ND loss to USC...:(


What are Ladydoc's credentials that she can state "for this study to make any sense it would have had to (do something different than what was done)..." ??? The fact remains that this study is a valid study that was deemed worthy to be published by Southern Medical!

[Guest]

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/180.short

Recently published study found that 81 percent of women experienced a higher risk of mental health issues following an abortion...
"British Journal of Psychiatry (BJP), a journal published by Britain’s Royal College of Psychiatrists released Coleman’s study entitled “Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009,” that critically reviewed the results of 22 previous studies on abortion and mental health published between 1995-2009. These 22 studies included data on 877,181 women from six countries, 163,831 of whom had experienced an abortion.

The results revealed moderate to high increased risk of mental health problems after abortion. Women with a history of abortion had an 81% higher risk of subsequent mental health problems. More specifically, the study found that women with a history of abortion had an increased risk of anxiety (34% higher), depression (37% higher), alcohol (110% higher), marijuana use (220% higher), and suicidal behavior (155% higher)."

[Guest]

...it's not like giving birth is a guarantee against mental health issues. I can't tell you the hell I went through with my ex-wife's post-partum depression.

In all seriousness, even the other study presented the idea that the increase in depression, alcohol use and other things might have been because of pre-existing circumstances. In other words, they were depressed, so they got an abortion instead of carrying to term, etc.. And, not doubting the findings, but I wonder what the term "history of abortion" means - one, two, many? Just to clarify what their frame of reference was.

[Guest]

OK...I will drop the subject then. I won't take it personally since it appears that you are not open to even what documented valid medical reseach, and findings published in established medical journals have to say. :oops: Thanks!

[Guest]

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/180.short

Recently published study found that 81 percent of women experienced a higher risk of mental health issues following an abortion...
"British Journal of Psychiatry (BJP), a journal published by Britain’s Royal College of Psychiatrists released Coleman’s study entitled “Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009,” that critically reviewed the results of 22 previous studies on abortion and mental health published between 1995-2009. These 22 studies included data on 877,181 women from six countries, 163,831 of whom had experienced an abortion.

The results revealed moderate to high increased risk of mental health problems after abortion. Women with a history of abortion had an 81% higher risk of subsequent mental health problems. More specifically, the study found that women with a history of abortion had an increased risk of anxiety (34% higher), depression (37% higher), alcohol (110% higher), marijuana use (220% higher), and suicidal behavior (155% higher)."

I just finished reading this article AND ALL THE ASSOCIATED reviews and comments on it. Flawed methodology, bias (the authors of the study used a lot of THEIR OWN studies in the review), flawed analysis, poorly defined groups, etc.

[Guest]

I just finished reading this article AND ALL THE ASSOCIATED reviews and comments on it. Flawed methodology, bias (the authors of the study used a lot of THEIR OWN studies in the review), flawed analysis, poorly defined groups, etc.

WOW...Maybe you should write to the British Journal of Psychiatry and let them know that they don't know what the heck they are doing! :oops:...You have opened my eyes and I will no longer believe any links that are posted on this forum. If the BJP can't get it right, who can?!?!?

[Guest]

Your ridicule of Ladydoc was very unflattering of you.:sing:

[Guest]

WOW...Maybe you should write to the British Journal of Psychiatry and let them know that they don't know what the heck they are doing! :oops:...You have opened my eyes and I will no longer believe any links that are posted on this forum. If the BJP can't get it right, who can?!?!?

Some people are just smarter then everybody and know what is right. It is a fact of life. We should listen to them because they are our betters. Don't cha know?

[Guest]

Some people are just smarter then everybody and know what is right. It is a fact of life. We should listen to them because they are our betters. Don't cha know?

As long as they are happy being legends in their own minds, who am I to wake them up?

[Guest]

As long as they are happy being legends in their own minds, who am I to wake them up?

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::beer3:

[Guest]

WOW...Maybe you should write to the British Journal of Psychiatry and let them know that they don't know what the heck they are doing! :oops:...You have opened my eyes and I will no longer believe any links that are posted on this forum. If the BJP can't get it right, who can?!?!?

I was quoting some of the comments made by OTHER medical professionals and researchers who read the journal article. Go read them...they are right under the article. Oh wait....you don't want to read anything that disproves your beliefs. So don't bother..you won't understand them. I was trained to do research...how many studies have you done? That's what I thought...none. Why don't you write to each and every person who commented on the article and let them know that you don't think that they have the right to critique the study. The scientific process is one of give and take, research and comment, refinement of the research design, add additional control groups, refine the null hypothesis, etc. You are obviously ignorant of the entire research process. Just because a study gets published does not make it infalliable. Every researcher knows that they will have critiques written about their work..that is how the field gets closer and closer to the truth. Research is a series of steps; it is a successive approximation to what the real answer is. SO go educate yourself on research design and process and then maybe you might get a clue.

[Guest]

Your ridicule of Ladydoc was very unflattering of you.:sing:

Thanks for defending me, but I would have to respect someone to feel ridicle about what they say.

[Guest]

I was quoting some of the comments made by OTHER medical professionals and researchers who read the journal article. Go read them...they are right under the article. Oh wait....you don't want to read anything that disproves your beliefs. So don't bother..you won't understand them. I was trained to do research...how many studies have you done? That's what I thought...none. Why don't you write to each and every person who commented on the article and let them know that you don't think that they have the right to critique the study. The scientific process is one of give and take, research and comment, refinement of the research design, add additional control groups, refine the null hypothesis, etc. You are obviously ignorant of the entire research process. Just because a study gets published does not make it infalliable. Every researcher knows that they will have critiques written about their work..that is how the field gets closer and closer to the truth. Research is a series of steps; it is a successive approximation to what the real answer is. SO go educate yourself on research design and process and then maybe you might get a clue.


I have my registry in Radiology, CT, and MRI. I have worked in both modalities since their inception-35+ years (MRI prior to it's FDA approval). In other words, I learned CT and MRI without a training program and in the case of MRI-without a book! I have trained 90% of the MRI tech currently practicing in the city-there are close to 30 MRI scanners in this city. I currently administer Nuclear Medicine, PET/CT, Vascular and General Ultrasound, CT and MRI, generating over 50 million dollars of revenue for my employer. I have gotten all of my modalities ACR accredited since I took over this position. I am involved in research in EVERY one of these modalities at a university hospital. Our 3T MRI scanner is one of only a dozen in the country doing Cardiac studies in the clinical setting. Currently U of M sends their cardiac patients to us for that study since they are only doing the cardiac MRI as research. I am also involved with fMRI studies being conducted by a physician from Uof M, among other studies. We just recieved our approval to do ELCAP early lung cancer screenings in CT on people who have smoked for 20+ years. I sit on the planning committee for our soon to open cancer center, I am on our accredited Stroke committee and our accredited Trauma committee. We are a level one trauma center and soon to be the only Primary stroke center in NW OHIO. Our hospital was recently named BEST HOSPITAL in the region by US News and World Report.
"The University of Toledo Medical Center was recently named the best hospital in the region for 2011-2012 by U.S. News and World Report.
This ranking is based on seven clinical specialties including ear, nose and throat, geriatrics, kidney disorders, neurology and neurosurgery, orthopedics, pulmonology and urology."


http://www.independentcollegian.com/utmc-ranked-best-hospital-in-region-1.2611612

No brag, just fact-You don't get this without the help of a great IMAGING DEPT.and knowing a bit about what the heck is going on...!

[Guest]

I have my registry in Radiology, CT, and MRI. I have worked in both modalities since their inception-35+ years (MRI prior to it's FDA approval). In other words, I learned CT and MRI without a training program and in the case of MRI-without a book! I have trained 90% of the MRI tech currently practicing in the city-there are close to 30 MRI scanners in this city. I currently administer Nuclear Medicine, PET/CT, Vascular and General Ultrasound, CT and MRI, generating over 50 million dollars of revenue for my employer. I am involved in research in one of these modalities at a university hospital. Our 3T MRI scanner is one of only a dozen in the country doing Cardiac studies in the clinical setting. Currently U of M sends their cardiac patients to us for that study since they are only doing the cardiac MRI as research. I am also involved with fMRI studies being conducted by a physician from Uof M, among other studies. We just recieved our IRB to do ELCAP early lung cancer screenings in CT on people who have smoked for 20+ years. I sit on the planning committee for our soon to open cancer center, I am part of our accredited Stroke committee and our accredited Trauma committee. We are a level one trauma center and soon to be the only Primary stroke center in NW OHIO. Our hospital was recently named best in the region by US News and World Report. The University of Toledo Medical Center was recently named the best hospital in the region for 2011-2012 by U.S. News and World Report.

This ranking is based on seven clinical specialties including ear, nose and throat, geriatrics, kidney disorders, neurology and neurosurgery, orthopedics, pulmonology and urology.


http://www.independentcollegian.com/utmc-ranked-best-hospital-in-region-1.2611612

You don't get this without the help of a great IMAGING DEPT.and knowing a bit about what the heck is going on...!

Very impressive, sincerely. I was wrong about your knowledge of research. So why can't you apply this to things like knowing that ALL research is fair game for critiques and replication? You should know that just because a study is in a journal does not make it infalliable.

