12-year-old, forced to marry, dies in childbirth

12-year-old, forced to marry, dies in childbirth

by BecauseHeLives Published on December 24th, 2009, 8:40 am Rift: News

The great majority of women who choose abortion do so for "health" reasons. The reason they most give is that they don't want a baby right now. That's their mental health position. I've shown CDC stats that back this up.

[Questioner]

The great majority of women who choose abortion do so for "health" reasons. The reason they most give is that they don't want a baby right now. That's their mental health position. I've shown CDC stats that back this up.

And that is a reason to ban abortions for reasons of preserving the mother's life or health? You never seem to answer that question.

[Questioner]

.....http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp Very religious? Really?

Are you really trying to promote that site as factual and scientific? Just because the authors insist their biased reporting is "factual". Good grief.

[ecofox]

.....http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp Very religious? Really?

Are you really trying to promote that site as factual and scientific? Just because the authors insist their biased reporting is "factual". Good grief.

Just because the authors don't shade twist or distort the facts to favor your view political agenda doesn't render there points invalid.

Just Facts is a non-profit research and educational institute that began as an informal endeavor in 1997 and was formalized a 501 (c) 3 organization in November 2007.

...

Our commitment to accuracy and exhaustive documentation have resulted in Internet links from government entities at the local, state and national levels, universities, non-profit organizations, radio shows, and newspapers. Visitors to this unique resource number in the millions, and numerous notes of appreciation from our readers underscore the impact of this worthwhile endeavor.

....

We are committed to objectivity and will report any fact that meets the criteria below, regardless of the implications.

Standards Of Credibility

* Facts: Every effort is made to keep the facts as plain as possible. The use of adverbs and subjective adjectives is limited.

* Excluded Facts: The only "facts" excluded are those that are rendered pointless by other facts and those that do not meet the Standards of Credibility listed here.

* Accuracy: Every fact is footnoted and thus, each stands or falls on its own merits. The newer sections are more scrupulously documented, and readers can click on each footnote to view the relevant data. Before citing a source, investigative and feasibility studies are often performed to confirm and eliminate information. Some of the content on Just Facts acutely illustrates how prestigious media entities sometimes provide erroneous and/or misleading information. Obviously, no one is above making a mistake, and in the world of politics, deception is rampant. By publishing detailed source information, readers have a tool at their disposal to help them in forming independent judgments.

* Minor Discrepancies: These are resolved by using the figures and facts that are contrary to our viewpoints. For example, it is our opinion that taxes are too high. Thus, if two credible sources list slightly different effective tax rates; say for example 21% and 23%, we use the 21% figure.

* Conclusions and Quotes: Every effort is made to keep quotes within context. Conclusions and quotes made by people with vested interests are excluded except to point out inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

* Incomplete Data: Facts are excluded if critical information is unaccounted for. Example: A study determines that under a certain proposal, “taxes for the average family will increase by $700 over the next four years.” This would be excluded if the study did not account for inflation, which may add $300 to the average tax bill regardless of whether or not the proposal is adopted.

* Balance: Our goal is accuracy, not balance. Press outlets often provide quotes from people on opposing sides of an issue. This in our opinion, is a charade. First, there is nothing to prevent a news source from quoting the most compelling argument from one side and the weakest of the other. Second, such soundbites are often loaded with rhetoric and misinformation. Our purpose is to publish objective facts regardless of the views they support, not to circulate half-truths and propaganda.

http://www.justfacts.com/aboutus.asp#St ... redibility

Let's look at your sources.

Elective termination of pregnancy remains common in the United States and worldwide. Accurate statistics have been kept since the enactment of the 1973 US Supreme Court decisions legalizing abortions.


Since the 1973 decision, approximately 1.3-1.4 million abortions have been performed annually in the United States.

Abortion is one of the most common medical procedures performed in the United States each year.

Medical termination of pregnancy with mifepristone was approved in the United States in 2000 and is used in 31 countries worldwide. Approximately half of all abortions are performed with this method.

More than 40% of all women will end a pregnancy by abortion at some time in their reproductive lives. Based on estimated lifetime risk, each American woman is expected to have 3.2 pregnancies, of which 2 will be a live birth, 0.7 will be an induced abortion, and 0.5 will be a miscarriage. Using 1996 data, this translates into 3.89 million live births, 1.37 million abortions, and 0.98 million miscarriages.

