# Pro-Woman



## Thunderbird (May 13, 2014)

Only a moron would think that subservience to the abortion industry makes you pro-woman.

1) Planned Parenthood, which receives 100s of millions of taxpayer dollars, lies to women.  If you really care about choice you don't lie to the one making the decision.

*Planned Parenthoods use of unscientific and fabricated medical information*

2) Just a few of the women chewed up by the abortion industry:

*New 911 tape reveals botched abortion at Virginia Planned Parenthood*

*Authorities: Abortion doctors charged with murder*

*16-Year-Old Girl Suffered Botched Abortion at Planned Parenthood*

*DA: West Philadelphia abortion doctor killed 7 babies with scissors*

The abortion industry, like many industries, has captured the regulatory apparatus.  Legalization means mistreatment of women and a huge expansion of the industry.

For example: *Lax state oversight results in widespread violations at Michigan abortion providers, report says*

3) The abortion industry represents the greatest assault on women in human history.  *Tens of millions of unborn baby girls have been killed for the "crime" of being a girl!*

*Sex-Selection Abortion: A War on Baby Girls*

4) Not a few abortions are forced on women.

*Pregnant Woman Threatened & Assaulted for Refusing Abortion*

*Why it's The UnChoice *
Most abortions are unwanted or coerced, many forced. Women are dying, too. Human rights abuse misrepresented as "choice."

And many rich people & bigots are eager to pressure working women & women of color into killing off their future.

5) The abortion industry just wants more abortions.  They have no problem endangering women's health.

*Planned Parenthood pushes California bill to let non-physicians conduct abortions*

6) Women report being victimized by the abortion industry.

quote: Its no wonder that *81 percent of women surveyed in a 1992 study reported in the Journal of Social Issues said they felt victimized by the abortion process*, and that they were either coerced into the abortion or that information about alternatives or the actual procedure had been withheld. 

LINK

*Women Victimized by Abortion Say They Would Want Breast Cancer Info *


----------



## Thunderbird (May 13, 2014)

The most horrific mass-slaughter of women in world history is going on right now courtesy of the abortion industry.  Over *160 million* unborn babies have been killed for the "crime" of being a girl.  And Western racist liberal elites are complicit in this brutality.

*Review - Unnatural Selection, by Mara Hvistendahl *

quote: Steven Mosher (Amazon), an anthropology student in Stanford University&#8217;s PhD program, who was later expelled by the University, ostensibly due to pressure from the Chinese, and who later went on to become a strong proponent for chipping away at abortion rights and saw banning pre-natal sex-based abortions as an incremental step towards an outright ban on abortions, documented coercive methods on display in an agricultural commune in the Guangdong province in China in 1981, where he heard a pregnant woman being told by He Kaifeng, a commune cadre and Communist Party member, "You are here because you have to &#8216;think clear&#8217; about birth control, and you will remain here until you do."

*Such coercive methods did not go unrewarded by the international community. "In September 1983 the organization (United Nations Population Fund - UNFPA) jointly awarded Qian Xinzhong, the former People&#8217;s Liberation Army general charged with administering the one-child policy, and Indira Gandhi, who had overseen both India&#8217;s mass sterilizations and the AIIMS sex selection experiments in the 1970s, with the first United Nations Population Award."*

*Mara Hvistendahl*

quote: &#8220;_f a simple method could be found to guarantee that first-born children were males, then population control problems in many areas would be somewhat eased.&#8221; &#8211; *Paul Ehrlich*, The Population Bomb, 1968_


----------



## Thunderbird (May 13, 2014)

Check out the NYT article:

*160 Million and Counting*

quote: The spread of sex-selective abortion is often framed as a simple case of modern science being abused by patriarchal, misogynistic cultures. Patriarchy is certainly part of the story, but as Hvistendahl points out, the reality is more complicated &#8212; and more depressing. 

Thus far, female empowerment often seems to have led to more sex selection, not less. In many communities, she writes, &#8220;women use their increased autonomy to select for sons,&#8221; because male offspring bring higher social status. In countries like India, sex selection began in &#8220;the urban, well-educated stratum of society,&#8221; before spreading down the income ladder. 

*Moreover, Western governments and philanthropic institutions have their fingerprints all over the story of the world&#8217;s missing women.* 

From the 1950s onward, Asian countries that legalized and then promoted abortion did so with vocal, deep-pocketed American support. Digging into the archives of groups like the Rockefeller Foundation and the *International Planned Parenthood Federation,* Hvistendahl depicts an unlikely alliance between Republican cold warriors worried that population growth would fuel the spread of Communism and left-wing scientists and activists who believed that abortion was necessary for both &#8220;the needs of women&#8221; and &#8220;the future prosperity &#8212; or maybe survival &#8212; of mankind,&#8221; as the Planned Parenthood federation&#8217;s medical director put it in 1976. 

For many of these antipopulation campaigners, sex selection was a feature rather than a bug, since a society with fewer girls was guaranteed to reproduce itself at lower rates. 

Hvistendahl&#8217;s book is filled with unsettling scenes, from abandoned female fetuses littering an Indian hospital to the signs in Chinese villages at the height of the one-child policy&#8217;s enforcement. (&#8220;You can beat it out! You can make it fall out! You can abort it! But you cannot give birth to it!&#8221 The most disturbing passages, though, are the ones that depict self-consciously progressive Westerners persuading themselves that fewer girls might be exactly what the teeming societies of the third world needed.


----------



## Mr. H. (May 14, 2014)

The world is aborting its gene pool. That's why autism is up over 1,000%.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (May 14, 2014)

Vaccinations cause autism which is why many parents are becoming concerned about being forced to give their children vaccinations.   I remember when my cousin was born my grandmothers sister said she was as normal as any child.    After the vaccination she was not normal.  This was years ago and they diagnosed her with autism.   My grandmothers sister was a very wise woman and she said without question it was the vaccination that caused the autism.   Vaccinations should be a choice made by the family.  Not the government.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (May 14, 2014)

The world is aborting it's future.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 14, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> Only a moron would think that subservience to the abortion industry makes you pro-woman.
> 
> 1) Planned Parenthood, which receives 100s of millions of taxpayer dollars, lies to women.  If you really care about choice you don't lie to the one making the decision.
> 
> ...



Only moron would post such ignorance and stupidly, unaware of the fact that his thread fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 14, 2014)

Mr. H. said:


> The world is aborting its gene pool. That's why autism is up over 1,000%.



You don't know much about genetics. 

Ya wanna back up that nonsensical assertion with some facts?

Seriously. That's a really dumb thing to write.


----------



## Thunderbird (May 14, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Only moron would post such ignorance and *stupidly,*


lol



> unaware of the fact that his thread fails


Can you refute any of the statements made in the OP?


----------



## Disir (May 14, 2014)

> Results from major prospective studies
> 
> The largest, and probably the most reliable, study on this topic was done during the 1990s in Denmark, a country with very detailed medical records on all its citizens. In this study, all Danish women born between 1935 and 1978 (a total of 1.5 million women) were linked with the National Registry of Induced Abortions and with the Danish Cancer Registry. All of the information about their abortions and their breast cancer came from registries  it was very complete and was not influenced by recall bias.
> 
> ...


Is Abortion Linked to Breast Cancer?


----------



## Thunderbird (May 14, 2014)

Let's look at Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors and the abortion-lovers who enabled him:

*Report: Planned Parenthood covered up Kermit Gosnell complaints*

quote: However, Steinberg made a stunning admission. She said while Gosnell operated his clinic, his patients would often come to her Planned Parenthood and complain to staff about the conditions at Gosnell's West Philadelphia clinic. "We would always encourage them to report it to the Department of Health," she said.
Incredibly, *no one at Planned Parenthood nor Steinberg herself ever followed up with the Department of Health about Gosnell*, despite claiming that their organization makes women's safety a top priority. 

*Gosnell the baby-killer and the liberals who shielded him *

quote: Indeed, reports of Gosnell&#8217;s foul clinic &#8211; which had a policy of treating white women more carefully than penniless black women &#8211; *were routinely ignored by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, local hospitals, the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood*, a lobby group supported by Barack Obama.

*The truth about late-term abortion*

quote: The Gosnell case is a deeply political one. *The grand jury directly accused political conditions for creating an environment in which abortion mills escape even the mildest curiosity from regulators *who take a great deal of interest in your chihuahua. 
From 1979 to the 1990s, such establishments were subjected to yearly visits from inspectors &#8212; who *failed to do anything* about the violations they discovered. 
Then the inspectors stopped coming at all: *&#8220;With the change of administration from Governor [Bob] Casey to Governor [Tom] Ridge,&#8221; wrote the grand jury, &#8220;officials concluded that inspections would be &#8216;putting a barrier up to women&#8217; seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased, even though, as Gosnell proved, that meant both women and babies would pay.&#8221;
*
*Horrifying Illegal Abortion Clinic Wasn't Inspected For 17 Years Due To Pro-Choice Policy*

quote: *The clinic was not inspected* from 1993 to 2010, when FBI agents finally raided the place. They found moaning women covered in blood-stained blankets and jars with severed fetus feet, according to the 281-page grand jury report.
The grand jury report that lays out allegations against Gosnell has an entire section called "How did this go on so long?" The simple answer is politics.
Pennsylvania's health department stopped routine inspections of abortion facilities in the state after Tom Ridge, a *pro-choice* Republican, became governor in 1995.
*Health department lawyers "changed their legal opinions and advice to suit the policy preferences of different governors," health department official Janet Staloski said in grand jury testimony. In this case, she said the state didn't want to be "putting a barrier up to women" who wanted abortions.*


----------



## koshergrl (May 14, 2014)

There was also a ring of abortion clinics in the Gulf that settled for millions and then shut down after they were found falsifying medical records, and defrauding Medicare. They were taking money from medicare for procedures they didn't provide, and using the money to fund abortions...which they they then turned around and charged their poor clients exorbitant fees to perform...because they told their clients that medicare wouldn't fund them.


----------



## Disir (May 14, 2014)

In the mid-1990s, the administration of Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge, a pro-choice Republican, ended regular inspections of abortion clinics&#8212;a policy that continued until just last year. 

According to the grand jury report [PDF] released this week by Philadelphia prosecutors, Pennsylvania health officials deliberately chose not to enforce laws to ensure that abortion clinics provide the same level of care as other medical service providers.

But perhaps most frightening of all? The atrocities were discovered by accident, as the Philadelphia Inquirer points out. Warnings&#8212;from patients and their attorneys, a doctor at a Philadelphia hospital, women&#8217;s health groups, pro-choice groups, and even an employee of the Philadelphia Department of Public Health&#8212;failed to prompt state and local authorities to investigate or take action against the clinic.

The grand jury report said that one look at the place would have detected the problems, but the Pennsylvania Department of Health hadn&#8217;t inspected the place since 1993. Here&#8217;s the grand jury report, in surprisingly strong language:

The Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be &#8220;putting a barrier up to women&#8221; seeking abortions.

&#8220;Even nail salons in Pennsylvania are monitored more closely for client safety,&#8221; the report states. "Without regular inspections, providers like Gosnell continue to operate; unlawful and dangerous third-trimester abortions go undetected; and many women, especially poor women, suffer."

According to the report, the policy change occurred after 1993 when attorneys under the administration of then-governor Tom Ridge "interpreted the same regulations that had permitted annual inspections for years to no longer authorize those inspections." Thereafter, only inspections triggered by complaints were authorized. The report noted that Department of Public Health officials reinstituted regular inspections of abortion clinics in February 2010. Ed Rendell, the Pennsylvania Democrat whose second term as governor ended last week, released a statement saying he was "flabbergasted" when he learned of the department's lax scrutiny of abortion clinics and immediately ordered increased inspections, the Associated Press reported.
Why a Gruesome Pennsylvania Abortion Clinic Had Not Been Inspected for 17 Years - ProPublica

Complaints came from all arenas.

So, in light of that,  Planned Parenthood treats both low income men and women for STDs. Which is well known. Nor do they sales pitch abortions.  The actual issue behind a bunch of uneducated hilljacks trying to close Planned Parenthood is because they have made reproductive health for both men and women low cost.  So, that is the reason for spreading disinformation.


----------



## Thunderbird (May 14, 2014)

Disir said:


> Is Abortion Linked to Breast Cancer?


Here's a thorough analysis: *Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis*


----------



## Disir (May 14, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Is Abortion Linked to Breast Cancer?
> ...



I gave you the information. You don't like it. Don't lie to me.


----------



## Mr. H. (May 14, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > The world is aborting its gene pool. That's why autism is up over 1,000%.
> ...



Here are two facts. Just for you...


----------



## Thunderbird (May 14, 2014)

Disir said:


> *The Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. *With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be putting a barrier up to women seeking abortions.


Glad we got that straight.



> Nor do they sales pitch abortions.


Are you kidding?!  Let's look at the facts from former PP clinic director Abby Johnson

*Abby Johnson: Planned Parenthood Business Model All About Abortion*



> The actual issue behind a bunch of uneducated hilljacks trying to close Planned Parenthood is because they have made reproductive health for both men and women low cost.  So, that is the reason for spreading disinformation.


PP targets minorities for mass murder.


----------



## Thunderbird (May 14, 2014)

Disir said:


> I gave you the information. You don't like it. Don't lie to me.


Why do you dismiss the article from the _Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health_?  You don't like facts that fail to confirm your prejudices?


----------



## Disir (May 14, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > *The Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. *With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be putting a barrier up to women seeking abortions.
> ...



Did you miss the part where there were prochoice complaints? Or did you just skim over that to trash Planned Parenthood? Life news is NOT a viable resource. 

Bottom line..............if you had a case then it wouldn't be necessary to lie.  Don't want an abortion? Don't have one.


----------



## Disir (May 14, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > I gave you the information. You don't like it. Don't lie to me.
> ...



First of all because this little lie has been out for a very long time.  Therefore, it was necessary to bring the only viable studies. You don't like that.  Don't lie to me.


----------



## Thunderbird (May 14, 2014)

Disir said:


> Don't want an abortion? Don't have one.


What absurd logic!  Do you say: Don't want a slave? Don't have one.  

Do you really think we should offer vulnerable unborn babies no protection at all?!

There are laws to stop the tormenting of animals and the beating of children.  Why can't we try to stop the killing of unborn babies?


----------



## Disir (May 14, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Don't want an abortion? Don't have one.
> ...



Again. Don't want an abortion? Don't have one.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 14, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Don't want an abortion? Don't have one.
> ...



This is as a fact of law wrong and ignorant, and as a fact of law you are not at liberty to seek to codify your ignorance.


----------



## koshergrl (May 14, 2014)

Wow, cc. That was impressive a line of complete gobbledygook as I have ever seen. It's almost a work of art.


----------



## whitehall (May 14, 2014)

There have been a few "studies" about the psychological impact on a woman who hired someone to destroy the unborn life inside her but they haven't gone mainstream because of the money and political power of the abortion industry. The monster house of Phlly's own Dr. Kermit Gosnell should have been a national tragedy but it was sluffed off by the elitist liberal men in the media who reserve the right to coerce their sexual partners into destroying the life that they helped to create.


----------



## DGS49 (May 15, 2014)

Pennsylvania stopped inspecting abortion clinics because Goveror Ridge knew that the first time they tried to mpose any sanctions on a non-compliant clinic, he would have been excoriated in the Press and attacked by NARAL as attacking womens' access to abortion.  It was a lose/lose proposition.

And honestly, the very idea of killing babies "properly" is absurd.


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2014)

The inspections serve to protect the women as well.

Baby killers don't want that. They see women as a resource to be exploited. And they do NOT want anybody to know what really goes on in abortion clinics.


----------



## Disir (May 15, 2014)

The whole point is for this to be a safe procedure.


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2014)

Hard to accomplish that when progressive baby killers claim that women don't rate the same precautions/oversight that everybody else gets.


----------



## Disir (May 15, 2014)

But, they do and you would know that if you weren't so interested in your God cookies.


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2014)

Disir said:


> But, they do and you would know that if you weren't so interested in your God cookies.


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2014)

What the hell is a God cookie?

I'm going to be pissed if I've been missing out on something I could have been enjoying all this time.


----------



## Disir (May 15, 2014)

It's the dance you do when you pretend that you care but you don't. It's much easier to throw tantrums and say, "Baby Killer" then it is to give a shit about those children or adults that live. So, why do you do it?
The God cookies that you get when you die for doing the least that you can do. You win an extra half a cookie if you can throw in a few phrases indicating patriotism.


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2014)

You know you're insane, right?

Go sit with Care on the "whacked out extremist babykiller" couch please.


----------



## guno (May 15, 2014)

Jeremiah said:


> Vaccinations cause autism which is why many parents are becoming concerned about being forced to give their children vaccinations.   I remember when my cousin was born my grandmothers sister said she was as normal as any child.    After the vaccination she was not normal.  This was years ago and they diagnosed her with autism.   My grandmothers sister was a very wise woman and she said without question it was the vaccination that caused the autism.   Vaccinations should be a choice made by the family.  Not the government.



You are a science illiterate to make that idiotic statement

Correlation does not imply causation 

WHO | What are some of the myths ? and facts ? about vaccination?

CDC - Concerns About Autism - Vaccine Safety

Unvaccinated Kids Contribute to Whooping Cough Outbreak | TIME.com

The Choice Not To Vaccinate Doesn?t Only Affect You! | Vaccines Today

Intentionally unvaccinated students putting other children at risk -- ScienceDaily


----------



## koshergrl (May 15, 2014)

The risk of the vaccinations causing autism is far, far less than the risk of kids dying of any of the many infectious diseases that attack and kill vulnerable children.

And we have absolute proof that children die of influenza, measles, mumps, hep.....there is no such proof that autism is caused by vaccinations.

We don't even know what the hell autism is. The diagnoses on it are all over the board. I've seen what looked to me to be perfectly normal kids, with imbecilic parents, who were diagnosed with *autism*...probably because they're little assholes in the classroom, due to the fact their parents are assholes at home. And then you have the kid who bangs his head on walls 23 hours a day and shits his pants if you touch him. There is NO correlation between those two kids. There's nothing they share in common..yet both are labeled *autistic*? Give me a break!


----------



## Disir (May 16, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> You know you're insane, right?
> 
> Go sit with Care on the "whacked out extremist babykiller" couch please.








It's ok 

The first step is admitting that you have a problem.  See? People aren't laughing with you, They are laughing at you.


----------



## auditor0007 (May 17, 2014)

Jeremiah said:


> The world is aborting it's future.



The world has over 7 billion people.  We could use less.  BTW, the population is increasing, so we are not going to have a people shortage anytime soon.  Our future of too many people is quite secure.


----------



## auditor0007 (May 17, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> The risk of the vaccinations causing autism is far, far less than the risk of kids dying of any of the many infectious diseases that attack and kill vulnerable children.
> 
> And we have absolute proof that children die of influenza, measles, mumps, hep.....there is no such proof that autism is caused by vaccinations.
> 
> We don't even know what the hell autism is. The diagnoses on it are all over the board. I've seen what looked to me to be perfectly normal kids, with imbecilic parents, who were diagnosed with *autism*...probably because they're little assholes in the classroom, due to the fact their parents are assholes at home. And then you have the kid who bangs his head on walls 23 hours a day and shits his pants if you touch him. There is NO correlation between those two kids. There's nothing they share in common..yet both are labeled *autistic*? Give me a break!



Very rarely do I agree with you, but on this, we are in agreement.


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 17, 2014)

whitehall said:


> There have been a few "studies" about the psychological impact on a woman who hired someone to destroy the unborn life inside her but they haven't gone mainstream because of the money and political power of the abortion industry. The monster house of Phlly's own Dr. Kermit Gosnell should have been a national tragedy but it was sluffed off by the elitist liberal men in the media who reserve the right to coerce their sexual partners into destroying the life that they helped to create.


what a load of unsubstantiated bollocks.The facts are that in the 30+ years of abortion in the US and 40+ years of abortion in the UK there has not been one scientific report that confirms psychological damage as a result of an abortion.Any woman who is coerced into anything by a man is a twerp.


----------



## Thunderbird (May 17, 2014)

auditor0007 said:


> The world has over 7 billion people.  We could use less.  BTW, the population is increasing, so we are not going to have a people shortage anytime soon.  Our future of too many people is quite secure.


Not really.

*Overpopulation is a myth*


----------



## Thunderbird (May 17, 2014)

I.P.Freely said:


> what a load of unsubstantiated bollocks.The facts are that in the 30+ years of abortion in the US and 40+ years of abortion in the UK there has not been one scientific report that confirms psychological damage as a result of an abortion.


No.

*Court Orders Planned Parenthood: Inform Women of Abortion-Suicide Link*

*Womens Suicide Rates Highest After Abortion: New Study*

*Abortion and Clinical Depression Linked in Major Study*



> Any woman who is coerced into anything by a man is a twerp.


Now blaming women who are victimized.


----------



## koshergrl (May 17, 2014)

The medical community recognizes that most women who suffer through abortions have some degree of ptsd associated with it.

But hey, progressives don't think those women matter, so it's okay.


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 18, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> > what a load of unsubstantiated bollocks.The facts are that in the 30+ years of abortion in the US and 40+ years of abortion in the UK there has not been one scientific report that confirms psychological damage as a result of an abortion.
> ...


absolute bollocks your links are the usual non-peer reviewed rubbish that has no provable empirical content.Read this and stop embarrassing yourself and your gender you cretinous pule.
Mental health after abortion - Health news - NHS Choices


----------



## koshergrl (May 18, 2014)

The British Medical Journal isn't peer-reviewed?

Reardon DC, Cougle JR. Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: a cohort study British Medical Journal, 324: 151-152. Full text available at www.bmj.com.
 Russo NF, Zierk K. Abortion, childbearing, and women&#8217;s well-being.  Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1992; 23: 269-280.


So much for your moronic sputterings.


----------



## koshergrl (May 18, 2014)

Other sources:

Tischler C. Adolescent suicide attempts following elective abortion. Pediatrics, 1981; 68(5): 670- 671.
 Morgan CM, Evans M, Peter JR, Currie C. Mental health may deteriorate  as a direct effect of induced abortion. British Medical Journal, 1997;  314: 902.
 Reardon DC, Ney, PG. Abortion and subsequent substance abuse. American Journal Drug Alcohol Abuse, 2000; 26(1): 61-75.
 Frank DA, Zuckerman BS, Amaro H, Aboagye K, Bauchner H, Cabral H,  Fried L, Hingson R, Kayne H, Levenson SM, et al Cocaine use during  pregnancy, prevalence and correlates, Pediatrics, 1988 Dec; 82(6):  888-95.
 Amaro H, Zuckerman B, Cabral H. Drug use among adolescent mothers: profile of risk. Pediatrics, 1989 Jul;84(1):144-51.
 Wilsnack RW, Wilsnack SC, Klassen AD. Women&#8217;s drinking and drinking  problems: Patterns from a 1981 national survey. American Journal Public  Health, 1984; 74: 1231-1238.
 Klassen, A, Wilsnack S. Sexual experience and drinking among women in  a U.S. national survey. Archives Sexual. Behavior, 1986; 15(5): 363.


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 18, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> The British Medical Journal isn't peer-reviewed?
> 
> Reardon DC, Cougle JR. Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: a cohort study British Medical Journal, 324: 151-152. Full text available at www.bmj.com.
> Russo NF, Zierk K. Abortion, childbearing, and women&#8217;s well-being.  Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1992; 23: 269-280.
> ...


cretin the BMJ is a journal, peer reviewing of submitted research is constant and causes retractions, this is a current example BBC News - Statins: BMJ investigates claims over side effects

I will PM you my password so you can search the archives for the piece of dross
http://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a2902


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 18, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Other sources:
> 
> Tischler C. Adolescent suicide attempts following elective abortion. Pediatrics, 1981; 68(5): 670- 671.
> Morgan CM, Evans M, Peter JR, Currie C. Mental health may deteriorate  as a direct effect of induced abortion. British Medical Journal, 1997;  314: 902.
> ...


read this Pleb and try to understand it.
Suicidal mothers


----------



## koshergrl (May 18, 2014)

So none of those studies were peer reviewed?

Yeah get lost, loser, lol.


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 18, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> So none of those studies were peer reviewed?
> 
> Yeah get lost, loser, lol.


did you read this dreck Abortion does not cause mental health problems, says large review | BMJ


----------



## koshergrl (May 18, 2014)

Nope. 

You're an idiot and a liar. The studies were peer reviewed, so why on earth would I do anything you suggest?


----------



## Thunderbird (May 18, 2014)

I.P.Freely said:


> absolute bollocks your links are the usual non-peer reviewed rubbish that has no provable empirical content.


You are quite the pinhead aren't you. lol If you ever learn to read you'll notice lots of carefully researched reports and peer reviewed studies in the links I provided.

Examples:

A 1995 study by A.C. Gilchrist in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that in women with no history of psychiatric illness, the rate of deliberate self-harm was 70 percent higher after abortion than after childbirth.

A 1996 study in Finland by pro-choice researcher Mika Gissler in the British Medical Journal found that the suicide rate was nearly six times greater among women who aborted than among women who gave birth.

A 2002 record-linkage study of California Medicaid patients in the Southern Medical Journal, which controlled for prior mental illness, found that suicide risk was 154 percent higher among women who aborted than among those who delivered.

A March 2004 report from the National Institutes of Health revealed that suicide is now the third leading cause of death among Americas young people. In fact, for teen girls and young women, the suicide rate has tripled over the past 25 years.

One study published in August 2003 edition of the British Medical Journal found that women who had abortions were seven times more likely to commit suicide than women who gave birth.

Do you feel stupid yet?



> Read this and stop embarrassing yourself and your gender you cretinous pule.


Leprous scabs like you are always ready to screech feeble justifications for an industry that targets women, minorities, and the handicapped for mass murder.


----------



## Thunderbird (May 18, 2014)

I.P.Freely said:


> read this Pleb and try to understand it.
> Suicidal mothers


What a fathead! lol  Your own link states that abortion is a risk factor!

From your own link:  The available data informs health policy makers with a typical profile to screen women at high risk of suicide during pregnancy. Those women who have a current or past history of psychiatric disorders, are young, unmarried, unemployed, have incurred an unplanned pregnancy *(eventually terminated with an induced abortion), *are addicted to illicit drugs and/or alcohol, lack effective psychosocial support, have suffered from episodes of sexual or physical violence are particularly vulnerable.

Try to understand that. lol


----------



## Disir (May 18, 2014)

what's even more lol or not really lol at all is if we remove that and we have this:

Those women who have a current or past history of psychiatric disorders,
 are young, unmarried, unemployed, are addicted to illicit drugs and/or alcohol, lack effective psychosocial support, have suffered from episodes of sexual or physical violence are particularly vulnerable.

You stop giving a damn.


----------



## koshergrl (May 18, 2014)

Yeah, that's what the majority of treatment centers, pregnancy centers and adoption agencies are run by RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS you fucking idiot.

See progressives want to kill these women and children because they don't want to be responsible for them. NOT because they care about them.

Then they turn around and pretend we're the ones who aren't caring for them.

It's a joke.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 18, 2014)

Imagine the outrage if I made a thread named, PRO-MAN?


----------



## priceless (May 18, 2014)

What if abortion was illegal but women would have the option of voluntarily choosing to live in a securitized child-rearing colony where they would be provided with the means to care for their children OR if they didn't want to live in such a colony, the father could adopt the child, once born, and raise it in the colony.  Crucially, such colonies would be for males or females but not both together.  This way people could focus on raising their children and pursuing education and/or work without the distraction of dating and marriage.  

Would this be enough of an incentive to avoid illegal abortion or would people still seek out illegal abortions to avoid living in such sex-segregated welfare colonies?


----------



## mamooth (May 18, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Yeah, that's what the majority of treatment centers, pregnancy centers and adoption agencies are run by RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS you fucking idiot.



So you're proud of having baby-sellers on your side? Most people would consider selling humans to be barbaric.


----------



## Disir (May 18, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Yeah, that's what the majority of treatment centers, pregnancy centers and adoption agencies are run by RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS you fucking idiot.
> 
> See progressives want to kill these women and children because they don't want to be responsible for them. NOT because they care about them.
> 
> ...



It is a joke.  Those faith based organizations have a low success rate. But, they sure do enjoy tax money thanks to Prez Bush, hey?


----------



## Disir (May 18, 2014)

priceless said:


> What if abortion was illegal but women would have the option of voluntarily choosing to live in a securitized child-rearing colony where they would be provided with the means to care for their children OR if they didn't want to live in such a colony, the father could adopt the child, once born, and raise it in the colony.  Crucially, such colonies would be for males or females but not both together.  This way people could focus on raising their children and pursuing education and/or work without the distraction of dating and marriage.
> 
> Would this be enough of an incentive to avoid illegal abortion or would people still seek out illegal abortions to avoid living in such sex-segregated welfare colonies?



No. I don't think placing people in colonies and dictating what they can and can't do is appropriate. Ever.  Get pregnant win a vacation at a concentration camp.


----------



## Disir (May 18, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Imagine the outrage if I made a thread named, PRO-MAN?



Or it might be completely ignored because it sounds like some type of promotion for deodorant.


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 19, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Nope.
> 
> You're an idiot and a liar. The studies were peer reviewed, so why on earth would I do anything you suggest?


because its from the british medical journal which you support and quote your problem is it completely refutes the earlier dross. 
Abortion does not cause mental health problems, says large review | BMJ


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 19, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> > read this Pleb and try to understand it.
> ...


you must have a reading and comprehension problem Amoretz
Abortion does not cause mental health problems, says large review | BMJ


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 19, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> > absolute bollocks your links are the usual non-peer reviewed rubbish that has no provable empirical content.
> ...


read this,you puling unchined-snouted cack dish, it explains in simple English why your argument is a load of old bollocks, have you read my British Medical Journal link yet
Mental health after abortion - Health news - NHS Choices


----------



## koshergrl (May 19, 2014)

Disir said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, that's what the majority of treatment centers, pregnancy centers and adoption agencies are run by RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS you fucking idiot.
> ...



Please explain to me what this so-called "success rate" is a measurement of, you dishonest puke?


----------



## koshergrl (May 19, 2014)

I.P.Freely said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Nope.
> ...



Sorry, you're a liar. I'm not interested in any garbage you peddle.


----------



## koshergrl (May 19, 2014)

priceless said:


> What if abortion was illegal but women would have the option of voluntarily choosing to live in a securitized child-rearing colony where they would be provided with the means to care for their children OR if they didn't want to live in such a colony, the father could adopt the child, once born, and raise it in the colony.  Crucially, such colonies would be for males or females but not both together.  This way people could focus on raising their children and pursuing education and/or work without the distraction of dating and marriage.
> 
> Would this be enough of an incentive to avoid illegal abortion or would people still seek out illegal abortions to avoid living in such sex-segregated welfare colonies?



Yes, this is the progressive mind on display.

You are disgusting, and this would achieve nothing except human rights violations in the millions.


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 19, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


ah so you read it traiftart, it must come as a bit of a shock to realise the crap you have been peddling is just that crap.I do feel for you but shtik drek, abi gezunt dos leben ken men zikh ale mol nemen


----------



## koshergrl (May 19, 2014)

I.P.Freely said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I.P.Freely said:
> ...


 

Wow how you came to that conclusion, I have no idea.

Evidence that you aren't really in touch with reality. Most lying scumbags aren't.


----------



## Thunderbird (May 19, 2014)

Only a racist could embrace the eugenics/pro-abortion movement. 

1) Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was an ardent eugenicist who wanted to exterminate the handicapped, the poor, and non-whites.

quote from Sanger: "As an advocate of birth control I wish ... to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation.... On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective." 
The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda", October 1921, page 5.

another quote from Sanger: "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble

2) "Above all, society must grasp the grim relationship between unwanted children and the violent rebellion of minority groups."
- Lawrence Lader, co-founder of the National Association for the Repeal
of Abortion Laws. Breeding Ourselves to Death [New York: Ballantine Books, 1971], page 23.

Lawrence Lader was not a marginal figure, he was one of the founders of NARAL!

3) The best-seller Freakonomics made a similar argument.

4) And check out this article: *Pro-Life Advocates Take Justice Ginsburg to Task for Racist Abortion Comments*

5) More racism from the abortion industry: * Abortions earmarked by race *


----------



## Thunderbird (May 19, 2014)

Abortion has killed far more African Americans than the KKK: *Black Leaders Condemn Planned Parenthood's Racism*

*79% of Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinics Target Blacks, Hispanics*


----------



## Thunderbird (May 19, 2014)

I.P.Freely said:


> you must have a reading and comprehension problem Amoretz


Read and comprehend this you ignorant turd: *Abortion Four Times Deadlier Than Childbirth*


----------



## Thunderbird (May 19, 2014)

I.P.Freely said:


> read this,you puling unchined-snouted cack dish,


Only a hate-filled pig-faced imbecile would continue to grunt their love of the brutal abortion industry. 

*Research on the Psychological and Physical Effects of Abortion*



> it explains in simple English why your argument is a load of old bollocks,


Speaking of which were you ever able to wash the smell of old bollocks out of your hair?


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 20, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> > you must have a reading and comprehension problem Amoretz
> ...


15 years old out of date crap


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 20, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> > read this,you puling unchined-snouted cack dish,
> ...


16 years old out of date crap

The rights of women to choose abortion remains sacrosanct .......a big Amen to that


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 20, 2014)

Beware this video contains strong language and the truth Amen
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qtlvr6LLV8]George Carlin - Pro-Life is Anti-Woman! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 20, 2014)

Thunderturd read and try to understand
Mental Health and Abortion


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 20, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


Still in denial Traiftart here is the lying BBC News  including a very inaccurate video
BBC News - Abortion 'does not raise' mental health risk


----------



## koshergrl (May 20, 2014)

There was more than one video cited.


----------



## Disir (May 20, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Why don't you define for me what you consider success in this arena? Because I'm not going to waste my time attempting to have a conversation if you're going to act like a five year old. I fuck back.


----------



## Thunderbird (May 20, 2014)

I.P.Freely said:


> 15 years old out of date crap


Are you retarded?  Looks like you can't handle a simple arithmetic problem.  The article is from 2000, which of course doesn't invalidate its findings.



I.P.Freely said:


> 16 years old out of date crap


You've exposed yourself as a liar!  Many of the studies are from 2013 and 2012!

Like this one: *New Review Links Abortion and Mental Health Problems* from 2013.

So you are lying in the name of a cause that tortures unborn babies to death for money.

_Torture_ is the right word: FETAL PAIN: THE EVIDENCE



> The rights of women to choose abortion remains sacrosanct .......a big Amen to that


Fortunately unborn babies and their mothers have some protections now.

*Accomplishment #6: Pro-life laws have been enacted at the federal, state and local level.* 

*Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Has Stopped 11,000 Abortions*

*Polls and New Laws Make Pro-life Defenders Optimistic in 2014 *

*Pro-Life Politicians Have Made a Difference, Pro-Life Laws Work*

And check out this article: *I survived the abortion that killed my twin: I wish I could tell my abortionist he is forgiven*


----------



## rcfieldz (May 20, 2014)

ABORTION: VOODOO _or_ MURDER???


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 20, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> Abortion has killed far more African Americans than the KKK: *Black Leaders Condemn Planned Parenthood's Racism*
> 
> *79% of Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinics Target Blacks, Hispanics*


"deaths" of what? Who killed more what than the KKK?

as usual you are dribbling out your usual load of old bollocks.
Were any of those 13 million abortions carried out without the consent of the host.?


----------



## Thunderbird (May 20, 2014)

Endangering women's lives:

The Cover-Up: Why U.S. Abortion Mortality Statistics Are Meaningless | After Abortion

Abortion Dangers Hidden By Medical Journals | Prolife

Abortion Risks: A list of major physical complications related to abortion | After Abortion

http://www.azrtl.org/factsheets/Abortion - abortion_risks.pdf


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 20, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> > 15 years old out of date crap
> ...


you are again posting unsubstantiated bollocks, you should be ashamed.


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 20, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> Endangering women's lives:
> 
> The Cover-Up: Why U.S. Abortion Mortality Statistics Are Meaningless | After Abortion
> 
> ...


more make believe, read this twerp
BBC News - Abortion 'does not raise' mental health risk


----------



## koshergrl (May 20, 2014)

None of those stories are unsubstantiated. They are all cited, every single one.

But progressive goons who want to kill babies don't care about facts anyway.


----------



## mamooth (May 20, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> Only a hate-filled pig-faced imbecile would continue to grunt their love of the brutal abortion industry.
> 
> *Research on the Psychological and Physical Effects of Abortion*



That's some particularly bad junk science, which is the only kind of science pro-lifers have.

Why is it junk science? Because it didn't correct for the fact that high-risk women have abortions more often. Anyone with a brain spots that flaw instantly, which obviously leaves out the pro-life cultists.

Naturally, the fact that it's bad science won't stop Tbird here from repeating it. There's a good reason why pro-lifers are so often referred to as pro-liars. They believe God has given them special dispensation to lie for the cause, hence nothing they say can be trusted.


----------



## mamooth (May 20, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> 1) Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was an ardent eugenicist who wanted to exterminate the handicapped, the poor, and non-whites.



And the list of fake or out-of-context Sanger quotes pops up. Pro-lifers are kind of predictable and boring in their dishonest propaganda. But the cult told them to repeat the lies, and they don't dare contradict the cult.

Back in the real world, MLK, Dubois, Bethune and all the black leaders of the day had high praise for Sanger. So, according to TBird's kook conspiracy theory, all the black leaders of the day were also trying to genocide the black race.

Tbird, we're worried about your soul. You love lies, and Satan is the lord of lies, which makes you hellbound, unless you repent of your lies.


----------



## koshergrl (May 20, 2014)

It's not dishonest. What is dishonest is the baby killers' devotion to denying it.

MLK was ardently pro-life. If he ever praised Sanger, it would have been as a human being...NOT as some sort of approval of abortions.

Stanger herself was not a fan of abortion.

"In 1966, Martin Luther King, Jr., a non-violent supporter of natural family planning, was offered the Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger Award. In the acceptance speech, delivered by Mrs. Coretta Scott King, because Dr. King didn&#8217;t attend the ceremony, Mrs. King points to the benefits of family planning among Negro families and the &#8220;kinship&#8221; between the civil rights movement and Margaret Sanger&#8217;s early efforts. This speech did not include the word abortion. There is much speculation regarding who the real author of the speech was. "

http://www.priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/martin-luther-king-unborn.htm


----------



## Thunderbird (May 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Why is it junk science? Because it didn't correct for the fact that high-risk women have abortions more often.


Evidence for this statement?

This study considered pre-pregnancy psychological state: *Abortion and Clinical Depression Linked in Major Study*

quote: Another important aspect of this study, said Reardon, is that is one of only a few studies to use any *pre-pregnancy psychological score as a control variable.*

Another study: *Abortion Four Times Deadlier Than Childbirth*

quote:  As in the STAKES sample, birth was associated with a significantly lower risk of suicide attempts. *The South Glamorgan researchers concluded that their data did not support the view that suicide after an abortion was predicated on prior poor mental health,* at least as measured by prior suicide attempts. Instead, &#8220;the increased risk of suicide after an induced abortion may therefore be a consequence of the procedure itself.&#8221;



> They believe God has given them special dispensation to lie for the cause, hence nothing they say can be trusted.


What is your cause?  Serving elite racists, media bosses, and the abortion industry that targets women, minorities, and the handicapped for mass murder.


----------



## Thunderbird (May 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> And the list of fake or out-of-context Sanger quotes pops up. Pro-lifers are kind of predictable and boring in their dishonest propaganda. But the cult told them to repeat the lies, and they don't dare contradict the cult.


Was Sanger a eugenicist? Yes or no?



> So, according to TBird's kook conspiracy theory,


Has the black community been decimated by abortion?  Yes or no?

The current figure is about *17 million* African American unborn babies killed by abortion.


----------



## Thunderbird (May 21, 2014)

The pro-abortion death cult hates not only women and minorities but the handicapped as well.

Extermination of the "unfit": *Abortion Of Disabled Babies Increasing at Alarming Rate*

*Babies in UK Can be Aborted At 40 Weeks for Cleft Lip, Commission Wants It Stopped*


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 21, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> None of those stories are unsubstantiated. They are all cited, every single one.
> 
> But progressive goons who want to kill babies don't care about facts anyway.


what babies are killed?


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 21, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it junk science? Because it didn't correct for the fact that high-risk women have abortions more often.
> ...


still posting out of date rubbish, here is the latest British Medical Journal report.    
*Abortion does not cause mental health problems, says large review | BMJ*


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 21, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> The pro-abortion death cult hates not only women and minorities but the handicapped as well.
> 
> Extermination of the "unfit": *Abortion Of Disabled Babies Increasing at Alarming Rate*
> 
> *Babies in UK Can be Aborted At 40 Weeks for Cleft Lip, Commission Wants It Stopped*


what a load of old bollocks, in 10 years 27 foetus have been aborted because of cleft lips and palates plus other defects that would cause serious handicaps. Only one foetus out of the 27 was aborted after 24weeks, the case was reviewed by the crown prosecution service and they found both doctors had acted ethically and within the law. The Chief Exec of the Cleft lip and Palate Association a lobby group for suffers accepted  the findings.

*Give me proof of one 40 week abortion carried out in the UK illegally *


----------



## Thunderbird (May 21, 2014)

I.P.Freely said:


> what a load of old bollocks, in 10 years 27 foetus have been aborted because of cleft lips and palates plus other defects that would cause serious handicaps. Only one foetus out of the 27 was aborted after 24weeks,


Please provide evidence.

You seem to have gotten your info from this article.  But it looks like the facts sloshed around in your tiny brain for some time and eventually came out as crap.

quote: The Department of Health statistics, which go back almost a decade, were released after a six-year legal battle. They reveal that between 2002 and 2010 there were 17,983 terminations on the grounds that there was a &#8220;substantial risk&#8221; that the babies would be &#8220;seriously handicapped&#8221; &#8212; known as Ground E abortions. Of these, 1,189 were aborted after 24 weeks, after which there must be such a serious risk for an abortion to be legal if the mother is not in danger. Last year 147 foetuses were aborted after 24 weeks, a rise of 29 per cent since 2002. 
As well as the babies with cleft lips and palates, another 27 were aborted because of &#8220;congenital malformations of the ear, eye, face or neck&#8221;, which can include problems such as having glaucoma or being born with an ear missing. Of those, one was aborted after 24 weeks, in 2003. 

*I.P.Freely's lie: "in 10 years 27 foetus have been aborted because of cleft lips and palates plus other defects that would cause serious handicaps. Only one foetus out of the 27 was aborted after 24weeks,"

reality: "They reveal that between 2002 and 2010 there were 17,983 terminations on the grounds that there was a &#8220;substantial risk&#8221; that the babies would be &#8220;seriously handicapped&#8221; &#8212; known as Ground E abortions. Of these, 1,189 were aborted after 24 weeks, " *

More facts to confuse and frighten you:

quote: According to the Department of Health, in 2012 there were 2,692 abortions carried out under &#8220;Ground E of the Abortion Act 1967.&#8221; This was a 17 percent increase over the previous year; 160 of these abortions took place after 24 weeks.

LINK

*Cleft lip abortions '10 times as common as reported'*
More than 10 times as many abortions take place for cleft lip than are recorded in Department of Health statistics, according to European researchers. 



> Give me proof of one 40 week abortion carried out in the UK illegally


Not surprising you failed to understand the article.  The article said "doctors can also approve an abortion up to 40 weeks".  If you think that's false provide evidence.  

Maybe if I linked to articles with smaller words and lots of pictures? Let's start HERE.


----------



## Thunderbird (May 21, 2014)

She was born at just 24 weeks and three days:





I.P.Freely thinks lying in the cause of mass murder of 24 week old unborn babies is the right thing to do.


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 21, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> > what a load of old bollocks, in 10 years 27 foetus have been aborted because of cleft lips and palates plus other defects that would cause serious handicaps. Only one foetus out of the 27 was aborted after 24weeks,
> ...


more absolute bollocks read this and educate yourself dreck *BBC NEWS | Health | Q&A: Late abortions*


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 21, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> She was born at just 24 weeks and three days:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 more crap, read this drek
*'Nathan was born at 23 weeks. If I'd known then what I do now, I'd have wanted him to die in my arms' | Society | The Observer*
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20608905*


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 21, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> > what a load of old bollocks, in 10 years 27 foetus have been aborted because of cleft lips and palates plus other defects that would cause serious handicaps. Only one foetus out of the 27 was aborted after 24weeks,
> ...


*here you go drek    
Twenty-six babies aborted for cleft lips or palates - Telegraph*


----------



## koshergrl (May 21, 2014)

See, you can't make them feel bad. They hate infants and when they see them, they aren't moved by a desire to help them. They find them scary and a threat.


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 22, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> See, you can't make them feel bad. They hate infants and when they see them, they aren't moved by a desire to help them. They find them scary and a threat.



*Induced Abortion in the United States*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 22, 2014)

I.P.Freely said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > None of those stories are unsubstantiated. They are all cited, every single one.
> ...



None. 

References to baby killing are nothing more than ignorant hyperbole and demagoguery by most on the right hostile to citizens civil liberties. 

It is a fact of Constitutional case law that prior to birth, the embryo/fetus is not a person or baby in any legal sense, and not entitled to 14th Amendment protections (_Planned Parenthood v. Casey_ (1992)).


----------



## I.P.Freely (May 22, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> See, you can't make them feel bad. They hate infants and when they see them, they aren't moved by a desire to help them. They find them scary and a threat.


 some more scary pics here
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/191829-my-pet-troll.html


----------



## priceless (May 26, 2014)

Disir said:


> No. I don't think placing people in colonies and dictating what they can and can't do is appropriate. Ever.  Get pregnant win a vacation at a concentration camp.


First of all, I'm not talking about a concentration camp.  What I'm really saying is that if you prohibit abortion, you have to guarantee some level of welfare for the family.  However, many people are against guaranteeing family welfare if it gives people a blank check to have as many kids as they want regardless of their means to support them.

This would be sort of an in-between (compromise) where neither abortion or birth-control would be an issue because people would not come in contact with people of the opposite gender.  So you're essentially saying to a pregnant woman or a man who got a woman pregnant, "ok, you're entitled to a mistake and we're going to make sure you can take care of this baby and yourself but to gain access to this welfare support, you have to live only among people of your same sex so that you won't make any more babies until you've achieved the life-position that affords you the ability to take economic responsibility for your own children."

This seems to me the only practical way of prohibiting abortion and defunding birth-control.  Otherwise, you end up with situations where women are claiming rape (either legitimately or deceptively) in order to legitimate abortions and or welfare support.  Most people who live around people of the other sex end up having some kind of sexual contact (very few people abstain as I understand it) so abortion, birth-control, and/or child-welfare guarantees/entitlements are a given.  The other option is to prohibit abortion, defund birth-control, and then just allow unemployed people to beg in the streets and live on whatever handouts they get.


----------



## Disir (May 26, 2014)

priceless said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > No. I don't think placing people in colonies and dictating what they can and can't do is appropriate. Ever.  Get pregnant win a vacation at a concentration camp.
> ...



Well, you might not view it as a concentration camp but I am quite sure that the individuals that would be there might not view it in the same way.  So, don't prohibit abortion.


----------



## priceless (May 26, 2014)

Disir said:


> Well, you might not view it as a concentration camp but I am quite sure that the individuals that would be there might not view it in the same way.  So, don't prohibit abortion.


What do you think about some women being pressured into choosing abortion by their economic situation (or that of the father)?  Should there be protection for a woman (or man) who wants to choose to keep a baby instead of aborting it?


----------



## Disir (May 26, 2014)

priceless said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Well, you might not view it as a concentration camp but I am quite sure that the individuals that would be there might not view it in the same way.  So, don't prohibit abortion.
> ...



This is an attempt to make the woman the victim in the decision. Technically, her role is the secondary victim and the perpetrator is the abortion provider. I don't buy it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 26, 2014)

priceless said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > No. I don't think placing people in colonies and dictating what they can and can't do is appropriate. Ever.  Get pregnant win a vacation at a concentration camp.
> ...



The is _prima facie_ un-Constitutional. 

Moreover, its repugnant to the fundamental tenets of a free and democratic society. 

Youre attacking the symptom, not the actual cause of the problem; which is why the courts have wisely and appropriately prohibited such solutions.


----------



## jillian (May 26, 2014)

Jeremiah said:


> Vaccinations cause autism which is why many parents are becoming concerned about being forced to give their children vaccinations.   I remember when my cousin was born my grandmothers sister said she was as normal as any child.    After the vaccination she was not normal.  This was years ago and they diagnosed her with autism.   My grandmothers sister was a very wise woman and she said without question it was the vaccination that caused the autism.   Vaccinations should be a choice made by the family.  Not the government.



vaccinations do not cause autism. that is a fallacy.


----------



## priceless (May 27, 2014)

Disir said:


> This is an attempt to make the woman the victim in the decision. Technically, her role is the secondary victim and the perpetrator is the abortion provider. I don't buy it.


I don't want to assume you're just going to react negatively to anything I say but it's starting to appear that way.

Are you willing to discuss any of what I have laid out in previous posts or are you going to make this into a discussion about who's a victim and who's a perpetrator, etc.?

If possible, I would like to stick with the issue of welfare-guarantees for the choice to have a child and what, if any, legitimate reproductive restrictions can be imposed on people as a condition of taking advantage of welfare benefits.

If no welfare protection is offered whatsoever, women are faced with the choice between abortion and doing whatever it takes to provide for their child.  If the public provides them with a non-exploitative option, taxpayers will complain about women having children as a means to gain access to entitlements.

Are you capable of acknowledging the possibility of a woman (or man) being in a situation of wanting to have a child but lacking access to the economic means to provide for the child's welfare and upbringing?  If so, what do you propose is an alternative to abortion for such people?


----------



## priceless (May 27, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The is _prima facie_ un-Constitutional.
> 
> Moreover, its repugnant to the fundamental tenets of a free and democratic society.
> 
> Youre attacking the symptom, not the actual cause of the problem; which is why the courts have wisely and appropriately prohibited such solutions.



I'm just trying to think of ways to render abortion and birth control unnecessary.  Abstinence is really the only way but this choice seems to be exceedingly unpopular.

Currently, C-sections are an informal method of limiting childbirth for poorer women because once you have a C-section, doctors can prescribe abortion as a health measure against potential risks of subsequent births.

Is that constitutional?


----------



## DGS49 (May 27, 2014)

"Effective ten (1) months from today, abortion will be considered a form of voluntary homicide, even if done by the mother.  Furthermore, no social welfare program will recognize or subsidize a 'family' that is created by the birth of an illegitmate child."

Problem (basically) solved.


----------



## priceless (May 27, 2014)

DGS49 said:


> "Effective ten (1) months from today, abortion will be considered a form of voluntary homicide, even if done by the mother.  Furthermore, no social welfare program will recognize or subsidize a 'family' that is created by the birth of an illegitmate child."
> 
> Problem (basically) solved.


What if they marry before the child is born and then divorce?


----------



## Disir (May 27, 2014)

priceless said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > This is an attempt to make the woman the victim in the decision. Technically, her role is the secondary victim and the perpetrator is the abortion provider. I don't buy it.
> ...



I am very familiar with your prior argument.  There are no legitimate reproductive restrictions.  None.  You don't punish women for pregnancy.  

Further, you have many women that are what we call intellectually disabled.  They will always work in low paying jobs and they are not capable of doing any other type of work. By no means is that all of the women but there is a group of women that are.   They will have children.  They will always require aid.  They aren't going to wear their IQ on their forehead.  So, before we even begin to head down that track of punishing pregnancy or more welfare restrictions  then we should probably have a very good idea of the needs of the populations.


----------



## priceless (May 28, 2014)

Disir said:


> I am very familiar with your prior argument.  There are no legitimate reproductive restrictions.  None.  You don't punish women for pregnancy.


I agree with you that no one has the right to limit someone else's reproductive activity.  But can you say that some people have the responsibility to provide for the economic welfare of others limitlessly?  E.g. If you were legally required to continue providing for your adult children as long as you were both alive, would they have the right to have as many children as they want and require you to continue supporting them and their children?  Or should you have some say in their life choices?



> Further, you have many women that are what we call intellectually disabled.  They will always work in low paying jobs and they are not capable of doing any other type of work. By no means is that all of the women but there is a group of women that are.   They will have children.  They will always require aid.  They aren't going to wear their IQ on their forehead.  So, before we even begin to head down that track of punishing pregnancy or more welfare restrictions  then we should probably have a very good idea of the needs of the populations.


When you say that certain people will 'always require aid,' is that different to you from saying that some people will always require servants?  What it sounds like you're saying is that someone has the right to be served by others without the ability to pay them simply because they (supposedly) aren't capable of doing work for themselves.  

It sounds like the old argument during the time of slavery that whites weren't capable of working in the fields because their skin was too sensitive to the hot sun.  At what point do you stop requiring people to provide for other people?  Or is it that we had things right with slavery, only basing the mandate to work and provide for others unilaterally on color instead of need was the problem?


----------



## Disir (May 28, 2014)

priceless said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > I am very familiar with your prior argument.  There are no legitimate reproductive restrictions.  None.  You don't punish women for pregnancy.
> ...



That ship sailed with deinstutionalization. So, the ramifications of that are that yes, indeed, now you won't be able to tell who is who and now you will pay limitlessly. Privatization is awesome! Reagan was awesome. Yes, it is very different from saying that some people will always require servants. That was a very nice try though.  That's nothing close to slavery.  No matter how you slice it.  

No, you don't get a say in reproductive health.  No, you are not a slave for paying taxes.


----------



## priceless (May 30, 2014)

Disir said:


> That ship sailed with deinstutionalization. So, the ramifications of that are that yes, indeed, now you won't be able to tell who is who and now you will pay limitlessly. Privatization is awesome! Reagan was awesome. Yes, it is very different from saying that some people will always require servants. That was a very nice try though.  That's nothing close to slavery.  No matter how you slice it.
> 
> No, you don't get a say in reproductive health.  No, you are not a slave for paying taxes.


How exactly is paying limitlessly different than enslavement?  Will you pay limitlessly for me to live however I want?  If so, why is taking care of me your responsibility and not my own?  Please explain your logic?  Is there some reason behind what you're saying or is it just about making other people work to pay whatever you want them to and then telling them it's not slavery?


----------



## Disir (May 30, 2014)

priceless said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > That ship sailed with deinstutionalization. So, the ramifications of that are that yes, indeed, now you won't be able to tell who is who and now you will pay limitlessly. Privatization is awesome! Reagan was awesome. Yes, it is very different from saying that some people will always require servants. That was a very nice try though.  That's nothing close to slavery.  No matter how you slice it.
> ...



You consented.


----------



## priceless (May 31, 2014)

Disir said:


> You consented.



Consented to what?  How?  What are you talking about?  Why do you say things in such a creepy, cryptic way instead of just having an explicit discussion?


----------



## Disir (May 31, 2014)

priceless said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > You consented.
> ...




What's creepy about it? I have very little patience for Libertarians and many anarchists. Very little. 

It's Locke. You consented.  You are not enslaved. The fact that you seek to make such a comparison is revolting.


----------



## priceless (May 31, 2014)

Disir said:


> What's creepy about it? I have very little patience for Libertarians and many anarchists. Very little.
> 
> It's Locke. You consented.  You are not enslaved. The fact that you seek to make such a comparison is revolting.


First, you seem to be assuming I'm either libertarian or anarchist.  Maybe what you mean to say, though, is that you have no patience for anyone who doesn't submit to the way you see things without question.  If you don't like to reason with people who view things differently than you do, why are you on a discussion forum?

Second, I don't understand what you're saying about Locke, consent, and enslavement.  If you want to argue about what constitutes 'enslavement,' maybe it would be better not to use the word 'slavery,' and just say that it's not right for someone to require someone else to work to support them and their family unnecessarily and/or limitlessly.

E.g. if someone needs food to eat and they don't have the means to provide it for themselves, it's not unthinkable that if someone else has a surplus of food, they should provide it to the hungry person - BUT it's not unthinkable that the hungry person should do whatever they can to repay that person for the value of the food they receive.

What you seem to be saying is that if people keep having babies, they should be entitled to everything needed to raise those children humanely and yet bear no responsibilities with regard to the labor that goes into providing for those children's welfare.  

Is that your standpoint?


----------



## mamooth (May 31, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> 3) The abortion industry represents the greatest assault on women in human history. Tens of millions of unborn baby girls have been killed for the "crime" of being a girl!



It works the opposite way in the USA, where sex selection overwhelmingly favors girls over boys. In sperm sorting clinics where a future baby's gender can be chosen, 80% are trying for girls. There's no reason to think abortion sex-selection works any differently.

More Parents Using Sperm Sorting Technique to Have Daughters | Alternet

Why? First, thanks to liberal attitudes, women have value in the USA, so girls are not disposable. If we still had conservative attitudes in the USA, it would be girl fetuses getting aborted, so thank the liberals for saving the girls.

Second, women really really want at least one daughter, while men are not particularly set on having at least one son. So there's a lot of "This last child _must_ be a girl" going on, but not much "This last child must be a boy".

So, you'd best change that argument to "abortion is pro-woman and anti-man". That is, if you're honest.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Why? First, thanks to liberal attitudes, women have value in the USA, so girls are not disposable. If we still had conservative attitudes in the USA, it would be girl fetuses getting aborted, so thank the liberals for saving the girls.
> 
> Second, women really really want at least one daughter, while men are not particularly set on having at least one son. So there's a lot of "This last child _must_ be a girl" going on, but not much "This last child must be a boy".
> 
> So, you'd best change that argument to "abortion is pro-woman and anti-man". That is, if you're honest.


Killing unborn baby boys is pro-woman?!


----------



## Disir (Jun 2, 2014)

priceless said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > What's creepy about it? I have very little patience for Libertarians and many anarchists. Very little.
> ...



Libertarians and a few anarchists are two out of three groups that use that argument.  Sovereign Citizens are the third.  Since you have not broken out antiquated common laws that have been replaced taken from a law book in the library then it has to be the one of the first two.  Alternatively, you gather your information from an astroturfing group funded by billionaire libertarians.  

Don't kid yourself,  I am more than willing to hear another side but I don't buy your particular brand of BS.  We aren't conversing. You are dancing.  I may have given you too much credit. So, let's recap.  

My stance is that you do not get to make reproductive choices for women. You do not get a say in how they live. Ever. No concentration camps. 

The abortion clinics are not the perpetrators and the woman making the choice does not play the role of the secondary victim.  

There are groups of people that will require aid for the duration of their lives.  You had a shot at that until deinstitutionalization. Reagan put the nail in the coffin on that. The ramifications of this has led us as a society to pay three times as much in different areas. You attempted to place yourself in the role of one who would require that need.  By doing so you managed to avoid dealing with the prior repercussions. 

No. Taxes are not slavery. Attempting to replace one word that you may think is more palatable does not alter your intent.  Libertarians and a few anarchists are two out of three groups that use that argument.  Sovereign Citizens are the third.  Since you have not broken out antiquated common laws that have been replaced (taken out of context from a law book in the library) then it has to be the one of the first two.  The only other way that you would attempt to utilize that argument is if you gather your information from an astroturfing group funded by billionaire libertarians. But, then we would be right back to where we started. 

Lastly, and this is where I may have given you too much credit, this society is a social contract.  Hence, slavery  &#8800; taxes.  What does Locke say? 




Attempting to change the word slavery does not alter your stance.


----------



## priceless (Jun 4, 2014)

Disir said:


> Libertarians and a few anarchists are two out of three groups that use that argument.  Sovereign Citizens are the third.  Since you have not broken out antiquated common laws that have been replaced taken from a law book in the library then it has to be the one of the first two.  Alternatively, you gather your information from an astroturfing group funded by billionaire libertarians.


If person X has a thought that you identify with group X, does that automatically mean that person X subscribes to the ideologies of group X?  Well, I can tell you I don't feel like getting into a debate over how much or little of other people's politics I agree with and disagree with and why so you'll just have to deal with my reasoning in terms of the reasoning itself.  That may be difficult if you're used to labeling people and then responding to the label but I promise you I'm not just thinking within some boxes, however much it may appear to be so through your eyes.



> Don't kid yourself,  I am more than willing to hear another side but I don't buy your particular brand of BS.  We aren't conversing. You are dancing.  I may have given you too much credit. So, let's recap.


Dancing?  I was explaining the fundamental problem that if people don't restrict their reproduction when they don't have the means to care for their children, they are shifting the burden to others or sentencing their children to resource deprivation if no one else provides for them. 



> My stance is that you do not get to make reproductive choices for women. You do not get a say in how they live. Ever. No concentration camps.


The question isn't whether you can force women (or men) into camps legitimately (except sending people to prison for committing crime, of course); but whether you can make chastity a prerequisite for receiving welfare benefits.  Same-sex colonies would just make it easier for people to abstain.



> The abortion clinics are not the perpetrators and the woman making the choice does not play the role of the secondary victim.


Forget about perpetration and victimhood for a moment.  Women are being prescribed C-sections under the guise that natural childbirth is a health risk and then prescribed abortion when subsequent C-sections are deemed a health-risk.  Reproduction is being controlled medically but who is the 'victim' when the health care industry is doing it 'for' the woman's health, i.e. not to 'victimize' her by taking her control over her reproductive rights away.



> There are groups of people that will require aid for the duration of their lives.  You had a shot at that until deinstitutionalization. Reagan put the nail in the coffin on that. The ramifications of this has led us as a society to pay three times as much in different areas.


So you're saying that be releasing people from institutions, you become responsible for taking care of them outside institutions?  What is that assumption based on?  John Locke?  What if you don't subscribe to John Locke's social contract ideology?



> You attempted to place yourself in the role of one who would require that need.  By doing so you managed to avoid dealing with the prior repercussions.


Not sure what you're referring to or saying with this.



> No. Taxes are not slavery. Attempting to replace one word that you may think is more palatable does not alter your intent.  Libertarians and a few anarchists are two out of three groups that use that argument.


Semantics.  Slaves produced products that were taken from them.  If the slaves had been taxed 100% they would have had nothing to live so they were left with a certain amount for their own welfare.  Slavery was taxation without representation coupled with the use of force to prevent slaves from quitting/leaving their jobs and/or from disobeying management.



> Lastly, and this is where I may have given you too much credit, this society is a social contract.  Hence, slavery  &#8800; taxes.  What does Locke say?


This is assumptive.  It depends on how 'society' is defined.  If global society is a social contract, everyone has a responsibility to take care of all sick, starving, and poor children (and adults?) everywhere.  Is that the case, according to your interpretation of John Locke?  If not, why?  Who gets to define what constitutes the 'society' or 'social contract' and why?



> Attempting to change the word slavery does not alter your stance.


My stance is that no one has yet shown me that there is a universal society where everyone is responsible for the welfare of everyone else.  Until that is the case, my question is why anyone is responsible for the welfare of anyone else.  Is that unreasonable?


----------