[Guest]

I have my registry in Radiology, CT, and MRI. I have worked in both modalities since their inception-35+ years (MRI prior to it's FDA approval). In other words, I learned CT and MRI without a training program and in the case of MRI-without a book! I have trained 90% of the MRI tech currently practicing in the city-there are close to 30 MRI scanners in this city. I currently administer Nuclear Medicine, PET/CT, Vascular and General Ultrasound, CT and MRI, generating over 50 million dollars of revenue for my employer. I have gotten all of my modalities ACR accredited since I took over this position. I am involved in research in EVERY one of these modalities at a university hospital. Our 3T MRI scanner is one of only a dozen in the country doing Cardiac studies in the clinical setting. Currently U of M sends their cardiac patients to us for that study since they are only doing the cardiac MRI as research. I am also involved with fMRI studies being conducted by a physician from Uof M, among other studies. We just recieved our approval to do ELCAP early lung cancer screenings in CT on people who have smoked for 20+ years. I sit on the planning committee for our soon to open cancer center, I am on our accredited Stroke committee and our accredited Trauma committee. We are a level one trauma center and soon to be the only Primary stroke center in NW OHIO. Our hospital was recently named BEST HOSPITAL in the region by US News and World Report.
"The University of Toledo Medical Center was recently named the best hospital in the region for 2011-2012 by U.S. News and World Report.
This ranking is based on seven clinical specialties including ear, nose and throat, geriatrics, kidney disorders, neurology and neurosurgery, orthopedics, pulmonology and urology."


http://www.independentcollegian.com/utmc-ranked-best-hospital-in-region-1.2611612

No brag, just fact-You don't get this without the help of a great IMAGING DEPT.and knowing a bit about what the heck is going on...!

Wow, you go gilrl!!!! :crap2::crap2:

[Guest]

Take it with a grain of salt.

[Guest]

Take it with a grain of salt.

????? Another mystery post. Are you The Shadow?

[Guest]

Think of it this way.

WAR natures way to limiting the amount of humans.

[Guest]

Think of it this way.

WAR natures way to limiting the amount of humans.

"I love the smell of Napalm in the morning."

[Guest]

Katz: I am most certainly open and I HAVE been reading the studies you quoted. Trouble is, I don't have a lot of time. What looks to you like some dismissal on my part is quoting the researchers own limitations. *So far*, none of the ones I looked at claimed that they were trying to be the DEFINITIVE authority on the subject. These were (again, so far) studies that were designed to show where more research might be warranted.

Again, I'm trying to be fair here since you went to the trouble of providing sources.

[Guest]

Katz: I am most certainly open and I HAVE been reading the studies you quoted. Trouble is, I don't have a lot of time. What looks to you like some dismissal on my part is quoting the researchers own limitations. *So far*, none of the ones I looked at claimed that they were trying to be the DEFINITIVE authority on the subject. These were (again, so far) studies that were designed to show where more research might be warranted.

Again, I'm trying to be fair here since you went to the trouble of providing sources.

Exactly...as I wrote above, each research study is another successive approximation to the truth. Every study is open to critique and every researcher expects that.

[Guest]

Very impressive, sincerely. I was wrong about your knowledge of research. So why can't you apply this to things like knowing that ALL research is fair game for critiques and replication? You should know that just because a study is in a journal does not make it infalliable.

I posted several studies, all of which were debunked by you for some reason or another. I do not think that all studies are infallible, nor do I throw them all out.
I have supplied numerous studies, published by numerous different medical journals, from numerous countries- that all seem to point to very similar conclusions. Not as if I posted all that were done and verified and published by the same biased entity.

[Guest]

I posted several studies, all of which were debunked by you for some reason or another. I do not think that all studies are infallible, nor do I throw them all out.
I have supplied numerous studies, published by numerous different medical journals, from numerous countries- that all seem to point to very similar conclusions. Not as if I posted all that were done and verified and published by the same biased entity.

Analyzing a study is what a professional does; an amateur debunks. I most certainly have NOT commented on ALL of the studies as you say I have. I have a life. I don't have time or interest to read all of them. If you kept your statements to realistic ones, like I analyzed SOME of the studies, you would be more believeable.

[Guest]

Analyzing a study is what a professional does; an amateur debunks. I most certainly have NOT commented on ALL of the studies as you say I have. I have a life. I don't have time or interest to read all of them. If you kept your statements to realistic ones, like I analyzed SOME of the studies, you would be more believeable.


One time I'm am impressive and the next I am not believable...whatever. It is true that you have found fault with the majority of my postings on this forum. I spend a good deal of time and thought prior to posting on this forum. If I worded a post wrong recently using the word "ALL" instead of the "ALL the studies that you have checked out so far", please forgive me. I too have a life.

[Guest]

One time I'm am impressive and the next I am not believable...whatever. It is true that you have found fault with the majority of my postings on this forum. I spend a good deal of time and thought prior to posting on this forum. If I worded a post wrong recently using the word "ALL" instead of the "ALL the studies that you have checked out so far", please forgive me. I too have a life.

I forgive you....let's make nice with each other from this point on.