Worldwide, some 20-30 million legal abortions are performed annually, with another 10-20 million abortions performed illegally(see The Alan Guttmacher Institute). Illegal abortions are unsafe and account for 13% of all maternal mortality and serious complications. Death from abortion is almost unknown in the United States or in other countries where abortion is legally available.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/252560-overview

So.
When is abortion wrong?

[ecofox]

You are over complicating a very simple issue.

Should people be allowed to kill baby's while its in the mothers womb or not?

I say they shouldn't unless it's a life or death situation and in that scenario the choice should be left to the mother.

What gray area?
How do you define it?

First of all, perhaps we do agree on one thing: There are situations in which abortion is the only way to save the life of the mother, and I enumerated several of those in my earlier post. Do we agree that those situations are not grey areas and that both you and I agree that abortion is morally justified in those situations? I hope so.

If the mother will die if the child is born. Then the choice should be left to the mother.

However you feel people should be able to abort on whim.

Just because they feel that the child will be a parasite and an emotional and financial drain in there life.
They are selfish and want to have sex without responsibility.

All they care for is themselves.

So they build a fantasy to justify their actions. Which hurt themselves and others.

Octomom is a bad example. Why would you cite someone who implants 7 embryos (one split into twins) in her womb risking her life and the lives of those inside of her?

She choose this.

Vitro Fertilization
In Vitro Fertilization is commonly referred to as IVF. IVF is the process of fertilization by manually combining an egg and sperm in a laboratory dish. When the IVF procedure is successful, the process is combined with a procedure known as embryo transfer, which is used to physically place the embryo in the uterus.

This insanity should be made illegal. Just have sex, or adopt a kid. There are many lonely kids in foster care.
We kill, and we implant.
Stop being so selfish!

Does this mean that when a woman is found to be pregnant with 4, 5, or 8 fetuses you believe it is wrong to abort all but 2?

How do they get like that? In Vitro Fertilization? Here, make it illegal. Problem solved. Too many kids are in foster home's where nobody care for them.

Millions of kids are out there dying of starvation. Care, open your heart!

Because as I said earlier, Nadia is one in a million... So do you consider it better to let all of them die rather than abort all but 2 of the fetuses?

She choose to implant 7 embryos. That is suicidal, and foolish. Do you want to implant 7 embryos and then kill all but 2?

How about don't implant in the first place!

Second, there are situations in which the physical life of the mother is not immediately threatened, but her health is at great risk. These may be considered grey areas by some people. Not by me. I believe a woman has a right to take whatever action is necessary, including abortion, to preserve her health.

If they want to be so selfish don't have sex.
No sex, no baby's!

If they get raped then kill the rapist, or neuter him and stuff him in a slave camp.
But leave the child alone!

These are just a couple of the complications of pregnancy which can lead to permanent liver or kidney failure for the mother if the pregnancy is not terminated. But as “A Person” said, you aren’t interested in the truth. You only care about pushing your anti-woman agenda. So I won’t bother to enumerate all the potential pregnancy complications that can leave the woman physically damaged for life, and often shorten her life significantly.

You don't believe in Truth. You think it relative and depends upon your perspective. Which has already been proven false.

I am Pro-life you are Pro-death.

I think one should support the women and child.
You think one should kill the child and leave the women to fend for herself.

I suspect you don’t consider profound depression and suicidal ideation to be a reason for abortion. Some women do, in fact, get so depressed during pregnancy that they are at extremely high risk for suicide. ... You would rather take the chance that she won’t successfully kill herself during the pregnancy. But remember, if she does kill herself, the fetus dies anyway.

So your solution would be kill the fetus and she will feel happy and go on to live a life full of joy and wonder?
Most likely she will be even more depressed and then kill herself.

Although pregnancy weakens suicidal impulses, there is strong evidence that abortion dramatically increases the risk of suicide. According to a 1986 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota, a teenage girl is 10 times more likely to attempt suicide if she has had an abortion in the last six months than is a comparable teenage girl who has not had an abortion.(2) Other studies have found similar statistical significance between a history of abortion and suicide attempts among adults. Thus, the actual data suggests that abortion is far more likely to drive an unstable woman to suicide than is pregnancy and childbirth.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/ab ... uicide.asp

Does killing baby's makes everything better?

[BecauseHeLives]

The great majority of women who choose abortion do so for "health" reasons. The reason they most give is that they don't want a baby right now. That's their mental health position. I've shown CDC stats that back this up.

And that is a reason to ban abortions for reasons of preserving the mother's life or health? You never seem to answer that question.

I've answered that question to you many times before but you refuse to listen. Typical. I've always said that if the mother's life is really in danger then its her call on an abortion. The problem here is your definition of the mother's health. You interpret the mother's health to be mental health (such as "I think a baby will interrup the plans I have for my life"). Unfortunately, too many people interpret "health" to be anything that might cause the woman mental uncomfort.

[Questioner]

I've answered that question to you many times before but you refuse to listen. Typical. I've always said that if the mother's life is really in danger then its her call on an abortion. The problem here is your definition of the mother's health. You interpret the mother's health to be mental health (such as "I think a baby will interrup the plans I have for my life"). Unfortunately, too many people interpret "health" to be anything that might cause the woman mental uncomfort.

The problem is, you answer the question one way in one post, and then seem to contradict yourself in another post. That makes it pretty hard to figure out what your true position is.
Anyway, how do you know how I interpret the mother's health? I clearly stated in my post that when a woman's pregnancy puts her into a profound and suicidal depression, that is what I mean by a legitimate mental health reason for abortion. That is a biochemical brain disorder for which the only treatments are: 1. Forced containment and supervision in a locked mental health unit for the duration of the pregnancy, which no insurance company will pay for (and women that sick virtually never have the resources to pay for months of hospitalization themselves), and 2. Abortion to terminate the abnormal biochemical response causing the brain disorder and short term hospitalization until the hormonal imbalance is resolved (usually about 4-6 days).
I never said that the whim or convenience of the woman is a good reason for abortion. Other than failed birth control , that is using abortion as a means of birth control and I have been very clear that is a terrible, irresponsible path to follow. It is terrible for multiple reasons: first because it is unreasonably risky. Getting pregnant always incurs some risk, even in the early stages. Some of those will be tubal pregnancies and a ruptured tubal pregnancy is a life threatening complication. Other risks also exist. It is WAY better to prevent a pregnancy than to deal with an unwanted pregnancy after the fact. Also, given that abortion is a surgical procedure, there is some risk involved in having an abortion. Not as much risk as continuing the pregnancy, but some. (Did you know that fewer women die from abortion than from childbirth?) Second abortion is much more expensive than using a good chemical or mechanical method of contraception—abortion is a surgical procedure and you can buy contraceptives a LOT cheaper than having surgery. Third, abortion is pretty much ineffective as a long term method of contraception because the data suggests that many of these women will simply get pregnant again—and rather soon. We don’t know if this is a function of regret, of continued irresponsible behavior, or what. But it is common for some women to have multiple abortions.
In this context, I am of course, talking about women who have voluntary sex but use no means of contraception. Please remember that the best birth control methods are only about 99% effective, which means that every year, 1 out of every 100 women correctly using contraceptives will get pregnant anyway. Even though small in comparison to unprotected sex, that means a LOT of unintended pregnancies. Just assuming only 10 million sexually active women use chemical or mechanical contraceptives, that means there are about 100,000 contraceptive failure pregnancies every year. Clearly, you and I disagree about whether a woman in that situation (or a woman who is pregnant as a result of rape) should be allowed to end the pregnancy. I don’t think abortion prior to viability is murder. You do. I do not consider a zygote (a fertilized egg), or an embryo or a fetus a “baby”. You evidently do. But then I use terms correctly. The term “baby” refers to a born mammal. A fertilized egg is a zygote, not a baby. An embryo is the product of conception from first division of the zygote to just about 2 months gestation. From about 2 months until birth it is called a fetus. Only after birth is the product of conception properly called a “baby”.
The annoying thing is that people like you and “EcoFox” have decided that your opinion is “Truth” and that everybody else who holds a different opinion is evil and murderous. You once asked me “how many people I had killed (meaning how many abortions had I performed). I am not a surgeon, nor am I an OB-Gyn. So I have never performed an abortion, or any other surgery (excepting minor stuff like cutting open the trachea to insert a breathing tube).
Now let me ask you, how many human lives you have saved this week? I can reasonably say I have saved 9 people who would have died had I (or another similarly trained physician) not been there to make the decisions about medications and other treatments in an emergency situation. I treat patients in intensive care, so that is about par for the course. The next time you or EcoTruth or another one of you fundamentalist idiots decide to ask me how many people I’ve killed, maybe you should first be prepared to tell me how many lives you have SAVED.

[Questioner]

You are over complicating a very simple issue. Should people be allowed to kill baby's while its in the mothers womb or not? I say they shouldn't unless it's a life or death situation and in that scenario the choice should be left to the mother.

Well, I guess if your brain is too limited to deal with the REAL complexities of life, you have to try and ignore most of the facts so that you can call complex issues "simple". Frankly, you only show that YOU are "simple".

I wonder how many of these women aborting on a "whim" you have actually met and talked with. None I'd bet. Again, you try to simplify very complex situations so you can condemn people you don't even know.

Octomom is a bad example. Why would you cite someone who implants 7 embryos (one split into twins) in her womb risking her life and the lives of those inside of her?

I specifically chose her because she successfully carried those 8 fetuses to a stage where they were viable. As I explained, she is extremely RARE. Most women would have miscarried all or died themselves prior to the time their fetuses were viable.

Again, in simplifying things beyond all reason, you seem to claim that multiple pregnancies happen only through fertility treatments. Have you never heard of the Dionne Quintuplets? There WERE no fertility treatments back in the early 1930s when they were born. They were the first (and until modern fetology science, the only) quintuplets to survive birth and infancy. They were actually all identical—from a single egg that split and split and split until there were five “twins” instead of the usual two.

Whether fertility treatments are morally acceptable or not (clearly to you they are not), the fact is that some women find themselves in the position of having 3, 4, 5, or more fetuses implanted even without fertility treatments. So, assuming no fertility treatments, what would you suggest in that situation? Reduction to a number that have a chance to survive? Or wait until the mother’s life is at stake and then abort all? Or selectively abort all but 2 so that at least two might survive to birth?

I suspect you don’t consider profound depression and suicidal ideation to be a reason for abortion. Some women do, in fact, get so depressed during pregnancy that they are at extremely high risk for suicide. ... You would rather take the chance that she won’t successfully kill herself during the pregnancy. But remember, if she does kill herself, the fetus dies anyway.

So your solution would be kill the fetus and she will feel happy and go on to live a life full of joy and wonder?
Most likely she will be even more depressed and then kill herself.

So YOUR solution is to just wait until she kills herself? Given that nobody in our society today is willing to hospitalize her so that she can’t kill herself, what would you do? And your stupid quote about abortion increasing the risk of suicide is just more lies put out by your radical agenda compatriots. It is not only not true, it is the opposite of the truth.

Although pregnancy weakens suicidal impulses, there is strong evidence that abortion dramatically increases the risk of suicide. According to a 1986 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota, a teenage girl is 10 times more likely to attempt suicide if she has had an abortion in the last six months than is a comparable teenage girl who has not had an abortion.(2) Other studies have found similar statistical significance between a history of abortion and suicide attempts among adults. Thus, the actual data suggests that abortion is far more likely to drive an unstable woman to suicide than is pregnancy and childbirth
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/ab ... uicide.asp .

Does killing baby's makes everything better?

No, it does not. What you and your highly biased site fail to note is that the majority of young teens who get pregnant are the victims of predatory pedophilic males. The data shows (I cited it in another thread) that those girls were victims of rape (statutory or not) by sexual predators who specifically targeted them. And the girls most vulnerable to those sexual predators are girls who have suffered severe trauma in their home lives, such as incest or other forms of child physical or psychological abuse. What you are talking about is a population at extremely high risk for suicide, whether they get pregnant or not. It is not the abortion that leads to the suicide, but the vulnerability and damage that leads both to the victimization, impregnation and need for abortion. Typically, after the abortion they have to return to the abusive home, and now without the hope that a "white knight" is going to save them.

But of course, that is a complex syndrome. And you can’t cope with complexity. Easier to just label the young girl as a slut who “got what she deserved”.

[ecofox]

I never said that the whim or convenience of the woman is a good reason for abortion. Other than failed birth control , that is using abortion as a means of birth control and I have been very clear that is a terrible, irresponsible path to follow.

We can agree on this. However why are you saying otherwise in other posts?

It is WAY better to prevent a pregnancy than to deal with an unwanted pregnancy after the fact.

Sounds like your supporting on whim.

(Did you know that fewer women die from abortion than from childbirth?)

Really? Are these sources reliable or outdated misconceptions?

Read this:

More physicians are now aware of the new studies proving that death rates associated with abortion are far higher than death rates associated with childbirth, thanks to a letter from the Elliot Institute's director, Dr. David Reardon, that was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. The letter was published as one of three critical responses to an article the journal had previously published regarding partial birth abortions.

http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/Aborti ... gerous.htm

Just assuming only 10 million sexually active women use chemical or mechanical contraceptives, that means there are about 100,000 contraceptive failure pregnancies every year.

What's so horrible about abstinence? You create a child you are responsible for the child that's how I thought it worked.
Should we terminate them simply because the parent was irresponsible?

You evidently do. But then I use terms correctly. The term “baby” refers to a born mammal. A fertilized egg is a zygote, not a baby. An embryo is the product of conception from first division of the zygote to just about 2 months gestation. From about 2 months until birth it is called a fetus. Only after birth is the product of conception properly called a “baby”.

I don't think you have ever seen an abortion.



It's not a baby. It's a dead baby.

At 8 weeks, this baby can kick and straighten his legs, and move his arms up and down.

http://prolifeamerica.com/4D-Ultrasound ... o=1#photos


Open Video In New Window

Watch a real abortion.
Tell me that is good.
Tell me that you have no heart and don't mind the thought of silent screams.
The persecution of the innocent, the voiceless for the benefit of the depraved.

The annoying thing is that people like you and “EcoFox” have decided that your opinion is “Truth” and that everybody else who holds a different opinion is evil and murderous.

That's the real world definition of Relative "truth". Relative "truth" = Opinion.
Relativists existing contradict themselves.
It's either True that that they exist, or False.

As I have said before I don't believe in Relative "truth". I believe in Absolute Truth. My opinion is not Truth because it fails to pass the criteria for being Absolute Truth.
Eternal, Unchanging, No Contradictions = Absolute Truth

The next time you or EcoTruth or another one of you fundamentalist idiots decide to ask me how many people I’ve killed, maybe you should first be prepared to tell me how many lives you have SAVED.

I have never asked you, "How many people have you killed?"
You are are only hearing what you want to hear or inserting words into my mouth.

This is what I said:

I know I would not like to be aborted. Would you?

I am glad that you are out their doing your job and saving lives in the medical field. But I fail to understand how a person who is in charge of saving lives would be for destroying them.

[ecofox]

Catherine's Abortion Experience


Open Video In New Window

Open Video In New Window

It's a crazy tale, touching tale.

Word's don't do it justice.

[Questioner]

To Ecofox: Nothing is so horrible about abstinence. However, it is unrealistic to expect a married couple using contraception to practice abstinence. That is just stupid.

As to the relative death rates for abortion versus term deliveries, I get my data from agencies such as the National Bureau of Health Statistics and the statistical reports of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Not from www.antiabortion.com.

The fact is that I have never seen an abortion performed: we don't do that procedure in ICU. But I have seen it on films such as you posted. The photos and video you posted were of viable or near full-term fetuses. Those abortions cannot be done on a whim. Post viability abortions require more than one physician to certify the need for the abortion, and it is usually a function of a severely defective fetus (downs syndrome, PKU, hemophilia, thalassemia, Tay Sachs disease, anencephaly, or other severe problem with the fetus). The photos and video you posted do not identify what the reasons for such late term abortions were. Data I posted earlier clearly documented that late term abortions are virtually always done due to either a maternal catastrophy (kidneys or liver or heart failing) or a catastrophic defect of the fetus (such as those mentioned above--most of which are not survivable for long after birth).

Personally, I think a lot more parents would continue a pregnancy that involved severe fetal defects if they didn't have to face alone the insurmountable medical expenses such defects involve. If the parents are self-employed or work for a small business, they know their insurance company will drop them as soon as it learns of the child's medical situation. One might think that something like PKU or hemophilia are treatable and not good reasons to abort. Yes, they are treatable, but the cost of treatment can run as high as $60,000 a year. How many years of that kind of cost would YOU absorb without going bankrupt and having your child taken away from you by social services because you could not provide the medical care the child needs. And yes, that happens. If you are employed, you are not eligible for welfae and medicaid. But unless you make a lot of money, There is no way you could pay for the child's treatment, unless you live in the street and pay only for the treatment. But if you live in the street with such a sick child, Social Services will take it away anyway.

This is called a catch 22 and lots of people are pretty much forced into abortion when faced with the possibility of having a child with a severe defect--the medical costs of caring for such a child are astronomical.

And don't waste time telling me they should just put the child up for adoption. Have you any idea how hard that is? Particularly if you are a married coup;le and your entire family and circle of friends know you were pregnant? Worse, there is no adoption "market" for such children. So giving it up means condemning the child to a foster home at best, and more likely an endless number of different fostor homes because the burden of care for such a child is such that most foster families grow exhausted and give the child up.

Rather than attacking the women who have abortions, why don't you antiabortion zealots put your money, time and concern into making it economically and physically possible and reasonable for families of defective children to raise them?

[BecauseHeLives]

And don't waste time telling me they should just put the child up for adoption. Have you any idea how hard that is? Particularly if you are a married coup;le and your entire family and circle of friends know you were pregnant? Worse, there is no adoption "market" for such children. So giving it up means condemning the child to a foster home at best, and more likely an endless number of different fostor homes because the burden of care for such a child is such that most foster families grow exhausted and give the child up.

You are wrong Q. We recently adopted a severely handcapped child. And I know there were several families vying for this little girl.

[Questioner]

And don't waste time telling me they should just put the child up for adoption. Have you any idea how hard that is? Particularly if you are a married coup;le and your entire family and circle of friends know you were pregnant? Worse, there is no adoption "market" for such children. So giving it up means condemning the child to a foster home at best, and more likely an endless number of different fostor homes because the burden of care for such a child is such that most foster families grow exhausted and give the child up.

You are wrong Q. We recently adopted a severely handcapped child. And I know there were several families vying for this little girl.

Congratulations on adopting your little girl. However, despite the fact that this particular child was obviously placeable, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there are currently some 442,000 special needs children in foster care who need permanent homes. Many have remained in care longer than five years, and some children have changed foster homes 18 or 20 times.

You and your family are to be lauded for your willingness to give a special needs child a home. But as you well know, caring for a special needs child is a challenge, and many people simply cannot imagine how they would cope with a special needs child--and indeed, some cannot. HHS data suggests that the majority of special needs children do not get adopted. Do you have different national data?

[ecofox]

To Ecofox: Nothing is so horrible about abstinence. However, it is unrealistic to expect a married couple using contraception to practice abstinence. That is just stupid.

Why?

It's foolish to expect adults to be responsible?

As to the relative death rates for abortion versus term deliveries, I get my data from agencies such as the National Bureau of Health Statistics and the statistical reports of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Not from http://www.antiabortion.com.

Cite said sources. If you check out the antiabortion.com sources you see that they are valid. Don't use your Pro-Abortion bias to discriminate against the facts.

The fact is that I have never seen an abortion performed: we don't do that procedure in ICU. But I have seen it on films such as you posted. The photos and video you posted were of viable or near full-term fetuses. Those abortions cannot be done on a whim.

How do you know? What about the hand the size of a dime? That was a viable fetus?

Post viability abortions require more than one physician to certify the need for the abortion, and it is usually a function of a severely defective fetus.

Severely defective means the child will die if born, right?

Rather than attacking the women who have abortions, why don't you antiabortion zealots put your money, time and concern into making it economically and physically possible and reasonable for families of defective children to raise them?

That's like saying, rather then telling murders to stop killing people to take their money why don't you work hard and give them money?

When did we jump topics from abortions to "defective" children?
Most abortion are not done because the child is "defective".
"Defective" children is a very bias term and you are implying that they deserve to die because they are too much of an hassle.

So you support the dismemberment of children inside the womb.

Do you support eugenics?

[ecofox]

Notable Pro-Abortion Organizations

Planed Parenthood - Your unfriendly neighborhood social engineer. Capital is king, and underage abortions helps generate more of it. Racist Eugenics still alive and kicking. Will Nazi's ever die?


Open Video In New Window


Open Video In New Window

There was also a video where Planed Parenthood told a teen that abortion pictures "weren't real".
I can't find it, but the actions of these people are despicable.
Yet they fit safely in the realm of political correctness.

[Liv]

Have you ever been to planned parenthood, Eco?

I have, and there was absolutely no push for abortion. It was a free medical clinic that helped provide sufficient, free, and private medical care while providing a range of educational options for our choosing. Something we were grateful of as we had no health care at the time of our first child.

[BecauseHeLives]

Have you ever been to planned parenthood, Eco?

I have, and there was absolutely no push for abortion. It was a free medical clinic that helped provide sufficient, free, and private medical care while providing a range of educational options for our choosing. Something we were grateful of as we had no health care at the time of our first child.

I've been there and I know what they do and how they do it. I also know how they make their money.

[Liv]

I've been there and I know what they do and how they do it. I also know how they make their money.

You've been there for a pregnancy you've created?

[BecauseHeLives]

I've been there and I know what they do and how they do it. I also know how they make their money.

You've been there for a pregnancy you've created?

I am responsible for an abortion. Read into it what you will.

[A Person]

I am responsible for an abortion. Read into it what you will.

I would prefer that you told us, I don't like to speculate.

If you mean that you caused an unwanted pregnancy and helped the woman to obtain an abortion, then I do have sympathy for you. I have never been in that situation but I see that it must have been very difficult for both of you and I'm glad that you were there to support her through a difficult time.

[BecauseHeLives]

I am responsible for an abortion. Read into it what you will.

I would prefer that you told us, I don't like to speculate.

If you mean that you caused an unwanted pregnancy and helped the woman to obtain an abortion, then I do have sympathy for you. I have never been in that situation but I see that it must have been very difficult for both of you and I'm glad that you were there to support her through a difficult time.

Then please do not speculate.

I will say this. This was many many years ago. I was not responsible for the pregnancy but was responsible for enabling the abortion. I am as guilty of murder as is anyone else involved in the abortion. However, I have a wonderful loving saviour that has forgiven me BUT I'll always have a part of my heart that is darkened over the decisions I made as a young man. Abortion is a murder of convenience and is possibly the very worst self-centered sin a person can make.

[Liv]

I guess my time in psychology class, would lead me to ask if you're not transferring your personal regret of the matter into a system wide annihilation of a process that does actually help many women?

My mother-in-law gave up her first child under the sharp blade of a nunnery she was sent to. Her whole life has been defined, and regretted at her decisions to give up the child.

Speaking personally, they were nothing but professional in our visit to planned parenthood. They offered counseling, and various other medical informative options if we would have chosen abortion, but we had already made our mind up to keep the child. There was no push, no effort to change our minds. I found Planned Parenthood to be professional medical help to those whom can't visit their general practitioner because of shame, fear, or lack of money. It's filling a definite need in the American medical system, one which if it was not there would lead to horrible things much worse than could be imagined by the above pictures of shock and awe.

[ecofox]

One question to all.

Why would you condemn innocent children, to a fate you are not willing to share?

[Liv]

One question to all.

Why would you condemn innocent children, to a fate you are not willing to share?

Death? Death is coming for all of us. In the vast time-line of all the things that are and will be, there is very little difference between anything we can conceive of time.

[BecauseHeLives]

One question to all.

Why would you condemn innocent children, to a fate you are not willing to share?

Death? Death is coming for all of us. In the vast time-line of all the things that are and will be, there is very little difference between anything we can conceive of time.

By the grace of God I will live forever. Death is not permanent.