It wasn't up to the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case to decide if slavery was right or wrong. Only if it was legal or illegal, and according to the Constitution it was legal at the time. It took an act by the other two branches of the government to change the laws. In that same vein, it's not for the Supreme Court to decide if abortion is right or wrong. It should only be deciding if according to current laws it's legal or illegal.
"Reproductive rights" means the freedom to choose to have sex or not to have sex. It has become a euphemism of dismembering unborn children limb from limb. The euphemism hides the moral corruption of those that support dismmembering unborn children limb from limb.
It wasn't up to the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case to decide if slavery was right or wrong. Only if it was legal or illegal, and according to the Constitution it was legal at the time. It took an act by the other two branches of the government to change the laws. In that same vein, it's not for the Supreme Court to decide if abortion is right or wrong. It should only be deciding if according to current laws it's legal or illegal.
Well that is not what they did. The Court sai that abortion was a constituional right. The result was not based on anything written in the Constitution. In fact, the decison was diametrically opposed to the purpose of the Constitution.
In 1972, the year before the Supreme Court legalized abortion, a total of 39 women died from illegal abortions, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL (Nat'l Abortion Rights Action League), admits his group lied and inflated the number of women who died from illegal abortion when testifying before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972: "We spoke of 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false... it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?
Claims that abortion became safer for women after it was legalized fail to acknowledge that large numbers of women are physically injured or killed by so-called safe and legal abortions every year.
The book Lime 5 documents 230 cases of women injured or killed by abortion or sexually assaulted by their abortionists ( see http://www.prolife.comfor details).
Former abortion provider Carol Everett states, "In the last 18 months I was in business (she ran four abortion centers in Texas in 1982), we were completing 500 abortions monthly and killing or maiming one women out of 500."
*Abortion kills babies & women and ruins many for life. It should be illegal.
Other Pro-Life Organizations We use the following well done websites quite often for research and for references to other great sites. We are not paid to list these sites, we simply recommend them because we have found them extremely useful. Views represented on these sites do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Human Life of Washington. Please feel free to email suggested sites to letters@humanlife.net.
"The most comprehensive listing of right to life resources on the internet". Includes information on abortion, adoption, euthanasia, legislation, other organizations, books, news, and pro-life infonet.
The actual text of Roe v. Wade, statements from R v W advocates, how they have historically misled people about abortion, illegal abortion myths, "safe abortion" myths, educational fact sheets, bibliography.
Everything from books to baby feet to bumper stickers: "Pro-life materials - over 500 items - readily available to prolifers everywhere. Welcome to the Heritage House '76 on line pro-life catalog. Our goal is to provide fresh, effective materials for your pro-life and pro-family work with prices, selection, and service that you can't beat anywhere!"
This amazing website gets over 7000 hits per day! "We are an officially approved association of Catholic Clergy who give special emphasis to the pro-life teachings of the Church. We offer ongoing assistance to the clergy in addressing the topics of abortion and euthanasia, and training and resources to the entire pro-life movement with a growing amount of material in Spanish." This site has religious and secular articles, video and audio clips, and a very impressive set of online pro-life resources.
Life Decisions International: Exposing Planned Parenthood's True Agenda http://www.fightpp.org
The $554 million budgeted PPFA promotes unrestricted abortion as a fundamental right — even for teens without the knowledge of parents. If you object to Planned Parenthood’s representatives going into your child’s school to provide instructions in the use of condoms or how to obtain easy abortions, there is something you can do. Life Decisions International (LDI) was formed to challenge the Planned Parenthood agenda and empower pro-lifers to defund the group. Since the corporate boycott began, more than 60 corporations have stopped donating to Planned Parenthood. Information on ordering their Boycott List is provided on their website.
After Madonna explores everything out there (if she hasn't already) she will go back to her good Catholic girl roots, just wait! Confession has its benefits! LOL!
haven't. It would have been one thing to have responded to the 'middle ground' post but instead you went off and overwhelmingly monopolized the thread so I found myself looking for anything posted by anyone other than you. Actually, I have bought my hubby two Harleys. But that is by the way. Jethro, of course, thinks anyone who disagrees with him is morally corrupt no matter what the topic is so his post can also be discounted.
Now to respond to the thinking people trying to find a middle ground. Yes, there are serious side issues to the debate over abortion. Yes, zealots from both sides have done harm both to eachother and to themselves. Slavery and abortion do share ethics - such as in strapping a pregnant woman down to a hospital bed by state decree to prevent her from having an abortion. Or locking up pregnant women who have been less than stellar in their personal habits whilst carrying the child. And do men have a voice?
No one said that these choices were going to be easy. But CHOICE is the core of the argument for both sides. Pro-life says NO CHOICE for whatever reasons. Pro-Choice says CHOICE as one would expect. The answer seems to come down to your view of women - do you think they are too insane, too stupid, too morally corrupt, or too lazy to make life and death decisions? I do not think that women are so evil, stupid, lazy etc etc etc as to require others to make such decisions for them. I agree that it is a horrible choice for one to have to make regardless of the reasons why she is faced with having to make that choice. I am also ashamed and angered that we have such a world where women feel they have to abort. Rather than making abortion a crime, I would change those forces in society that make having children out of wedlock so terrible that the death of the child is the only way out.
Yes, they do, Paula but you'll have to hunt for it. I have run out of web-time for today. Still try to directly respond to the thoughts in others' posting will ya?
Jethro, of course, thinks anyone who disagrees with him is morally corrupt no matter what the topic is so his post can also be discounted.
No, not true. What needs to be "discounted" is anyone that thinks ripping babies limb from limb on a whim should be allowed.
The answer seems to come down to your view of women - do you think they are too insane, too stupid, too morally corrupt, or too lazy to make life and death decisions? No that isn't the issue and if you weren't morally corrupt you would see that.I agree that it is a horrible choice for one to have to make regardless of the reasons why she is faced with having to make that choice. I am not sure you are being honest here.
The answer seems to come down to your view of women - do you think they are too insane, too stupid, too morally corrupt, or too lazy to make life and death decisions? I do not think that women are so evil, stupid, lazy etc etc etc as to require others to make such decisions for them.
The choice in most cases was made by the woman when she took a chance and had sex knowing what the consequences could be.
The decision is not just about "them", the woman.
A woman's body does not have two beating hearts, two blood types, two heads, four eyes, four arms, and four legs. A pregnant woman and her baby have all this and more.
Sex and pregnancy are often used as a weapon to hang on to a man. Then when the situation doesn't work out as planned a baby has to suffer the horror because of the selfishness of the woman, IMO. I do not think a woman should have the choice to murder a baby because the cards didn't play as she thought they would.
The Supreme Court said women have a "constitutional right" to "privacy" on abortion....
I happen to feel the court was wrong. Nobody has a right to injure or kill another person 'privately.' Does a right to "privacy" also protect parents who abuse, molest or kill their born children in the "privacy' of their own home?
Why not... what about their "right to privacy?"
How is it that Roe vs Wade determined that unborn children are not "persons even though they have the right to inherit property, the right to be protected from a drug-addicted mother, the right not to be killed by a drunk driver, and many other rights?
Some states have entire sections of law outlining crimes against unborn children in which they're protected from negligent or willful harm or death FROM CONCEPTION ON.
Next, You are talking about a womans "right to choose".
How can anyone claim they have the "freedom" or "right" to kill an innocent baby?
The only "choice" in abortion is between a dead baby and a live baby.
Why is it only in the case of abortion prochoice argue that " choice" should be absolute? Not much consistency there!
Using the same rationale, wouldn't people have the right to "choose" to practice prostitution? Humaine societies don't tell people they have a "freedom of choice" to kill their own children.
There are right choices and there are wrong choices.
Terrible choices have led not only to dead slaves, dead Jews and dead babies... not to mention the mothers who have been killed or damaged for life in the process.
Now to respond to the thinking people trying to find a middle ground.
We are thinking... you just don't like what we are saying.
Abortion should not be a choice.
It is a child, not a choice ... and I fully believe the day will come when the unborn child is rightfully respected and given the true "rights' the child deserves.
In some ways debating abortion is a lot like politics. That is to say sometimes you don't really need to have any substance to your point of view. You just need to make your opponent's position weak, by making your opponents themselves look bad, and then you win. So Jethro doesn't need to defend his views. He needs only call those who oppose him "morally corrupt" and thus anything we have to say is clearly irrelevant.
In some ways debating abortion is a lot like politics. That is to say sometimes you don't really need to have any substance to your point of view. You just need to make your opponent's position weak, by making your opponents themselves look bad, and then you win. So Jethro doesn't need to defend his views. He needs only call those who oppose him "morally corrupt" and thus anything we have to say is clearly irrelevant.
I don't make anyone that support abortion look bad, they do so by taking the position that ripping unborn children limb from limb on a whim should be legal. If you can't see that ripping unborn children limb from limb is wrong then you are morally corrupt.
ANTI-CHOICE SLANDERS DEPICTING MARGARET SANGER AS A RACIST
Over time, several alleged Sanger quotations, or allegations about her, have regularly surfaced in anti-family planning publications. Here are samples of especially pernicious distortions, misattributions, or outright lies that Margaret Sanger's enemies circulate:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief issue in birth control." A quotation falsely attributed to Sanger, this is from the editors of American Medicine in a review of a Sanger article. The editorial from which this appeared, as well as Sanger's article, "Why Not Birth Control Clinics in America?" (1919), were reprinted side-by-side in the May 1919 Birth Control Review.
"The mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase among Negroes, even more than the increase among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly." Falsely attributed to Sanger, this was actually written for a 1932 issue of The Birth Control Review by W.E.B. DuBois, founder of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Taken out of the context of his discussion about the effects of birth control on the balance between quality-of-life considerations and race-survival issues for African- Americans, Dubois' language seems insensitive by today's standards.
"Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a menace to the race." This fabrication, falsely attributed to Sanger, was concocted in the late 1980s. The alleged source is the April 1933 Birth Control Review (Sanger ceased editing the Review in 1929). That issue contains no article or letter by Sanger.
"To create a race of thoroughbreds . . ." This remark, again attributed originally to Sanger, was made by Dr. Edward A. Kempf and has been cited out of context and with distorted meaning. Dr. Kempf, a progressive physician, was actually arguing for state endowment of maternal and infant care clinics. In her book The Pivot of Civilization, Sanger quoted Dr. Kempf's argument about how environment may improve human excellence:
"Society must make life worth the living and the refining for the individual by conditioning him to love and to seek the love-object in a manner that reflects a constructive effect upon his fellow-men and by giving him suitable opportunities. The virility of the automatic apparatus is destroyed by excessive gormandizing or hunger, by excessive wealth or poverty, by excessive work or idleness, by sexual abuse or intolerant prudishness. The noblest and most difficult art of all is the raising of human thoroughbreds (1969)."
It was in this spirit that Sanger used the phrase, "Birth Control: To Create a Race of Thoroughbreds," as a banner on the November 1921 issue of the Birth Control Review. (Differing slogans on the theme of voluntary family planning sometimes appeared under the title of The Review, e.g., "Dedicated to the Cause of Voluntary Motherhood," January 1928.)
"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." This statement is taken out of context from Margaret Sanger's Woman and the New Race (1920). Sanger was making an ironic comment — not a prescriptive one — about the horrifying rate of infant mortality among large families of early 20th-century urban America.
"We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." Sanger was aware of African-American concerns, passionately argued by Marcus Garvey in the 1920s, that birth control was a threat to the survival of the black race. This statement, which acknowledges those fears, is taken from a letter to Clarence J. Gamble, M.D., a champion of the birth control movement. In that letter, Sanger describes her strategy to allay such apprehensions. A larger portion of the letter makes Sanger's meaning clear:
"It seems to me from my experience . . . in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table. . . . They do not do this with the white people, and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results. . . . His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County's white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us. The minister's work is also important, and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want 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 (1939)."
"As early as 1914 Margaret Sanger was promoting abortion, not for white middle-class women, but against 'inferior races' — black people, poor people, Slavs, Latins, and Hebrews were 'human weeds.'" This allegation about Margaret Sanger appears in an anonymous flyer, "Facts About Planned Parenthood," that is circulated by anti-family planning activists. Margaret Sanger, who passionately believed in a woman's right to control her body, never "promoted" abortion because it was illegal and dangerous throughout her lifetime. She urged women to use contraceptives so that they would not be at risk for the dangers of illegal, back-alley abortion. Sanger never described any ethnic community as an 'inferior race' or as 'human weeds.' In her lifetime, Sanger won the respect of international figures of all races, including the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Mahatma Gandhi; Shidzue Kato, the foremost family planning advocate in Japan; and Lady Dhanvanthi Rama Rau of India — all of whom were sensitive to issues of race.
The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy. This is the title of a book falsely attributed to Sanger. It was written by Lothrop Stoddard and reviewed by Havelock Ellis in the October 1920 issue of The Birth Control Review. Its general topic, the international politics of race relations in the first decades of the century, is one in which Sanger was not involved. Her interest, insofar as she allowed a review of Stoddard's book to be published in The Birth Control Review, was in the overall health and quality of life of all races and not in tensions between them. Ellis's review was critical of the Stoddard book and of distinctions based on race or ethnicity alone.
--Thanks to Planned Parenthood (itself a target of relentless anti-choice slanders) for informational help
Margaret Sanger The founder of Planned Parenthood remains a controversial figure, even decades after her death.
Pro-life activists point to her widely published views as proof that her vision of "birth control" was really an attempt to limit the elements of the population she considered undesirable—racial minorities and others she labeled "feeble-minded."
Planned Parenthood today takes great pains to distance itself from its founder, hiding behind such statements as:
Sanger also entertained some popular ideas of her own time that are out of keeping with our own. Finding it easier to undermine her character than to confront the message she conveyed, the anti-family planning movement has seized upon some of these ideas, taken them out of context, and exaggerated and distorted them in order to discredit Sanger and the organization she founded. Noble sentiments, perhaps, but just plain wrong. And to show that we're not afraid of the truth, we hereby invite you to read two of Sanger's works in full:
look under "site index", then "S", then "Margaret Sanger" to find:
Planned Parenthood will assert that comments such as the following are twisted by "anti-choice extremists."
Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives. We say—read the books yourself.
The catch is...you can't read them on Planned Parenthood's web site. Planned Parenthood only allows you to see excerpts—the ones they've selected. These books were very hard to get when Planned Parenthood held the copyrights; they didn't want anyone checking on what their master propagandist actually thought. But now the copyrights have expired, and the books are in the public domain.
See for yourself. As one of the cable news channels likes to say, "we report...you decide!"
"I threw the weight of my study and activity into the economic and industrial struggle. Here I discovered men and women fired with the glorious vision of a new world, of a proletarian world emancipated, a Utopian world,--it glowed in romantic colours for the majority of those with whom I came in closest contact. The next step, the immediate step, was another matter, less romantic and too often less encouraging. In their ardor, some of the labor leaders of that period almost convinced us that the millennium was just around the corner. Those were the pre-war days of dramatic strikes. But even when most under the spell of the new vision, the sight of the overburdened wives of the strikers, with their puny babies and their broods of under-fed children, made us stop and think of a neglected factor in the march toward our earthly paradise. It was well enough to ask the poor men workers to carry on the battle against economic injustice. But what results could be expected when they were forced in addition to carry the burden of their ever-growing families? This question loomed large to those of us who came into intimate contact with the women and children. We saw that in the final analysis the real burden of economic and industrial warfare was thrust upon the frail, all-too- frail shoulders of the children, the very babies--the coming generation. In their wan faces, in their undernourished bodies, would be indelibly written the bitter defeat of their parents."
"The eloquence of those who led the underpaid and half-starved workers could no longer, for me, at least, ring with conviction. Something more than the purely economic interpretation was involved. The bitter struggle for bread, for a home and material comfort, was but one phase of the problem. There was another phase, perhaps even more fundamental, that had been absolutely neglected by the adherents of the new dogmas. That other phase was the driving power of instinct, a power uncontrolled and unnoticed. The great fundamental instinct of sex was expressing itself in these ever-growing broods, in the prosperity of the slum midwife and her colleague the slum undertaker. In spite of all my sympathy with the dream of liberated Labor, I was driven to ask whether this urging power of sex, this deep instinct, was not at least partially responsible, along with industrial injustice, for the widespread misery of the world."
DEBUNKING THE "ONLY 39 ABORTION DEATHS BEFORE ROE V. WADE" MYTH
Number of Deaths from Illegal Abortions Before 1973
5,000 American Women Per Year
"It has been estimated that as many as 5,000 American women die each year as a direct result of criminal abortion. The figure of 5,000 may be a minimum estimate, inasmuch as many such deaths are mislabeled or unreported." R. Schwarz, Septic Abortion (1968) p. 7.
50% to 28% of Maternal Deaths
"In Philadelphia over 50 per cent of the maternal deaths result from complications of abortion, and this fact apparently holds true in other areas of the county: . . . 57 per cent in Michigan; . . . 33 per cent at the Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn; and . . . 28 per cent in California," R. Schwarz, Septic Abortion (1968) p. 7.
Most Common Cause of Maternal Death in California
"Induced abortion is the most common single cause of maternal deaths in California." L. Fox, "Abortion Deaths in California," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1 July 1967, p. 650.
One Death Per Every 100 Illegal Abortions
"Illegal abortions involve enormous hazards to women's lives and health: this fact is indisputable and even the archfoes of abortion themselves acknowledge it. In the sixties, a World Health Organization publication estimated that 100,000 women died each year [worldwide] from the complications of illegal abortions. The morbidity (disease) figures from the same cause would reach into the millions. Unfortunately, the extent of the illegal abortion phenomenon and its consequences have never been properly assessed: we have to be content with rough estimates. Researchers agree that there is about one death for every 100 illegal abortions, but they acknowledge that this figure can vary from one country to the next. In countries where medical services are available to treat women for the complications arising from an abortion, the mortality rate is much lower." H. Morgentaler, Abortion and Contraception (1982) pp. 110-11.
Number of Hospitalizations from Illegal Abortions Before 1973
One-Third Require Hospitalization
"Furthermore, apparently one out of every three illegal operations had serious enough consequences to require a stay in hospital: in 1960, forty-two percent of all emergency admissions into hospitals were due to illegal abortions." H. Morgentaler, Abortion and Contraception (1982) pp. 110-11.
Dr. Robert Prince of Dallas treated many women injured by illegal abortions: "During my tenure as house officer of OB/GYN, I would see at least one criminal abortion a night, at least one, and often ten on weekends. All were infected . . . Most required surgery of some type, and many required blood replacement. If these unfortunate women survived, they were often sterile as a result of infection . . . " National Commission on America Without Roe, Facing a Future Without Choice: A Report on Reproductive Liberty in America, p. 16.
Cost of Illegal Abortionists' Services
The fees for illegal abortions ranged from $100 to $2,000 with the average cost between $200 - $400 (1968-71 dollars). C. Westoff and L. A. Westoff, From Zero to Now: Fertility, Contraception and Abortion in America (1968) p. 154.
Number of Self-Induced Abortions
50% to 80% of Women Try to Self-Induce Abortions
In a study titled "The Search for an Abortionist," half of the 114 women tried to self-induce an abortion before going to a doctor. C. Westoff and L. A. Westoff, From Zero to Now: Fertility, Contraception and Abortion in America (1968) pp. 155-156.
Dr. Kinsey states, "The records of the most experienced abortionist whom we have known indicated that about 80 per cent of the women who came to him for consummation of an abortion had previously attempted some sort of self-induction." Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Abortion in the United States, M.S. Calderone, ed., (1958) p. 57.
Deaths and Injuries from Self-Induced Abortions
Self-induced abortions were not always effective in ending pregnancies. And these risky methods could result in birth defects if the fetus survived, the woman's death, permanent injury, sterility, and great pain. Many of these seriously injured women went to hospital emergency rooms.
Septic Abortion the Second Highest Cause of Maternal Deaths in Washington, D.C., 1940-1943
"In reviewing these deaths, the Health Department found . . . that the majority were due to self-induced abortion. At one Washington hospital they admit about fifteen septic cases a month, of which six have been lost, over a three-year period, from overwhelming infection," stated Dr. Robert Nelson, Chairman, Sub-Committee on Maternal Welfare, Medical Society of the District of Columbia. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Abortion in the United States, M.S. Calderone, ed., (1958) p. 65.
"The founder of Planned Parenthood remains a controversial figure, even decades after her death. "
It looks like the American Life League intends to make sure it continues. Trying to trash someone like her, years after her death is rather unseemly to me.
Something tells me that this thread will be the place to go if you want to see a mother lode of Internet links to distortions and half-truths.
It makes most Washington politicians look absolutely Trumanesque in their stratforwardness. And a lot nicer.
It looks like the American Life League intends to make sure it continues. Trying to trash someone like her, years after her death is rather unseemly to me.
Really? What did you say about Jeff Davis on the Civil War board? He has been dead longer than Sanger.
"The World Health Organization reports that nearly 670,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications each year (this number does not include abortions). That's 1,800 women per day. We also read that in developed countries, such as the United States and Canada, a woman is 13 times more likely to die bringing a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion."
I've been trying to find some numbers on the web that aren't part of some biased propaganda, but it's proving to be pretty difficult thus far. Though I figured a number from the World Health Organization must be reasonably accurate.
Though my gut feeling does tell me that having a baby is probably more dangerous than having an abortion. So yes, maybe some women die from abortions, but some women also die from getting breast enlargements. Any sort of surgery is going to have it's risks. But if having the baby is even more risky than the abortion, than the argument that abortion should be outlawed because it's dangerous seems pointless.
Rick wrote: It looks like the American Life League intends to make sure it continues. Trying to trash someone like her, years after her death is rather unseemly to me.
My response: "Really? What did you say about Jeff Davis on the Civil War board?"
Debra Henry, a Former Abortion Counselor says "We were told to find the woman's weakness and work on it. The women were never given any alternatives. They were told how much trouble it was to have a baby"
"It's a lie when they tell you they're doing it to help women, because they're not. They're doing it for money." - Former Abortion Counselor.
If you want the FACTS, check out the above site and read what former Abortionist say about the issue. Don't you want the facts???
*In my observation, The Abortion industry is a murder for money organization, plain and simple. The truth simply is.
taken from: An interview with Carol Everett, Former Abortion Center Director
Carol Everett was involved in the abortion industry in the Dallas, Texas area from 1977 to 1983. As director of four abortion centers, and owner of two, Carol was responsible for the centers' daily operation. Carol, who had an abortion soon after it bacame legal in 1973, now speaks out on what she saw in the abortion industry:
Q: What is the governing force behind the abortion industry? A: Money. It is a very lucrative business. It is the largest unregulated industry in our nation. Most of the clinics are run in chains because it is so profitable.
Q: In what way is the woman deceived? A: Every woman has two questions, "Is it a baby?" and "Does it hurt?" The abortionist must answer, "NO." He/she must lie to secure the consent of the woman and the collection of the clinics fee. The women were told that we were dealing with a "product of conception" or a "glob of tissue." They were told that there would be only slight cramping; whereas, in reality, abortion is excruciatingly painful.
looks like the American Life League intends to make sure it continues. Trying to trash someone like her, years after her death is rather unseemly to me.
You mean like the left continually does to the founding fathers who have been dead even longer ? Unseemly no doubt in both cases.
Q: What type of counseling was offered at the clinics? A: We didn't do any real counseling. We sold abortions
Q: How did you dispose of aborted babies? A: We put them down the garbage disposal. Some second and third trimester babies' muscles structure is so strong that the baby will not come apart, so they must be disposed of through trash receptacles.
Q: Abortion is supposed to be a "safe" experience. What complications did you witness? A: In the last 18 months I was in the business, we were completing more than 500 abortions monthly and killing or maiming one woman out of 500. Common complications that take place are perforations or tears in the uterus. Many of those result in hysterectomies.
The doctor might cut or harm the urinary tract, which then requires surgical repair. A complication that is rarely publicized is the one in which the doctor perforates the uterus and pulls the bowels through the vagina, resulting in a colostomy. Some of those can be reversed, but some women must live with the colostomy for the rest of their lives
** I am posting the facts right out of the mouths of people who were in the know, right there in the middle of the scene.
Will I be censored because I post the unbiased facts?
Q: Why did you get out of the abortion business? A: Two things came into play at the same time. I experienced a profoundly religious transformation - a conversion. At about the time I was having second thoughts, a Dallas television station did an expose' disclosing the abortions performed at my clinic on non-pregnant women - all for money! I finally realized, "We weren't helping women, we were destroying them- and their children." By then, my transformation was complete and I knew that I not only had to stop being involved with abortions, but I had to help promote the truth.
The information from this interview was obtained on p. 23 of love matters, volume 1, 1999 edition.
"I am a murderer. I have taken the lives of innocent babies and I have ripped them from their mother' wombs with a powerful vacuum machine." - McArthur Hill, M.D. Former Abortionist
"It's a lie when they tell you they're doing it to help women, because thay're not. They're doing it for the money." Nita Whitten former abortion counselor
"The picture of the baby on the ultrasound bothered me more than anything else. The staff couldn't take it. Women who were having abortions were never allowed to see the ultrasound." Joseph Randall, MD, former abortionist
That would be bad but is it any worse than performing abortions on women who are healthy and and pregnant?
Of course it is less worse than actually doing the harm of abortion BUT
It is more personal.
For a woman to have to live with the doubt of whether she was actually pregnant or not, and the guilt with the abortion, and the harm that it does psychologically, (which affects physical and spiritual health) and then to find out (if she ever does) that she was never really pregnant!
If it was me, I would be relieved, and pissed, and then I could sue their asses! Hit them where it hurts, right in the pockets.
Yes, I'm sure a site like this and the others you've listed are quite good sources of unbiased information on the subject.
And if there is any sort of corruption in the abortion industry, then perhaps it needs to be better regulated, but that's not the same as saying abortion should be outlawed. Again, a pointless argument.
My commentary to these was: I found these interesting. .. will be checking them out.
The particular site you mentioned is temporarily out of service.
Catchy name, don't ya think? ... Kinda like "Planned Parenthood" for the abortion factory franchises.
It could be from people pissed after the "hurt", "lies" and "deception" experienced from their abortions, couldn't it? Those feelings and experiences are very possibly real aren't they? Not a spin.
*I actually viewed this one and it looks very interesting. Patricia Heaton from "Everybody Loves Raymond" is the honorary chairperson.
"Established in 1972, Feminists for Life is a nonsectarian, nonpartisan, grassroots organization that seeks equality for all human beings and champions the needs of women."
"We oppose all forms of violence including abortion, infanticide, child abuse, domestic violence, assisted suicide, euthanasia and capital punishment, and the exploitation of women and children, as they are inconsistent with the core feminist principles of justice, nonviolence and nondiscrimination."
"FFL's efforts focus on facilitating practical resources and support for women in need, as well as sharing our 200 year old pro-woman, pro-life legacy."
"Feminists for Life is a member of the 1.3 million member National Women's Coalition for Life, the National Coalition Against the Death Penalty, the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, and the Seamless Garment Network."
In 1969, one year before New York State legalized abortion, complications from abortions accounted for 23 percent of all pregnancy- related admissions to municipal hospitals in New York City. --Institute of Medicine, 1975
After California liberalized its abortion law in 1967, the number of admissions for infection resulting from illegal abortion at Los Angeles County/University of Southern California Medical Center fell by almost 75 percent. --Seward, Paul N., (1973). "The Effect of Legal Abortion on the Rate of Septic Abortion at a Large County Hospital." American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 115(335), 353-338
Today, abortion is one of the most commonly performed clinical procedures, and the current death rate from abortion at all stages of gestation is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. This is eleven times safer than carrying a pregnancy to term and nearly twice as safe as a penicillin injection. --Paul, Maureen, (1999). A Clinician's Guide to Medical and Surgical Abortion. New York: Churchill Livingstone.
It's objective data such as this, from medical professionals with abundant experience on abortion-related health issues, that we need to use as our rational guide.
Opponents of choice employ false, misleading, and inflammatory language as a key tool in their campaign to erode all reproductive options—including family planning and sexuality education. Anti-choice language, whether on Capitol Hill or in pulpits, stigmatizes women who have abortions and dehumanizes health care professionals who provide abortion. Inflammatory rhetoric has been a barely concealed invitation to violence. Those who commit acts of violence are responsible for their own actions, but anti-abortion leaders know the power of their words to make violence thinkable to their followers.
The notion that human life or personhood begins at the moment of conception is the foundation of anti-choice language. Although theologians have addressed the question of the beginning of life for centuries without reaching agreement on the answer, opponents of choice promote their belief as the one and only truth.
To opponents of reproductive choice, the word "baby" is a synonym for fetus and women who choose abortion are "baby killers." While women who terminate late-term pregnancies may also refer to their fetus as a baby, opponents of choice often add emotional modifiers such as “innocent baby” and “unborn baby” or “unborn child.”...Anti-choice images trivialize and devalue women. Gory pictures of late-term fetuses foster the misconception that late-term abortion is common, when in reality less than 1 percent of abortions are performed after 21 weeks of gestation. Despite the claims of some anti-abortion activists, abortions are extremely rare in the third trimester and they are generally provided only in cases of severe fetal abnormalities or situations when the life or health of the pregnant woman is seriously threatened...
While the divisive issue of abortion diverts the nation’s attention, vital reproductive health care needs go unmet. The United States lags far behind many other countries in the development of new methods of contraception and has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies, unwanted children, infant mortality, and abortion among developed nations. Not until a woman's constitutional right to reproductive freedom is secure—facing no threats, requiring no defense—can we work solely and aggressively to solve our nation’s numerous reproductive health care problems.
Clarifying the language used to talk about reproductive choice and reproductive health will help clarify our needs. Reproductive choice is not a euphemism for abortion. Reproductive choice means women having control over their bodies, without government interference, and an equal place in all aspects of national decision-making. It means being able to consider all medical and moral options in decisions about bearing children. Reproductive choice includes accurate, complete information about and access to contraception, comprehensive sexuality education, and quality health care and child care. It means truly valuing children and families and having government policies that support family well-being. It means respecting a diversity of religious beliefs.
It wasn't up to the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case to decide if slavery was right or wrong. Only if it was legal or illegal, and according to the Constitution it was legal at the time. It took an act by the other two branches of the government to change the laws. In that same vein, it's not for the Supreme Court to decide if abortion is right or wrong. It should only be deciding if according to current laws it's legal or illegal.
"Reproductive rights" means the freedom to choose to have sex or not to have sex. It has become a euphemism of dismembering unborn children limb from limb. The euphemism hides the moral corruption of those that support dismmembering unborn children limb from limb.
It wasn't up to the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case to decide if slavery was right or wrong. Only if it was legal or illegal, and according to the Constitution it was legal at the time. It took an act by the other two branches of the government to change the laws. In that same vein, it's not for the Supreme Court to decide if abortion is right or wrong. It should only be deciding if according to current laws it's legal or illegal.
Well that is not what they did. The Court sai that abortion was a constituional right. The result was not based on anything written in the Constitution. In fact, the decison was diametrically opposed to the purpose of the Constitution.
Abortion is an abomination. Anyone that supports abortion is abominable.
In 1972, the year before the Supreme Court legalized abortion, a total of 39 women died from illegal abortions, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL (Nat'l Abortion Rights Action League), admits his group lied and inflated the number of women who died from illegal abortion when testifying before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972: "We spoke of 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false... it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?
Claims that abortion became safer for women after it was legalized fail to acknowledge that large numbers of women are physically injured or killed by so-called safe and legal abortions every year.
The book Lime 5 documents 230 cases of women injured or killed by abortion or sexually assaulted by their abortionists ( see http://www.prolife.comfor details).
Former abortion provider Carol Everett states, "In the last 18 months I was in business (she ran four abortion centers in Texas in 1982), we were completing 500 abortions monthly and killing or maiming one women out of 500."
Please take the time to expand your mind and ponder on the facts on these websites. You may want to save them under favorites!
http://www.nrlc.org/
http://www.humanlife.net/otherorganizations.html
Other Pro-Life Organizations
We use the following well done websites quite often for research and for references to other great sites. We are not paid to list these sites, we simply recommend them because we have found them extremely useful. Views represented on these sites do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Human Life of Washington. Please feel free to email suggested sites to letters@humanlife.net.
The Ultimate Pro-Life Resource List - by Women and Children First
http://www.prolifeinfo.org/
"The most comprehensive listing of right to life resources on the internet". Includes information on abortion, adoption, euthanasia, legislation, other organizations, books, news, and pro-life infonet.
Roe v Wade - by Women and Children First
http://www.roevwade.org
The actual text of Roe v. Wade, statements from R v W advocates, how they have historically misled people about abortion, illegal abortion myths, "safe abortion" myths, educational fact sheets, bibliography.
Pregnancy Centers Online
http://www.pregnancycenters.org
Pregnancy help, talk to someone, fetal development, abortion risks, after abortion, centers.
Heritage House 2000
http://www.heritagehouse76.com
Everything from books to baby feet to bumper stickers: "Pro-life materials - over 500 items - readily available to prolifers everywhere. Welcome to the Heritage House '76 on line pro-life catalog. Our goal is to provide fresh, effective materials for your pro-life and pro-family work with prices, selection, and service that you can't beat anywhere!"
Priests for Life
http://www.priestsforlife.org
This amazing website gets over 7000 hits per day! "We are an officially approved association of Catholic Clergy who give special emphasis to the pro-life teachings of the Church. We offer ongoing assistance to the clergy in addressing the topics of abortion and euthanasia, and training and resources to the entire pro-life movement with a growing amount of material in Spanish." This site has religious and secular articles, video and audio clips, and a very impressive set of online pro-life resources.
Life Decisions International: Exposing Planned Parenthood's True Agenda
http://www.fightpp.org
The $554 million budgeted PPFA promotes unrestricted abortion as a fundamental right — even for teens without the knowledge of parents. If you object to Planned Parenthood’s representatives going into your child’s school to provide instructions in the use of condoms or how to obtain easy abortions, there is something you can do. Life Decisions International (LDI) was formed to challenge the Planned Parenthood agenda and empower pro-lifers to defund the group. Since the corporate boycott began, more than 60 corporations have stopped donating to Planned Parenthood. Information on ordering their Boycott List is provided on their website.
National Right to Life
http://www.nrlc.org
University Faculty for Life
http://www2.franuniv.edu/ufl/
A multidisciplinary association of scholars
American Collegians for Life
http://www.aclife.org
"Anyone checking out these websites? I'd like some feedback from you."
Don't count on Madonna.
Rick 6/12/02 10:03am
After Madonna explores everything out there (if she hasn't already) she will go back to her good Catholic girl roots, just wait! Confession has its benefits! LOL!
haven't. It would have been one thing to have responded to the 'middle ground' post but instead you went off and overwhelmingly monopolized the thread so I found myself looking for anything posted by anyone other than you. Actually, I have bought my hubby two Harleys. But that is by the way. Jethro, of course, thinks anyone who disagrees with him is morally corrupt no matter what the topic is so his post can also be discounted.
Now to respond to the thinking people trying to find a middle ground.
Yes, there are serious side issues to the debate over abortion. Yes, zealots from both sides have done harm both to eachother and to themselves. Slavery and abortion do share ethics - such as in strapping a pregnant woman down to a hospital bed by state decree to prevent her from having an abortion. Or locking up pregnant women who have been less than stellar in their personal habits whilst carrying the child. And do men have a voice?
No one said that these choices were going to be easy. But CHOICE is the core of the argument for both sides. Pro-life says NO CHOICE for whatever reasons. Pro-Choice says CHOICE as one would expect. The answer seems to come down to your view of women - do you think they are too insane, too stupid, too morally corrupt, or too lazy to make life and death decisions? I do not think that women are so evil, stupid, lazy etc etc etc as to require others to make such decisions for them. I agree that it is a horrible choice for one to have to make regardless of the reasons why she is faced with having to make that choice. I am also ashamed and angered that we have such a world where women feel they have to abort. Rather than making abortion a crime, I would change those forces in society that make having children out of wedlock so terrible that the death of the child is the only way out.
Yes, they do, Paula but you'll have to hunt for it. I have run out of web-time for today. Still try to directly respond to the thoughts in others' posting will ya?
Jethro, of course, thinks anyone who disagrees with him is morally corrupt no matter what the topic is so his post can also be discounted.
No, not true. What needs to be "discounted" is anyone that thinks ripping babies limb from limb on a whim should be allowed.
The answer seems to come down to your view of women - do you think they are too insane, too stupid, too morally corrupt, or too lazy to make life and death decisions? No that isn't the issue and if you weren't morally corrupt you would see that.I agree that it is a horrible choice for one to have to make regardless of the reasons why she is faced with having to make that choice. I am not sure you are being honest here.
Kit Zupan 6/12/02 12:11pm
The choice in most cases was made by the woman when she took a chance and had sex knowing what the consequences could be.
The decision is not just about "them", the woman.
A woman's body does not have two beating hearts, two blood types, two heads, four eyes, four arms, and four legs. A pregnant woman and her baby have all this and more.
Sex and pregnancy are often used as a weapon to hang on to a man. Then when the situation doesn't work out as planned a baby has to suffer the horror because of the selfishness of the woman, IMO. I do not think a woman should have the choice to murder a baby because the cards didn't play as she thought they would.
The Supreme Court said women have a "constitutional right" to "privacy" on abortion....
I happen to feel the court was wrong. Nobody has a right to injure or kill another person 'privately.' Does a right to "privacy" also protect parents who abuse, molest or kill their born children in the "privacy' of their own home?
Why not... what about their "right to privacy?"
How is it that Roe vs Wade determined that unborn children are not "persons even though they have the right to inherit property, the right to be protected from a drug-addicted mother, the right not to be killed by a drunk driver, and many other rights?
Some states have entire sections of law outlining crimes against unborn children in which they're protected from negligent or willful harm or death FROM CONCEPTION ON.
Next, You are talking about a womans "right to choose".
How can anyone claim they have the "freedom" or "right" to kill an innocent baby?
The only "choice" in abortion is between a dead baby and a live baby.
Why is it only in the case of abortion prochoice argue that " choice" should be absolute? Not much consistency there!
Using the same rationale, wouldn't people have the right to "choose" to practice prostitution? Humaine societies don't tell people they have a "freedom of choice" to kill their own children.
There are right choices and there are wrong choices.
Terrible choices have led not only to dead slaves, dead Jews and dead babies... not to mention the mothers who have been killed or damaged for life in the process.
We are thinking... you just don't like what we are saying.
Abortion should not be a choice.
It is a child, not a choice ... and I fully believe the day will come when the unborn child is rightfully respected and given the true "rights' the child deserves.
"Bikers for Life? As in pro-life bikers?
Yes, they do, Paula but you'll have to hunt for it. "
If that isn't evidence that we are Through the Looking Glass, I don't know what is.
In some ways debating abortion is a lot like politics. That is to say sometimes you don't really need to have any substance to your point of view. You just need to make your opponent's position weak, by making your opponents themselves look bad, and then you win. So Jethro doesn't need to defend his views. He needs only call those who oppose him "morally corrupt" and thus anything we have to say is clearly irrelevant.
I think I have been making some pretty good points.... wish I was getting more responses.
Goodbye to all for today. :)
Paula:
If the stated goal is to cut back on the number of abortions, is there any way possible for the two extremes to meet somewhere in the middle?
Is there anything short of a total legal ban that you would accept?
In some ways debating abortion is a lot like politics. That is to say sometimes you don't really need to have any substance to your point of view. You just need to make your opponent's position weak, by making your opponents themselves look bad, and then you win. So Jethro doesn't need to defend his views. He needs only call those who oppose him "morally corrupt" and thus anything we have to say is clearly irrelevant.
I don't make anyone that support abortion look bad, they do so by taking the position that ripping unborn children limb from limb on a whim should be legal. If you can't see that ripping unborn children limb from limb is wrong then you are morally corrupt.
If the stated goal is to cut back on the number of abortions, is there any way possible for the two extremes to meet somewhere in the middle?
The goal is to eliminate all abortions done on a whim. Whim meaning that it would just be to difficult to have the child or care for it.
ANTI-CHOICE SLANDERS DEPICTING MARGARET SANGER AS A RACIST
Over time, several alleged Sanger quotations, or allegations about her, have regularly surfaced in anti-family planning publications. Here are samples of especially pernicious distortions, misattributions, or outright lies that Margaret Sanger's enemies circulate:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief issue in birth control." A quotation falsely attributed to Sanger, this is from the editors of American Medicine in a review of a Sanger article. The editorial from which this appeared, as well as Sanger's article, "Why Not Birth Control Clinics in America?" (1919), were reprinted side-by-side in the May 1919 Birth Control Review.
"The mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase among Negroes, even more than the increase among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly." Falsely attributed to Sanger, this was actually written for a 1932 issue of The Birth Control Review by W.E.B. DuBois, founder of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Taken out of the context of his discussion about the effects of birth control on the balance between quality-of-life considerations and race-survival issues for African- Americans, Dubois' language seems insensitive by today's standards.
"Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a menace to the race." This fabrication, falsely attributed to Sanger, was concocted in the late 1980s. The alleged source is the April 1933 Birth Control Review (Sanger ceased editing the Review in 1929). That issue contains no article or letter by Sanger.
"To create a race of thoroughbreds . . ." This remark, again attributed originally to Sanger, was made by Dr. Edward A. Kempf and has been cited out of context and with distorted meaning. Dr. Kempf, a progressive physician, was actually arguing for state endowment of maternal and infant care clinics. In her book The Pivot of Civilization, Sanger quoted Dr. Kempf's argument about how environment may improve human excellence:
"Society must make life worth the living and the refining for the individual by conditioning him to love and to seek the love-object in a manner that reflects a constructive effect upon his fellow-men and by giving him suitable opportunities. The virility of the automatic apparatus is destroyed by excessive gormandizing or hunger, by excessive wealth or poverty, by excessive work or idleness, by sexual abuse or intolerant prudishness. The noblest and most difficult art of all is the raising of human thoroughbreds (1969)."
It was in this spirit that Sanger used the phrase, "Birth Control: To Create a Race of Thoroughbreds," as a banner on the November 1921 issue of the Birth Control Review. (Differing slogans on the theme of voluntary family planning sometimes appeared under the title of The Review, e.g., "Dedicated to the Cause of Voluntary Motherhood," January 1928.)
SLANDERING SANGER, continued...
"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." This statement is taken out of context from Margaret Sanger's Woman and the New Race (1920). Sanger was making an ironic comment — not a prescriptive one — about the horrifying rate of infant mortality among large families of early 20th-century urban America.
"We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." Sanger was aware of African-American concerns, passionately argued by Marcus Garvey in the 1920s, that birth control was a threat to the survival of the black race. This statement, which acknowledges those fears, is taken from a letter to Clarence J. Gamble, M.D., a champion of the birth control movement. In that letter, Sanger describes her strategy to allay such apprehensions. A larger portion of the letter makes Sanger's meaning clear:
"It seems to me from my experience . . . in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table. . . . They do not do this with the white people, and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results. . . . His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County's white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us. The minister's work is also important, and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want 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 (1939)."
"As early as 1914 Margaret Sanger was promoting abortion, not for white middle-class women, but against 'inferior races' — black people, poor people, Slavs, Latins, and Hebrews were 'human weeds.'"
This allegation about Margaret Sanger appears in an anonymous flyer, "Facts About Planned Parenthood," that is circulated by anti-family planning activists. Margaret Sanger, who passionately believed in a woman's right to control her body, never "promoted" abortion because it was illegal and dangerous throughout her lifetime. She urged women to use contraceptives so that they would not be at risk for the dangers of illegal, back-alley abortion. Sanger never described any ethnic community as an 'inferior race' or as 'human weeds.' In her lifetime, Sanger won the respect of international figures of all races, including the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Mahatma Gandhi; Shidzue Kato, the foremost family planning advocate in Japan; and Lady Dhanvanthi Rama Rau of India — all of whom were sensitive to issues of race.
The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy. This is the title of a book falsely attributed to Sanger. It was written by Lothrop Stoddard and reviewed by Havelock Ellis in the October 1920 issue of The Birth Control Review. Its general topic, the international politics of race relations in the first decades of the century, is one in which Sanger was not involved. Her interest, insofar as she allowed a review of Stoddard's book to be published in The Birth Control Review, was in the overall health and quality of life of all races and not in tensions between them. Ellis's review was critical of the Stoddard book and of distinctions based on race or ethnicity alone.
--Thanks to Planned Parenthood (itself a target of relentless anti-choice slanders) for informational help
http://www.all.org
American life league says:
Margaret Sanger
The founder of Planned Parenthood remains a controversial figure, even decades after her death.
Pro-life activists point to her widely published views as proof that her vision of "birth control" was really an attempt to limit the elements of the population she considered undesirable—racial minorities and others she labeled "feeble-minded."
Planned Parenthood today takes great pains to distance itself from its founder, hiding behind such statements as:
Sanger also entertained some popular ideas of her own time that are out of keeping with our own. Finding it easier to undermine her character than to confront the message she conveyed, the anti-family planning movement has seized upon some of these ideas, taken them out of context, and exaggerated and distorted them in order to discredit Sanger and the organization she founded.
Noble sentiments, perhaps, but just plain wrong. And to show that we're not afraid of the truth, we hereby invite you to read two of Sanger's works in full:
look under "site index", then "S", then "Margaret Sanger" to find:
The Pivot of Civilization
http://www.all.org/a2z-m.htm
 and
Woman and the New Race
http://www.all.org/a2z-m.htm
Planned Parenthood will assert that comments such as the following are twisted by "anti-choice extremists."
Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.
We say—read the books yourself.
The catch is...you can't read them on Planned Parenthood's web site. Planned Parenthood only allows you to see excerpts—the ones they've selected. These books were very hard to get when Planned Parenthood held the copyrights; they didn't want anyone checking on what their master propagandist actually thought. But now the copyrights have expired, and the books are in the public domain.
See for yourself. As one of the cable news channels likes to say, "we report...you decide!"
Also see:
STOPP: An organization devoted to exposing Planned Parenthood.
http://www.all.org/stopp/
"I threw the weight of my study and activity into the economic and industrial struggle. Here I discovered men and women fired with the glorious vision of a new world, of a proletarian world emancipated, a Utopian world,--it glowed in romantic colours for the majority of those with whom I came in closest contact. The next step, the immediate step, was another matter, less romantic and too often less encouraging. In their ardor, some of the labor leaders of that period almost convinced us that the millennium was just around the corner. Those were the pre-war days of dramatic strikes. But even when most under the spell of the new vision, the sight of the overburdened wives of the strikers, with their puny babies and their broods of under-fed children, made us stop and think of a neglected factor in the march toward our earthly paradise. It was well enough to ask the poor men workers to carry on the battle against economic injustice. But what results could be expected when they were forced in addition to carry the burden of their ever-growing families? This question loomed large to those of us who came into intimate contact with the women and children. We saw that in the final analysis the real burden of economic and industrial warfare was thrust upon the frail, all-too- frail shoulders of the children, the very babies--the coming generation. In their wan faces, in their undernourished bodies, would be indelibly written the bitter defeat of their parents."
"The eloquence of those who led the underpaid and half-starved workers could no longer, for me, at least, ring with conviction. Something more than the purely economic interpretation was involved. The bitter struggle for bread, for a home and material comfort, was but one phase of the problem. There was another phase, perhaps even more fundamental, that had been absolutely neglected by the adherents of the new dogmas. That other phase was the driving power of instinct, a power uncontrolled and unnoticed. The great fundamental instinct of sex was expressing itself in these ever-growing broods, in the prosperity of the slum midwife and her colleague the slum undertaker. In spite of all my sympathy with the dream of liberated Labor, I was driven to ask whether this urging power of sex, this deep instinct, was not at least partially responsible, along with industrial injustice, for the widespread misery of the world."
Personally I think whatever Margaret Sanger said or thought back in the 1920's is irrelevant to the issue today.
I agree with Paula.
Let's all run down to the library and check out a couple of books written by Margaret Sanger herself.
See what she was truly about.
Doing so will definitely strengthen understanding of women's healthcare/reproductive needs and rights.
DEBUNKING THE "ONLY 39 ABORTION DEATHS BEFORE ROE V. WADE" MYTH
Number of Deaths from Illegal Abortions Before 1973
5,000 American Women Per Year
"It has been estimated that as many as 5,000 American women die each year as a direct result of criminal abortion. The figure of 5,000 may be a minimum estimate, inasmuch as many such deaths are mislabeled or unreported." R. Schwarz, Septic Abortion (1968) p. 7.
50% to 28% of Maternal Deaths
"In Philadelphia over 50 per cent of the maternal deaths result from complications of abortion, and this fact apparently holds true in other areas of the county: . . . 57 per cent in Michigan; . . . 33 per cent at the Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn; and . . . 28 per cent in California," R. Schwarz, Septic Abortion (1968) p. 7.
Most Common Cause of Maternal Death in California
"Induced abortion is the most common single cause of maternal deaths in California." L. Fox, "Abortion Deaths in California," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1 July 1967, p. 650.
One Death Per Every 100 Illegal Abortions
"Illegal abortions involve enormous hazards to women's lives and health: this fact is indisputable and even the archfoes of abortion themselves acknowledge it. In the sixties, a World Health Organization publication estimated that 100,000 women died each year [worldwide] from the complications of illegal abortions. The morbidity (disease) figures from the same cause would reach into the millions. Unfortunately, the extent of the illegal abortion phenomenon and its consequences have never been properly assessed: we have to be content with rough estimates. Researchers agree that there is about one death for every 100 illegal abortions, but they acknowledge that this figure can vary from one country to the next. In countries where medical services are available to treat women for the complications arising from an abortion, the mortality rate is much lower." H. Morgentaler, Abortion and Contraception (1982) pp. 110-11.
Number of Hospitalizations from Illegal Abortions Before 1973
One-Third Require Hospitalization
"Furthermore, apparently one out of every three illegal operations had serious enough consequences to require a stay in hospital: in 1960, forty-two percent of all emergency admissions into hospitals were due to illegal abortions." H. Morgentaler, Abortion and Contraception (1982) pp. 110-11.
(DEBUNKING, continued)
Personal Account of a Doctor
Dr. Robert Prince of Dallas treated many women injured by illegal abortions: "During my tenure as house officer of OB/GYN, I would see at least one criminal abortion a night, at least one, and often ten on weekends. All were infected . . . Most required surgery of some type, and many required blood replacement. If these unfortunate women survived, they were often sterile as a result of infection . . . " National Commission on America Without Roe, Facing a Future Without Choice: A Report on Reproductive Liberty in America, p. 16.
Cost of Illegal Abortionists' Services
The fees for illegal abortions ranged from $100 to $2,000 with the
average cost between $200 - $400 (1968-71 dollars). C. Westoff and L. A. Westoff, From Zero to Now: Fertility, Contraception and Abortion in America (1968) p. 154.
Number of Self-Induced Abortions
50% to 80% of Women Try to Self-Induce Abortions
In a study titled "The Search for an Abortionist," half of the 114
women tried to self-induce an abortion before going to a doctor. C. Westoff and L. A. Westoff, From Zero to Now: Fertility, Contraception and Abortion in America (1968) pp. 155-156.
Dr. Kinsey states, "The records of the most experienced abortionist whom we have known indicated that about 80 per cent of the women who came to him for consummation of an abortion had previously attempted some sort of self-induction." Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Abortion in the United States, M.S. Calderone, ed., (1958) p. 57.
Deaths and Injuries from Self-Induced Abortions
Self-induced abortions were not always effective in ending pregnancies. And these risky methods could result in birth defects if the fetus survived, the woman's death, permanent injury, sterility, and great pain. Many of these seriously injured women went to hospital emergency rooms.
Septic Abortion the Second Highest Cause of Maternal Deaths in Washington, D.C., 1940-1943
"In reviewing these deaths, the Health Department found . . . that the majority were due to self-induced abortion. At one Washington hospital they admit about fifteen septic cases a month, of which six have been lost, over a three-year period, from overwhelming infection," stated Dr. Robert Nelson, Chairman, Sub-Committee on Maternal Welfare, Medical Society of the District of Columbia. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Abortion in the United States, M.S. Calderone, ed., (1958) p. 65.
One Death Per Every 100 Illegal Abortions
Actually, there is at least one death for every legal or illegal abortion. That is what I am against, the right of a parent to kill their child.
"The founder of Planned Parenthood remains a controversial figure, even decades after her death. "
It looks like the American Life League intends to make sure it continues. Trying to trash someone like her, years after her death is rather unseemly to me.
Something tells me that this thread will be the place to go if you want to see a mother lode of Internet links to distortions and half-truths.
It makes most Washington politicians look absolutely Trumanesque in their stratforwardness. And a lot nicer.
It looks like the American Life League intends to make sure it continues. Trying to trash someone like her, years after her death is rather unseemly to me.
Really? What did you say about Jeff Davis on the Civil War board? He has been dead longer than Sanger.
"The World Health Organization reports that nearly 670,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications each year (this number does not include abortions). That's 1,800 women per day. We also read that in developed countries, such as the United States and Canada, a woman is 13 times more likely to die bringing a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion."
Sounds like propganda, Allison. The numbers don't make sense.
I've been trying to find some numbers on the web that aren't part of some biased propaganda, but it's proving to be pretty difficult thus far. Though I figured a number from the World Health Organization must be reasonably accurate.
Though my gut feeling does tell me that having a baby is probably more dangerous than having an abortion. So yes, maybe some women die from abortions, but some women also die from getting breast enlargements. Any sort of surgery is going to have it's risks. But if having the baby is even more risky than the abortion, than the argument that abortion should be outlawed because it's dangerous seems pointless.
"Really? What did you say about Jeff Davis on the Civil War board?"
That he's a traitor.
Though I figured a number from the World Health Organization must be reasonably accurate.
Yeah right!
Rick wrote: It looks like the American Life League intends to make sure it continues. Trying to trash someone like her, years after her death is rather unseemly to me.
My response: "Really? What did you say about Jeff Davis on the Civil War board?"
Rick's reply: That he's a traitor.
Yes that was my point. Unseemly indeed.
BS, jethro. It's fair comment.
Davis' history invites that type of scrutiny.
I don't think Ms. Sanger deserves the same treatment. But she'll probably get it.
You are just a hypocrite, Rick. You can admit it you are among friends.
Dennis Rahkonen 6/13/02 4:21am
Debra Henry, a Former Abortion Counselor says "We were told to find the woman's weakness and work on it. The women were never given any alternatives. They were told how much trouble it was to have a baby"
"It's a lie when they tell you they're doing it to help women, because they're not. They're doing it for money." - Former Abortion Counselor.
http://www.prolifeaction.org
If you want the FACTS, check out the above site and read what former Abortionist say about the issue. Don't you want the facts???
taken from: An interview with Carol Everett, Former Abortion Center Director
Carol Everett was involved in the abortion industry in the Dallas, Texas area from 1977 to 1983. As director of four abortion centers, and owner of two, Carol was responsible for the centers' daily operation. Carol, who had an abortion soon after it bacame legal in 1973, now speaks out on what she saw in the abortion industry:
Q: What is the governing force behind the abortion industry?
A: Money. It is a very lucrative business. It is the largest unregulated industry in our nation. Most of the clinics are run in chains because it is so profitable.
Q: In what way is the woman deceived?
A: Every woman has two questions, "Is it a baby?" and "Does it hurt?" The abortionist must answer, "NO." He/she must lie to secure the consent of the woman and the collection of the clinics fee. The women were told that we were dealing with a "product of conception" or a "glob of tissue." They were told that there would be only slight cramping; whereas, in reality, abortion is excruciatingly painful.
Rick,
You mean like the left continually does to the founding fathers who have been dead even longer ? Unseemly no doubt in both cases.
continued from Carol Everett interview:
Q: What type of counseling was offered at the clinics?
A: We didn't do any real counseling. We sold abortions
Q: How did you dispose of aborted babies?
A: We put them down the garbage disposal. Some second and third trimester babies' muscles structure is so strong that the baby will not come apart, so they must be disposed of through trash receptacles.
Q: Abortion is supposed to be a "safe" experience. What complications did you witness?
A: In the last 18 months I was in the business, we were completing more than 500 abortions monthly and killing or maiming one woman out of 500. Common complications that take place are perforations or tears in the uterus. Many of those result in hysterectomies.
The doctor might cut or harm the urinary tract, which then requires surgical repair. A complication that is rarely publicized is the one in which the doctor perforates the uterus and pulls the bowels through the vagina, resulting in a colostomy. Some of those can be reversed, but some women must live with the colostomy for the rest of their lives
Will I be censored because I post the unbiased facts?
The truth (of abortion) hurts.
final segment of an interview with Carol Everett:
Q: Why did you get out of the abortion business?
A: Two things came into play at the same time. I experienced a profoundly religious transformation - a conversion. At about the time I was having second thoughts, a Dallas television station did an expose' disclosing the abortions performed at my clinic on non-pregnant women - all for money! I finally realized, "We weren't helping women, we were destroying them- and their children." By then, my transformation was complete and I knew that I not only had to stop being involved with abortions, but I had to help promote the truth.
The information from this interview was obtained on p. 23 of love matters, volume 1, 1999 edition.
you can see more info like this at http://www.lovematters.com
I think it is absolutely disgusting that abortionists are making money performing abortions on people that aren't even pregnant!
It happens more often than you think.
I think it is absolutely disgusting that abortionists are making money performing abortions on people that aren't even pregnant!
That would be bad but is it any worse than performing abortions on women who are healthy and and pregnant?
Dennis Rahkonen 6/12/02 3:03pm
Do you own one of their franchises? I wonder how much it costs to own one? More or less expensive than a Subway shop?
Source: meet the abortion providers video
at http://www.prolifeaction.org
"I am a murderer. I have taken the lives of innocent babies and I have ripped them from their mother' wombs with a powerful vacuum machine." - McArthur Hill, M.D. Former Abortionist
"It's a lie when they tell you they're doing it to help women, because thay're not. They're doing it for the money." Nita Whitten former abortion counselor
"The picture of the baby on the ultrasound bothered me more than anything else. The staff couldn't take it. Women who were having abortions were never allowed to see the ultrasound." Joseph Randall, MD, former abortionist
Why aren't women allowed to see the ultrasound?
jethro bodine 6/13/02 10:02am
Of course it is less worse than actually doing the harm of abortion BUT
It is more personal.
For a woman to have to live with the doubt of whether she was actually pregnant or not, and the guilt with the abortion, and the harm that it does psychologically, (which affects physical and spiritual health) and then to find out (if she ever does) that she was never really pregnant!
If it was me, I would be relieved, and pissed, and then I could sue their asses! Hit them where it hurts, right in the pockets.
http://www.abortionfacts.com
http://www.abortionsurvivors.org
http://www.abortiontv.com
http://www.afterabortion.org
http://www.partialbirthabortions.com
http://www.peaceafterabortion.com
http://www.prochoicesucks.com
http://www.prolife.com
http://www.prolifeaction.org
http://www.prolifeinfo.com
http://www.unborn.com
http://www.prochoicesucks.com
Yes, I'm sure a site like this and the others you've listed are quite good sources of unbiased information on the subject.
And if there is any sort of corruption in the abortion industry, then perhaps it needs to be better regulated, but that's not the same as saying abortion should be outlawed. Again, a pointless argument.
Allison Wonderland 6/13/02 1:03pm\
My commentary to these was: I found these interesting. .. will be checking them out.
The particular site you mentioned is temporarily out of service.
Catchy name, don't ya think? ... Kinda like "Planned Parenthood" for the abortion factory franchises.
It could be from people pissed after the "hurt", "lies" and "deception" experienced from their abortions, couldn't it? Those feelings and experiences are very possibly real aren't they? Not a spin.
Try this site http://feministsforlife.org
"Established in 1972, Feminists for Life is a nonsectarian, nonpartisan, grassroots organization that seeks equality for all human beings and champions the needs of women."
"We oppose all forms of violence including abortion, infanticide, child abuse, domestic violence, assisted suicide, euthanasia and capital punishment, and the exploitation of women and children, as they are inconsistent with the core feminist principles of justice, nonviolence and nondiscrimination."
"FFL's efforts focus on facilitating practical resources and support for women in need, as well as sharing our 200 year old pro-woman, pro-life legacy."
"Feminists for Life is a member of the 1.3 million member National Women's Coalition for Life, the National Coalition Against the Death Penalty, the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, and the Seamless Garment Network."
733 15th St. NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 737-3352
www.feministsforlife.org
r e f u s e t o c h o o s e
It's objective data such as this, from medical professionals with abundant experience on abortion-related health issues, that we need to use as our rational guide.
SEMANTIC SENSATIONALISM
Opponents of choice employ false, misleading, and inflammatory language as a key tool in their campaign to erode all reproductive options—including family planning and sexuality education. Anti-choice language, whether on Capitol Hill or in pulpits, stigmatizes women who have abortions and dehumanizes health care professionals who provide abortion. Inflammatory rhetoric has been a barely concealed invitation to violence. Those who commit acts of violence are responsible for their own actions, but anti-abortion leaders know the power of their words to make violence thinkable to their followers.
The notion that human life or personhood begins at the moment of conception is the foundation of anti-choice language. Although theologians have addressed the question of the beginning of life for centuries without reaching agreement on the answer, opponents of choice promote their belief as the one and only truth.
To opponents of reproductive choice, the word "baby" is a synonym for fetus and women who choose abortion are "baby killers." While women who terminate late-term pregnancies may also refer to their fetus as a baby, opponents of choice often add emotional modifiers such as “innocent baby” and “unborn baby” or “unborn child.”...Anti-choice images trivialize and devalue women. Gory pictures of late-term fetuses foster the misconception that late-term abortion is common, when in reality less than 1 percent of abortions are performed after 21 weeks of gestation. Despite the claims of some anti-abortion activists, abortions are extremely rare in the third trimester and they are generally provided only in cases of severe fetal abnormalities or situations when the life or health of the pregnant woman is seriously threatened...
While the divisive issue of abortion diverts the nation’s attention, vital reproductive health care needs go unmet. The United States lags far behind many other countries in the development of new methods of contraception and has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies, unwanted children, infant mortality, and abortion among developed nations. Not until a woman's constitutional right to reproductive freedom is secure—facing no threats, requiring no defense—can we work solely and aggressively to solve our nation’s numerous reproductive health care problems.
Clarifying the language used to talk about reproductive choice and reproductive health will help clarify our needs. Reproductive choice is not a euphemism for abortion. Reproductive choice means women having control over their bodies, without government interference, and an equal place in all aspects of national decision-making. It means being able to consider all medical and moral options in decisions about bearing children. Reproductive choice includes accurate, complete information about and access to contraception, comprehensive sexuality education, and quality health care and child care. It means truly valuing children and families and having government policies that support family well-being. It means respecting a diversity of religious beliefs.
--Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice