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 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.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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.

Excellent post...NOTHING BUT NET RICHIE!

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

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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.

Originally Posted by djplong

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.

Originally Posted by HelenLCSW

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.

Originally Posted by buggyone

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

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

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).

Originally Posted by djplong

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.

Originally Posted by djplong

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?

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]

Originally Posted by rubicon

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.

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

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.

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!