The Lizard Master: If you have to lie, then you are probably on the wrong side.

Display One Post

July 18, 2006 , If you have to lie, then you are probably on the wrong side.

I know this is going to inflame some of you, but I do touch on politics from time to time. Unfortunately, this is an issue that I think needs to be completely separated from politics and isn't. I must say though that there is something SERIOUSLY wrong when we are spending government money to blatantly lie to our own people.

"Federally funded 'pregnancy resource centers' are incorrectly telling women that abortion results in an increased risk of breast cancer, infertility and deep psychological trauma, a minority congressional report charged yesterday.

The report said that 20 of 23 federally funded centers contacted by staff investigators requesting information about an unintended pregnancy were told false or misleading information about the potential risks of an abortion."

That's just horrible. Here's the link for the Washington Post. No matter what your motives are, the ends definitely don't justify the means.

Comments

I heard about that awhile back. I've read even more messed up stuff about those CPCs actually. The bottom line though, is that lying to someone about their health should piss you off no matter what side of the debate you are on. - Pickle

There's actually a lot of serious research that heavily suggests there is a HUGE link between breast cancer and first term abortions. Dr. Bernard NAthanson, the founder of NARAL and once the director for the largest abortion clinic in the world, actually turned prolife after he saw the immense negative side effects abortions were having on his patients, including breast cancer and infertility. You don't hear about this much because the abortion industry is so huge right now (about 1.3 million abortions are performed each year at about $500-$800 a pop - so we're talking about a multibillion dollar industry). Its interesting that the only source the article quoted was from the NCI and ignored research from other respected medical agencies that directly contradict it. - Fat

The American Cancer Society disagrees. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp I'd love to see some sources to the contrary, because everything I've ever read of this supposed "link" smacks of propaganda to me. - Pickle

Of course, what should I expect from the Democrats in congress? They continue to look the other way and cry foul when anything negative about abortion is said, so its no surprise here that they are going after pregnancy centers. The article also clearly states that the federal money goes toward abstinence programs and is kept completely separate from the clinics. These clinics are run by volunteer workers and funded by donations from churches. That's what Christians have done in response to our country's abortion crisis. Meanwhile, close to forty million babies have been aborted (murdered) since 1972 and all the damn democrats can do is complain about pregnancy centers set up to show young women there are alternatives to abortion. Nice. And people wonder why I'm such a hard line conservative. - Fat

I'll get the links right now. - Fat

First from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons: "The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons believes that patients have the right to give or withhold fully informed consent before undergoing medical treatment. This includes notification of potential adverse effects. While there is a difference of medical opinion concerning the abortion breast cancer link, there is a considerable volume of evidence supporting this link, which is, moreover, highly plausible. We believe that a reasonable person would want to be informed of the existence of this evidence before making her decision." This statement was made by their executive director Jane Orient in 2003. - Fat

Another great article found in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, "The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics Trumped Science and Informed Consent." You can read it here: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/medicalgroups/index.htm - Fat

Sorry wrong link. You can read the article here:http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf - Fat

Joel Brind, Ph.D., professor of Endocrinology in the Department of Natural Sciences at Baruch College of the City University of New York, substantiates the abortion-breast cancer link, but with a twist – the data ring true only for induced abortions. "To date, a total of 30 published reports describe 24 separate epidemiological studies which give specific data on induced abortion and breast cancer incidence," he said in testimony before the Food and Drug Administration in 1996. "Nineteen of the 24 report overall increased breast cancer risk, 12 with statistical significance. Several important conclusions can be clearly drawn based on this substantial body of worldwide knowledge dating back to 1957." One of the most significant, he said, was that "only induced abortion – not spontaneous abortion – is consistently linked to the incidence of breast cancer." In other words, he said, women who have miscarriages instead of elective abortions don't run the increased breast cancer risk. "Induced abortion increases breast cancer risk independently of its effect in delaying first full-term pregnancy," Brind said, while noting that "an early full-term pregnancy decreases breast cancer risk." from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26970 - Fat

First, I'm sure that you know your use of the word "murdered" is as incorrect as using electrocution to mean a non-fatal shock. That would be because murder is defined as an unlawful killing, and as of now anyway, abortion is not illegal. Second, the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians agrees with the ACS. And third, if there is such a link, it would hold true for women that have miscarriages as well. One of the known risks of breast cancer is having your first child later in life, or not having a child at all. Could it be that women who chose to have abortions are waiting later to have children or not having them at all? I've also read that perhaps women who have breast cancer are more honest about their medical history because they are desperate to find a "cause" for what is happening to them. In contrast, a healthy woman may withhold that information to avoid the stigma that is placed on a woman who exercises her right to choose. Finally, I know this is a topic that you and I feel very strongly about but I'm confident that we can keep things civilized and intelligent. - Pickle

Pickle, actually research denying these links is propaganda from the multi billion dollar abortion industry. Kind of like when the tobacco industry says there is no definitive link between smoking and lung cancer. But wait, let me get you some more articles and sources to read. - Fat

No, if you read my sources they all say the link is INDEPENDENT of delaying childbirth/miscarriages. Please read my sources so I don't have to cover material twice. - Fat

Ok, but please try to make at least some of them from impartial sources and not pro-life sites. Also, I have to get back to work so I may not get back to you until the evening. PS Pretty sure this is going to beat the car post for most comments. - Pickle

"No, if you read my sources they all say the link is INDEPENDENT of delaying childbirth/miscarriages." I'm actually going on sources that I've read myself. I'll get you the links later. - Pickle

There are several definitions of murder Pickle. One of them is, "To kill brutally or inhumanly". from dictionary.com That is the definition I was referring to. Anyone familiar with the procedures of abortion I think would have to agree with that. - Fat

American Physicians and Surgeons is not a pro life organization! Are you even looking at who my sources are? Do not make claims about my sources that aren't true to try to win the argument. - Fat

www.worldnetdaily.com is. I'm pretty sure www.abortionbreastcancer.com is as well. I mean, I'm not linking to to www.plannedparenthood.com because I doubt you'd take anything they have to say seriously. - Pickle

I feel that I have to add my 2 cents to this. Me personally, I totally abhore abortion. I think it's sick, and unless the person has any real genuine medical reason for needing an abortion, getting an abortion for any other reason is just disgusting. I mean, the fact that some people feel the need to use it as a method of birth control disgusts me. I can understand that people make mistakes. There is no undenying this, it's human. Actually, it's all the woman's fault. They've been screwing up since the dawn of man kind. I mean, hell even from the very beginning of time when Eve pulled the friggin apple off the tree that she wasn't supposed to. Anyway... I know that women fuck up, it's only natural. But that said, there's NO reason at all in my mind (other than for medical reasons) to have an abortion in the 2nd or 3rd trimester. Anyway... the real reason I wanted to respond was about partial-birth abortion. Honestly, I'm glad it's illegal. There is absolutely NO reason whatsoever for partial birth abortion. I mean, would you kill a bunch of cute puppies because you don't want to be bothered with taking care of them? It really is the same thing. Partial birth abortion is just disgusting. It's good that it's now illegal, because if it wasn't I think people should be forced to watch one just so they know what's happening. They literally attempt to give birth through natural means. The wait until the babies head is completely out of the vagina, and then they shove a pair of siccors in the top of the skull. The use this to chop the brain into pieces. Let me explain to how how fine of a line the term "murder" is. The only difference is that the other half of the baby's body is still in the mother. This is how they used to get away with it, without being brought up on charges for murder. It totally disgusts me. I would really, REALLY like someone to PROVE to me that there would EVER be a situation where a partial-birth abortion would be necessary to save the mother's live. I mean, you are literally going through the process of giving birth normally (the baby's head passes through the vagina). They then KILL the infant, and THEN the mother passes the body out the rest of the way. Please, someone... tell me how any female would benefit by having that baby dead half-way through birth, as apposed to the baby being alive? - Todd

I have no idea who worldnetdaily is. Look at who they quoted though. Joel Brind, Ph.D., professor of Endocrinology in the Department of Natural Sciences at Baruch College of the City University of New York. A professor from the City University of New York! He disagrees with you and now he's some prolife activist? Also while Dr. Bernard NAthanson is prolife now, he used to be prochoice. Like I said he founded NARAL and was director of the largest abortion cinic in the world. Why did he become prolife? He states in his autobiography that his conversion was a "purely empirical event". As technology advanced he saw the fetuses in a whole new light. At the same time women who had gotten abortions from his clinic were showing several adverse medical conditions (infertility and breast cancer were just two examples). You should really read his book because he was one of the pioneers of the abortions rights movement in the late 60's and early 70's. In the 70's he really cashed in on the movement too but he did his last abortion in '79 because his conscience would not allow him to continue practicing it. He is now a prolife activist, but knows more abut the abortion industry then perhaps anybody else. Are you going to discount his position too? - Fat

The life of the mother excuse is one the prochoice camp always trots out too. Dr. Nathanson says when he was lobbying for abortion rights back in the 60's and 70's the always used this as a reason to make abortion legal even though abortions needing to be performed for medical reasons were extremely rare even bac then. He also says that with medical technological advances made in the last 30 years its even rarer now. Yet prochoice activists will use that as an excuse to keep abortion legal. Meanwhile more than a million babies a year are aborted. - Fat

Ok Todd, you really want to know why? Picture a woman who is oh, 7 months along in her pregnancy and then something happens and the baby dies in utero. You think that it's less cruel to the mother to make her carry the dead fetus inside of her until her body decides to go into labor naturally? And hope that she doesn't develop sepsis in the meantime? Or maybe instead of doing a D & X (which is, btw, the medical term. Partial birth is an inflammatory term made up by abortion opponents.) Now...instead of doing a D & X and collapsing the skull as you've described, they should have the woman go under major invasive surgery such as a C-section instead. So while she's mourning the loss of her child, she can also be in incredible pain. How about this? Take the same woman, late in her pregnancy who finds out that her child has a defect that will cause it to die shortly after being born after living in agony for it's entire short existence. Do you think that it's more humane to let the baby go through that as well as the mother and father? And do you think that you should be able to make that choice for another family? - Pickle

Seriously, you really think crushing the skull of a baby is more humane? Describing a natural tragic event does not justify barbaric acts on our behalf. - Fat

If somebody gets sick should we crush their skull witha sledgehammer and chalk it up as being humane? - Fat

The skull is not CRUSHED. The contents are EVACUATED so that it is easier for the woman to pass it. Do you really not see the difference there? And you seriously think it's more humane to either have a woman carry a dead child or undergo invasive surgery just so her medical choices don't offend your sensibilities? By the way, nice to know how the woman fares through all of this doesn't factor in to your judgement. - Pickle

Anyways more research for you Pickle. First: A 1996 report published by the British Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health looked at 23 previous studies and found abortion increases the breast cancer risk by 30 percent. Once again more reearch done and not from a prolife group. - Fat

Second: As far as infertility goes there's a 1986 report in the medical journal Epidemiology that reveals women with a history of abortion have a greater risk of fetal loss than women who had no previous abortions. Women with two prior pregnancies carried to term and no abortions had the lowest risk, while women with two prior abortions had the highest risk. Meanwhile, a 1991 British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology article revealed that women with a history of abortion had a 1.5-1.7 times higher risk of ectopic pregnancy than women who had previously carried a pregnancy to term. Dr. Nathanson also says that this link can just no longer be credibly denied. - Fat

And as far as mental health goes, recent research from Norway and New Zealand has reported an association between abortion and subsequent mental health problems. The New Zealand study, published by the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, found that mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, substance abuse and suicidal thoughts, were more likely to occur among women who had an abortion than women who had never been pregnant or pregnant women who did not have an abortion The Norwegian study, published online by the journal BMC Medicine, compared the experiences of women who had miscarriages with those who had abortions. After 5 years, women who had abortions were more likely to suffer anxiety and intrusive thoughts of the event than women who miscarried. All sources cited, none of the research by prolife groups. - Fat

Technically, this is what happens in a partial birth abortion. This is Brenda Shafer's account who was a nurse for 18 years. She took a new job in an abortion clinic (better money, etc.) but quit after one day in her new job. She is now a prolife activist but believed in abortion rights until the day she worked at a clinic. Here's her detailed account: [The doctor] takes a pair of scissors and stabs the baby in the back of the neck and opens them up to make a hole in the back of the neck and into this hole, he puts a suction ctheter; and he turns the suction machine on and literally suction's out the baby's brains. This all takes place when only about 3 inches of the baby's head is still in the womb. Another 3 inches and the baby is considered a human and killing it would be illegal. What messed up and confused ideologies our country lives by. - Fat

Murder has always offended my "sensibilities". Murdering helpless babies even more so. You're really only referring to a fraction of the abortions performed anyways. The vast majority of these abortions are performed for the doctor's convenience. - Fat

Yeah, and its nice to know the welfare of the baby is one of your top concerns. - Fat

And ALex, thanks for posting this on the same day my son was born. - Fat

I'm out. - Fat

Considering I'm speaking of cases where the fetus is already dead, or will die shortly after birth I would say the welfare of the mother should take precedence, yes. I know that the D & X procedure accounts for around 1% of abortions performed. I was addressing Todd's comment. Technically, as I said, there is no such thing as a "partial birth abortion". That being said, I know that's what happens and I've also explained why. Here's a link for you: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8988884 This study was done on 1.5 MILLION women, the entire country of Denmark, with no reporting bias possible because Denmark has national health care with centralized records, and found no correlation. Actually, they did find that while pregnancy lowers the long-term risk of breast cancer, it actually increases the short-term risk of breast cancer. My bottom line is that I'm more inclined to believe the NCI, the ACS and WHO on this matter. - Pickle

One more link on Joel Brind: http://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/hatedabortion.html - Pickle

You DO understand that partial birth abortion is done to LIVE babies, right? If the baby dies in the womb, they immediately remove the baby from the featus. Partial-birth abortion has absolutely nothing to do with dead babies. If the baby was dead already, why would they suck the contents of the brain out? You need to understand exactly what partial-birth abortion is. I repeate, it has NOTHING to do with babies that are already dead. - Todd

How can you say there is no such thing as partial birth abortions? They wouldn't have made it illegal if it NEVER happened. And there is NO POINT to removing the brain if the baby is already dead. They remove the brain to KILL the baby (IE: Abortion). If the baby is already dead, they they immediately remove the baby or featus. You need to do some more research. - Todd

The reason I say there is no such thing is because it's like me saying open heart surgery is really called Rib Cracking Chest Muscle Whoopdeedoo. It's not a medical term, it's an inflammatory term made up by abortion opponents. Second, I've already explained why they would remove the brain. It's to collapse the skull so it is easier for the mother to pass through her vagina, thus eliminating the need for a C-section. It's still called an abortion if the baby is already dead. I do know what a D & X is, as I've explained above. If that procedure is made illegal, women WILL be forced to carry dead fetuses to term instead of having them removed. By the way, how did you think they removed them? With your so-called partial birth abortion, that's how. - Pickle

Damn, Alex just showed me on WikiPedia that they do in fact do it to dead babies. I really do not understand what the point would be to suck the brains out of a dead baby. What is the point? And is it still right to do it to live babies? - Todd

I still completely support the fact that it should (and I'm happy that it is) illegal to do it to a baby that is alive. I seriously doubt that anyone has a problem with doing it to a baby who is ALREADY DEAD... by it's own means. - Todd

By the way, Shorty's BBQ has a "Rib Cracking Chest Muscle Whoopdeedoo" day... Ribs are half-off. - Todd

I just told you what the point would be. The thing to remember is this is a procedure that accounts for around 1% of all abortions. It is already illegal except when done for health reasons. No woman carries a baby until her 3rd trimester and then says, Oops! Changed my mind. - Pickle

I don't think that the government should be allowed to decide the life of a fetus is more important than the life of the woman carrying it. By the way, most of the "partial birth" bans are unconstitutional because they contain NO exception for the life of the mother. Nice. Believe me, plenty of people have a problem with the procedure being performed where the fetus is already dead or dying. People even have a problem with ectopic pregnancies being aborted, even though there is NO chance of viability, and a high chance of the death of the woman. - Pickle

MmmMmm Ribs - Pickle

Pickle, my parents were arrested in the early 90's for sit-ins on abortion clinics. I was raised so that the value of life trumped everything else...that life was a gift from God that no man or woman has the right to take away. Ask TLM, ever since he's known me my #1 priority when it comes to politics has always been abortion. I have been to countless prolife rallies and conferences over the years. But I have never met anyone who objects to these procedures being done on live babies. So while there may be a few quack jobs out there (and there always are) I have yet to meet them and there are not too many...Partial birth abortion is a term that is used because it accurately describes the procedure. Pro life activists might or might not have coined the term (I don't know) but it stuck because it so accurately desscribes the operation. The baby is almost completely delivered before they suction out the brain, hence partial birth abortion...Todd, they do it on dead babies so the dead body can be easily removed from the woman's body...Pickle you claim you care so much about the welfare of the woman yet you do not want them being informed about possible adverse health side effects of abortion? You say you take "NCI, the ACS and WHO" take on the matter over the other organizations I mentioned but shouldn't the woman be given all the information and let her come to her own conclusion. Wouldn't that truly be in the "pro-choice" spirit? What's wrong with presenting the woman with all the info available and letting her make her own choice? It seems your attitude does not really have the woman's welfare in mind but is a simplistic pro abortion industry approach...Sorry Pickle, but the right to life should always take precedence over the right to convenience. I honestly will never understand how America was ever duped into letting this barbaric practice become such an institution in our country. - Fat

Sorry, I meant to say "dead babies" not "live babies" in my last comment... But I have never met anyone who objects to these procedures being done on dead babies - that's the way it was supposed to read. - Fat

What disgusts me is that, I really believe that in today's youth, it's becoming more and more acceptable to have an abortion. What really hurts me about this is that I think people more and more are using it as a means of birth control. I fully understand that people screw up. But what happens when they screw up? They pay the price. One of Erica's friends from her old job, she's 24 years old. She ended up getting pregnant from having unprotected sex. All of her friends immediately told her that she should have an abortion. They all told her she would be completely stupid for trying to raise a child. NO ONE supported her in any other way other than having an abortion. I was really upset and I didn't even want to go into discussions with Erica about it. I found out later that, this girl went through an entire elaborate plan... even went to an abortion clinic, paid money to see the doctor, and decided against having the abortion. This was her ONLY way of getting people off her back. It ended up becoming obvious to people when her belly started getting big... and she's on her 8th month now. What really upsets me is that NO ONE supported her decision. Why? Would it have been so bad? Erica had another friend from another job... who had THREE abortions when she was younger. About 3 or 4 years ago, she finally started trying to have a child of her own, and she hasn't been able to get pregnant. GOOD! FUCK her stupid bitch ass.... - Todd

Ok, I can't spend another day at work doing this all day. Yes, those who object to procedures done where the fetus is already dead are in the minority. Again, I was responding to Todd saying "I seriously doubt that anyone has a problem with doing it to a baby who is ALREADY DEAD... by it's own means." "Partial birth" is not a medical term...it does not describe any particular procedure. The ban covers procedures from the second trimester and up, whether they are done for health reasons or not. The ban also has NO exception for health reasons. If the major medical organizations (by the way, did you read the link I posted above about the Danish study that is considered the gold standard?) say there is no link, then there is no reason to suggest that there may be when there is no evidence to the contrary. Women should have *information* to make a choice, not propaganda. DON'T refer to my stance as pro-abortion. That is highly offensive. I am a mother. I have a child. If I was pro abortion I would think that every pregnant woman should have an abortion and you KNOW that is not the case. As far as "right to life" you want to accord a fetus higher rights than any person on this planet. No person has the right to impinge on someone's bodily integrity, even if not doing so will force them to die. And Todd, as far as Erica's friend...encouraging someone to have an abortion, and not considering any other option is not pro-choice and I don't agree with that. I think that's as horrible as you do. And for the other friend, yeah, you know what? It disgusts me that someone would have multiple abortions instead of taking measures to prevent pregnancy. But it's not my choice to make for that person and besides, would we really want someone so irresponsible to be in charge of the welfare of a child? By the way, abortions have been happening since the beginning of time, all over the world, with medical help and without. They happen in developed nations and in third world tribes. Banning abortion will not change this. All it will do is kill women. - Pickle

But it would significantly decrease the number of abortions performed. Remember that over a million a year are performed in the US alone. Why is a study you link to considered the gold standard? Because it supports your opinion? The studies I linked to were just as scientific. After all, you're the one who said, "love to see some sources to the contrary, because everything I've ever read of this supposed "link" smacks of propaganda" (your exact words). I think I've more than adequately supplied you with such research. I never said I wanted to see your sources though, while you invited me to share mine. Unlike you I was alreqady aware that there were two sides to the argument. - Fat

And Todd, agree with your sentiments exactly...Has anybody ever heard of adoption? There are literally thousands of couples looking to adopt. - Fat

Thousands of couples looking to adopt perfectly healthy white babies. Do you know how many children are in foster care right now? - Pickle

Now *I'm* done, because while you have already insulted me, I'd like to refrain from doing that back to you. - Pickle

Way too many kids are in foster homes right now, but your comment about couples only wanting to adopt "perfectly healthy white babies" is just as insulting. My church (Calvary Chapel) has a huge foster home ministry set up (its over 20 homes that they've purchased and setup for that express purpose) and through it couples from the church have adopted countless kids (of all races, but the vast majority of them are minorities). Our old music minister had two adopted kids from China to go along with the six kids they had naturally. My wife's best friend is Torrey Roberts and her dad started a local ministry years ago, Sheirdan House, that takes in troubled youth. When the need arises they look for couples to adopt. Despite the amazing amount of red tape one has to go through to adopt there is a huge market out there for adoptable kids and not just "perfectly healthy white babies". That is so the typical response and I hate it because nothing could be further from the truth. This is the link to Calvary Chapel's ministry for foster home children: kids.http://www.calvaryftl.org/Ministries/Family/FosterCare/4Kids/index.cfm This is Sheridan House's website: http://www.sheridanhouse.org/ - Fat

I know this wasn't completely your intention when you said "perfectly healthy white babies..." but are you suggesting that it's OK to abort those children, simply because we already have children in foster care? That's like killing infant kittens because we already have plenty of them at the pound. As far as I'm concerned, abortion IS murder. Without using a coat-hanger, the infant WOULD in most cases grow up to become a child. "Inconvenience", is NO excuse in my mind, for murder. - Flaco

No, but I'm saying adoption isn't the magical answer to abolishing abortion...because if it was there wouldn't be so many kids in foster care (500,000 in the US as of the latest stats I've seen). So not only was that not "completely" my intention, it wasn't my intention at all. I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion, thanks. I'm not going to debate your opinion on abortion. We're not going to change each other's minds. I just wish that the two sides could focus on reducing the numbers of abortion through education and birth control. I would hope that's something that we all can agree on. Just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean I don't wish the need for abortion was very very rare. - Pickle

Yet you don't want a possiblelink between breast cancer and abortions being discussed. Just does not sound "prochoice". I have not yet begun to even try to persuade you to change your mind on abortion, and I have no plans to do so here. I will address it on my own blog soon enough. Here I thought we were talking about breast cancer and abortion. You said you would "love" to see evidence giving a contrary view and I provided you with plenty of respectable sources. If this information was not censored there might be less abortions (something you claim you want) yet you don't want this information being given out. Doesn't make much sense to me. - Fat

Fat, can you please try to distinguish between me responding to you, or to someone completely different? (unless you are 'Flaco'). I want to reduce the NEED for abortion. That means reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, and also making help and support available to women who have unintended pregnancies who don't know how they would be able to manage a child. I don't want it to be lowered because false information is given out. Yes, I believe the link is false. I haven't seen anything that would dispute a study done on an entire country that has central health care and a national cancer registry. You're not interested in my sources, I don't think yours are accurate. So why don't we leave it be? - Pickle

Yeah, I'm Flaco. I post like 20 comments under this moniker but decide I should post one comment under a completely different moniker. Makes sense... Pickle, if you read my comments thoroughly I said there was evidence that "suggests" there was a link and in my previous comment I called it a "possible" link. It is possible that the link is false - some studies suggest as much. Yet other studies claim the exact opposite. For you to completely ignore the evidence that contradicts your opinion is your right (though I think it is a bit narrow minded) but don't people have the right to be presented with all the information available and make their own choices? Why censor such research? P.S. - Pickle, all my comments are addressed to you unless otherwise noted. - Fat

http://www.optionline.org/abortion.html That is a website for a CPC. Tell me *that's* balanced, and presenting all information available. Let me quote: "Most studies conducted so far show a significant link between abortion and breast cancer." Uh, no! "...this psychological response is known as Post-Abortion Stress (PAS)." Um, no... that side sure likes to make up it's own little terms, huh. "Abortion Procedures:Morning After Pill"..no, WRONG. Did you read the link *I* posted about Joel Brind? I know all about him, and all about his study, and why it's been discounted by the major medical groups, and why other studies done are more reliable. That's not completely ignoring (or even partially ignoring) the other side (I wouldn't really call it evidence). I'm not censoring anything. That information is out there for anyone to find. What I'm not okay with is someone being fed lies so that they make a decision they might not otherwise have. Pardon me for posting a "democrat" source, but this link says that CPCs ARE federally funded, and that they are also giving out information that even YOUR sources don't support. http://reform.democrats.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1080 PS Why exactly are you continuing this debate? - Pickle

I admit I am continuing the debate but aren't you continuing it as much as me? - Fat

Yeah, because just like you, this is a topic that I care a lot about so it's hard not to keep responding. But let's just please leave it here, okay? - Pickle

No. - Fat

One more thing: The study you keep touting done in Denmark has been severely criticized for the way it conducted its research and gathered its information by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons in its Winter 2005. Pickle, it is common for scientific studies that contradict each other to bash the way the other study was done. Neither of us are scientists, so how can you definitively say there is no POSSIBLE link. Why should people be deprived of this information??? - Fat

BECAUSE: The National Cancer Institute says there isn't (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage) So does the New England Journal of Medicine (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/336/2/81) And the National Breast Center Coalition (http://www.natlbcc.org/bin/index.asp?strid=364&depid=9) And the National Breast Cancer Organization (http://www.y-me.org/about_yme/Abortion.pdf) And the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs240/en/) And the American Cancer Society! (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp) - Pickle

Honestly, I was sort of on the fence about whether or not I felt it was right to legislate to some extent. But to be completely honest, the more I talk about it, and the more I discuss it, the more I totally support anti-abortion laws. It's horrible. And don't for a second think it's because I'm being swayed by a pastor or any particular religious means (although there would be completely nothing wrong with that). I am a horrible Catholic. I've had sex out of wedlock, I use condoms, I swear, I knock over port-o-potties and I think it's funny. To be honest, I'm emberassed to admit that I only go to church maybe 3 or 4 times a year and I haven't been to confession since I was confirmed when I was like 10 or something. But I simply CANNOT understand why someone would have an abortion. This may be against the original point of Alex's post. But lets be completely, no bull-shit honest about this. What REALLY is the percentage of women who have abortions for health reasons? Do you know anyone that's had an abortion for health reasons? This seems to be the huge argument for pro-choice advocates. Yet, I don't know anyone, nor have I ever MET anyone who is pro-choice who actually KNOWS anyone who's had an abortion for health reasons. I think it's pretty safe to say, that the overwhelming vast majority of the people who have abortions simply do so out of convenience... because they don't want to be inconvenienced by it. Common sense would say that anyone who deny's this is simply just delusional. I for one simply cannot morally support any kind of a "freedom" that allows the routine destruction of a human being, even if that human being is in an infantile stage. - Todd

Todd, you're right. Legislation to stop abortion IS not only common sense it is morally wrong not to do so...why shouldn't we propose legislation to stop the murdering of defenseless babies...Pickle, those agencies do deny it but the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, the British Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health all say there is a link. Yet you are against the spreading of this knowledge... - Fat

Also about an earlier commnet you made, "I don't think that the government should be allowed to decide the life of a fetus" - my point is why is there any decision that needs to be made. The only decision that mattered was that two people decided to have sex, a consequence of which can include getting pregnant. After that there is no decision to be made. Terminating life is not a decision that should be allowed to be made by anybody. When to you does the "fetus" become a "baby"? When is that magical moment when it goes from being right and okay to abort the fetus to wrong and immoral to kill a baby? - FAt

Actually my comment was: "I don't think that the government should be allowed to decide the life of a fetus is more important than the life of the woman carrying it. By the way, most of the "partial birth" bans are unconstitutional because they contain NO exception for the life of the mother." A fetus becomes a baby when it's born. That shouldn't be so hard to figure out. When most abortions occur it's not even a fetus anyway, it's a zygote, or an embryo. It must be really easy to want to outlaw a procedure THAT YOU WILL NEVER EVER NEED YOURSELF. - Pickle

It's not cool to play the woman card. Men face just as difficult situations as a woman does going through pregnancy. I don't see how a woman carrying a baby for 9 months of her life is in no way comparable to ANYTHING that a man has to go through? Women are equally smart and capable as men. But the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of armies all over the world are men, primarily due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of women simply do not WANT to be in the military. Men sacrifice their lives every damn day so that lesser people like us have the luxury of sitting on our fat asses bitching about politics. - Todd

"Men face just as difficult situations as a woman does going through pregnancy" What? Did I say that pregnancy is the most difficult thing that ANYONE goes through EVER? You think because more men are in the military than women that they should have control over women's bodies? How does that even make sense? No one is talking about the military here. The fact remains that only women can get pregnant. - Pickle

Like I said, my concern is for the baby. My concern is ALSO for the mother, but pregnancy is a consequence (a gift, actually) of knocking boots. And like I said before, lets be drop dead obvious here... do you personally know anyone who has had to get an abortion due to health reasons? The percentage of women who have to get an abortion due to health reasons is such a small percentage that it's even silly to use it as an argument. The FACT remains, that nearly everyone who is pro-choice, supports abortions simply because they feel that a woman has the right to not be "inconvenienced" by carrying a child. People do NOT want to take responsibility for their actions. An abortion is an "easy" way out for making careless decisions. I for one simply do not support that at all. The ONLY reason why "health of the mother" is a concern to pro-life people is because they have no other solid basis for their argument and they hope that will garner support for their cause. I do NOT support that. I think it's totally lame. Lets call a spade a spade, or a turd for what it is. The simple God honest truth why the majority of people support abortion rights is because they simply do not feel a woman should have to take responsibility for her mis-actions. It doesn't get any more obvious. It's not really about the concern for the mother's health. It's not wanting to take responsibility. - Todd

Actually...my MOTHER did, okay? After my sister died in utero at 6 months or so gestation. Is that personal enough for you? I am pro-choice because I believe it is for a woman to decide what happens inside her own body. You want to punish women for having sex. If those dirty whores didn't want to get pregnant, they should have kept their legs closed, right? - Pickle

"...most of the "partial birth" bans are unconstitutional because they contain NO exception for the life of the mother." What part of the Constitution does it violate? Please give me the article/section or amendment. - Fat

The Constitution expressly forbid the states or the federal government from seizing the use of a woman's body or requiring her forced servitude. 4th, 13th, and 14th amendments. Perhaps the 9th as well. Maybe you should ask the federal and Supreme Courts...they are the ones that have passed down that ruling. That's why the bans have never taken effect. Do your own homework. - Pickle

In truth it took me awhile to find the actual amendments. If you do a search for partial birth/ unconstitutional, you'll get a million sites telling you that it is, and why, but not many of them list the specific amendment - Pickle

Am I reading the Constitution wrong or what? Looking at the constitution I see the fourth amendment talking about illegal seizures/the need for search warrants when searching property. The 13th amendment was passed in 1865 and outlawed slavery. The 14th amendment, passed in 1868, has five sections. The first section talks about the requirements for citizenship and that citizens cannot be deprived of basic rights without due process of law. Second section discusses determining # of representatives per state and rights to vote and run for office. 3rd section discusses qualifications for being senator or representative. Fourth section talks about public debt and the fifth gives congress the ability to enforce this amendment. Ninth amendment says you can't use the constitution to take away other rights. So I really don't interpret the constitution the way you obviously do, I guess. And since when is not allowing a woman to get a partial birth abortion "forcing her servitude" or "seizing the use of a woman's body". - Fat

"A fetus becomes a baby when it's born. That shouldn't be so hard to figure out." Very interesting comment that I strongly disagree with but I'll have to address it tomorrow. - Fat

Pickle, that's horrible about your mom and your sister. I'm real sorry to hear that. I promise you though that nobody is opposed to abortion "to punish women for having sex" and nobody here has called them "dirty whores" (at least I haven't and I don't think Todd did). - Fat

I can't believe this issue has resolved itself -

I have closed comments on this post. I think we strayed away from topic a bit and this is a heated discussion. I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's mind.

Number of days since last sexual misconduct by a politician: 26

Brought to you by: John Edwards and Mark Sanford

SEND TLM A MESSAGE!
Subscribe to the Blog!
Active Posts:

Reuters Evens The Score!

Strange Picture Choice For AP News Story...

Quote of the Day...

Redneck Riviera: A Review...

Reader Submitted Friday Drolls...

Recent Top 5 Posts: