CJE - 2015-07-15 8:27 PM I reckon dead is dead for some and why let dead go to waste.....it's that pretty much how it is? Aborted is aborted right......as some say "what difference does it make"....

rowdy256 - 2015-07-15 7:51 PM

So sick and wrong and she is like no big deal!! Godless IMHO

BLM - 2015-07-14 9:33 PM


First off, the baby is birthed, fully alive, except the head. Then, while still alive, it is stabbed in the back of the head and the brains suctioned out, skull crushed. There is absolutely NO reason for a partial birth abortion, such as "saving the life of the mother" as the baby is pretty much delivered already. They are purposely turning the babies to extract them this way. It is MONSTEROUS! Babies at 24 weeks are viable and feel pain!! What is wrong with people!
 

Bear - 2015-07-15 9:26 PM All you need to know about this is what you see when that beast is shoveling in her food like a starving lion, and drinking wine like a camel, as she describes her technique, along with the business aspects of their racket. They can claim its a hoax and say its been "doctored", but the video tells us all we need to know. This puts Joseph Mengele to shame.

TrailGirl - 2015-07-16 10:35 AM

Sorry....I certainly do not see her callous nature as "irrelevant".

oija - 2015-07-16 10:52 AM


I didn't say what many will see as callousness as irrelevant. I said her meal was.

horsesinharleton - 2015-07-16 11:01 AM


I don't care if she was sitting down for a meal, what she was eating or drinking, or if she was on a casual trail ride... it was WHAT she said that is the issue with me!!

oija - 2015-07-16 11:03 AM


Which is what I was asking people to focus on. Look at the first page and the number of comments on her meal though.

oija - 2015-07-16 11:03 AM


Which is what I was asking people to focus on. Look at the first page and the number of comments on her meal though.

oija - 2015-07-16 10:31 AM

To get away, just a minute, from the overly emotional appeals and prevent a different perspective. This may have been a poor venue choice or not. Most people are more relaxed over a meal. Plenty of pro lifers like to eat salads and drink wine too. Her meal choices have NOTHING to do with this issue. Many of us watch starving children eat on television or watch people eat on sitcoms and somehow this is not disgusting. If this bothers you, it bothers you that someone who is opposed to your point of view treats it more casually or views the life of a child as valuable for other reasons, like saving the life of a child that has already been born, than what you personally think. You would find the topic disgusting no matter what. You just find it disturbing that she can treat it casually enough that she can discuss it while she eats. What she is eating and honestly the fact that she is eating is IRRELEVANT. Many medical professionals, my mother included as she is a nurse, have strong stomachs and can discuss topics over lunch that might turn many of our stomachs. If you want to discuss the issue, then discuss the issue, not her meal.

That being said. The parents with the premature baby born at 28 weeks that they have prayed and wished for may truly appreciate the fact that these organs are there in the first place to save their son or daughter. A life may be lost and another one saved.

Please just remember these points when you are discussing the issue.

Personally I'm not a fan of abortions. I'm a huge major fan of family planning and handing out condoms like its going out of style. But when we discuss these issues we do a disservice not to consider all sides of the issue with some logic, not just emotion, and to separate out the irrelevant bits. We do not want to be like politicians, throwing out red herrings to distract from the central issue. Frankly a video of heart surgery or a heart transplant, especially from a beating heart cadaver, is also disturbing to many people but it saves lives.

Be against this issue because you hate to see a life, any life, cut short. Don't be against it because the doctor is eating and the procedure is hard to look at.

TrailGirl - 2015-07-16 11:24 AM


The fact that she is talking about this casually over a meal IS relevant. It speaks to her absolute comfort with the topic. While a heart transplant surgeon may be comfortable discussing his work over dinner...that is completely different. It's not just her comfort level with the blood/organs/tissues itself (I get that as I can discuss veterinary procedures all day eating a hamburger)...it's the fact that unlike the heart surgeon who is performing a life saving procedure...she is discussing the best means to kill an infant in order to keep it's parts useful for sale. See the difference? See why context matters?

Bear - 2015-07-16 11:55 AM


Handing out condoms is a cheap ploy....a ruse. Condoms are cheap.....go out and buy your own condoms. They hand out condoms so people can talk about how wonderful they are. It's a marketing tool. For that matter, I think birth control, in general, ought to be the responsibility of those who decide they need it. Why should hard working taxpayers be expected to provide free birth control? That money would be much better spent educating idiots on basic communication skills like grammar and spelling, because it would benefit society in general. If someone decides they want to have an abortion, that is their right. They are the ones who will have to live with it. They should also be fully aware that they are terminating life. They should be aware that those unborn babies can perceive pain much earlier than once thought. They should also be aware of how abortions are performed, particularly late term abortions. They need to know that the baby squirms and writhes as the baby is crushed, dismembered, mascerated, and pithed. They need to realize that there's a significant chance they will have to deal with the psychological after effects, possibly for a very long time.

What I found to be most disturbing about this video was how the woman callously described the gruesome technical details while eating. If you don't find that at least a little disturbing, then I have to wonder about you.
For 18 years, as part of a transplant team, I participated in organ procurement on organ donors. Even though their hearts were beating and they looked very much alive, they were brain dead. Without fail, the procedure was conducted as a very solemn procedure. Our behavior and conduct in that operating room was dignified and everyone felt gratified that some family was willing to donate the organs of a loved one. It really is a sight to behold, and nothing illustrates the better angels of our nature, as human beings. Deep inside, in a certain way, we also viewed it as a joyous occasion, because we knew the organs we harvested could save countless lives. The family also found consolation in knowing that their loved one was a hero in death to many people. That provided lasting comfort to them, in an otherwise very sad day. This is why I was appalled with the woman in the video. We conducted ourselves with dignity and respect. We didn't play our usual music, and nobody told jokes. We behaved as if we were under the watchful eye of that donor's family. I'll never forget the imagery of a 12 year old boy who was a donor. As I finished removing his heart, I looked over the drapes at his face, and over at his arm on the IV board. He had fallen out of a treehouse earlier that day. He still had Popsicle stains around his pink lips. He had a bandaid on his hand from a scrape he sustained probably several days earlier. He still had a washable bubblegum tattoo of a cartoon figure on his forearm. He was someone's pride and joy and very much loved. I later met the family and witnessed their joy and sadness at the same time, something a person can find hard to comprehend......until it happens to them.
I would never ever allow a doctor this cold and calloused in my operating room. She wouldn't understand.....she wouldn't fit in.

oija - 2015-07-16 12:35 PM.... We should not dehumanize her and talk about her like she is an animal at a trough with no human feeling anymore than she should appear to dehumanize the lives of the children that are lost through abortion.

oija - 2015-07-16 10:31 AM That being said. The parents with the premature baby born at 28 weeks that they have prayed and wished for may truly appreciate the fact that these organs are there in the first place to save their son or daughter.

TXBO - 2015-07-16 1:45 PM Anyone that treats the body parts of a living human being, at any age, as a comodity is an animal. 

Bear - 2015-07-16 11:55 AM Handing out condoms is a cheap ploy....a ruse. Condoms are cheap.....go out and buy your own condoms. They hand out condoms so people can talk about how wonderful they are. It's a marketing tool. For that matter, I think birth control, in general, ought to be the responsibility of those who decide they need it. Why should hard working taxpayers be expected to provide free birth control? That money would be much better spent educating idiots on basic communication skills like grammar and spelling, because it would benefit society in general. If someone decides they want to have an abortion, that is their right. They are the ones who will have to live with it. They should also be fully aware that they are terminating life. They should be aware that those unborn babies can perceive pain much earlier than once thought. They should also be aware of how abortions are performed, particularly late term abortions. They need to know that the baby squirms and writhes as the baby is crushed, dismembered, mascerated, and pithed. They need to realize that there's a significant chance they will have to deal with the psychological after effects, possibly for a very long time. What I found to be most disturbing about this video was how the woman callously described the gruesome technical details while eating. If you don't find that at least a little disturbing, then I have to wonder about you. For 18 years, as part of a transplant team, I participated in organ procurement on organ donors. Even though their hearts were beating and they looked very much alive, they were brain dead. Without fail, the procedure was conducted as a very solemn procedure. Our behavior and conduct in that operating room was dignified and everyone felt gratified that some family was willing to donate the organs of a loved one. It really is a sight to behold, and nothing illustrates the better angels of our nature, as human beings. Deep inside, in a certain way, we also viewed it as a joyous occasion, because we knew the organs we harvested could save countless lives. The family also found consolation in knowing that their loved one was a hero in death to many people. That provided lasting comfort to them, in an otherwise very sad day. This is why I was appalled with the woman in the video. We conducted ourselves with dignity and respect. We didn't play our usual music, and nobody told jokes. We behaved as if we were under the watchful eye of that donor's family. I'll never forget the imagery of a 12 year old boy who was a donor. As I finished removing his heart, I looked over the drapes at his face, and over at his arm on the IV board. He had fallen out of a treehouse earlier that day. He still had Popsicle stains around his pink lips. He had a bandaid on his hand from a scrape he sustained probably several days earlier. He still had a washable bubblegum tattoo of a cartoon figure on his forearm. He was someone's pride and joy and very much loved. I later met the family and witnessed their joy and sadness at the same time, something a person can find hard to comprehend......until it happens to them. I would never ever allow a doctor this cold and calloused in my operating room. She wouldn't understand.....she wouldn't fit in.

oija - 2015-07-16 12:35 PM


To the person who can't afford a box of condoms and probably can't afford a kid either or treatment for STDs, that condom may make a real difference. Better a condom than an abortion, cheaper too. And marketing can work. We all became convinced we needed diamond engagement rings because of marketing, silly as that may be. If marketing can make someone use a condom then hallelujah. Taxpayers paying for biirth control is a completely different issue. I never said anything about the government needing to fund it. Private groups can hand these out as easily as public ones.

I totally agree on the point that we should treat any of these issues and any lives connected with them with dignity and respect. I just firmly believe that whether she were eating or not that people who disagree with her views are going to see her as callous due to her tone of voice and opinions. I believe that she has given herself some emotional distance from this procedure as a survival skill and this comes across; it would come across in any context. I think it is more pertinent to talk about the issue and the procedure than her meal.

When we simply attack her as completely disgusting we are engaging in an ad hominem attack, criticizing the person and not the issue. She is not disgusting though her attitude may be. She is a fully developed human being who believes that what she is doing helps other people. Anyone has the right to disagree with her. Don't attack the person, attack the problem. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

We should not dehumanize her and talk about her like she is an animal at a trough with no human feeling anymore than she should appear to dehumanize the lives of the children that are lost through abortion. She would talk about the technical details the same in any context though I am convinced and seem cold thus I still firmly believe that the meal is irrelevant.

mlh0972 - 2015-07-16 1:00 PM

I do not agree with this video and think it is sooo disgusting and WRONG! Whether it is real or a fake I don't care. It's wrong.

Now what I do have to say is this.

I do not agree with abortion from my own stand point but I do not agree that old men is Washington should have a say over any part of my body whether they see it as being right or wrong. Once again I don't think abortion is right but I won't stop someone from doing it, not my place at this point in time it is legal and they have the right to do it. I do have to say is that I think planned parenthood is a great resource to many people, myself included! I have used there services multiple times. I have bought BC from them, condoms, std tests, all the above. I have utilized their resources so that I could prevent myself from being in a situation where the thought of abortion may come into play.

Now I am not defending this video, woman, or abortion. I am simply stating that the resources, outside of abortion, that planned parenthood provides is a great choice. Before obamacare I didn't have insurance and couldn't afford a doctor. I chose planned parenthood because it was affordable and the smart thing to do so that I wouldn't end up with a child I couldn't afford. I should state that while going to planned parenthood I was and still am in a long term healthy relationship with ONE man. I believe in safe sex and the knowledge of being able to participate in safe consensual sex. If someone wants to go out and screw 100 men then that is their choice, but I would much rather they be smart and safe and have access to places like planned parenthood as a before and not a after option.

Once again, not defending abortion simply stating that Planned parenthood provides resources outside of abortion that have saved women from having an abortion. If planned parenthood did away with abortions it would not bother me once but I do think we need places like planned parenthood to provide healthy resources to girls and boys who otherwise can not afford traditional sex care.

Bear - 2015-07-16 11:55 AM Handing out condoms is a cheap ploy....a ruse. Condoms are cheap.....go out and buy your own condoms. They hand out condoms so people can talk about how wonderful they are. It's a marketing tool. For that matter, I think birth control, in general, ought to be the responsibility of those who decide they need it. Why should hard working taxpayers be expected to provide free birth control? That money would be much better spent educating idiots on basic communication skills like grammar and spelling, because it would benefit society in general. If someone decides they want to have an abortion, that is their right. They are the ones who will have to live with it. They should also be fully aware that they are terminating life. They should be aware that those unborn babies can perceive pain much earlier than once thought. They should also be aware of how abortions are performed, particularly late term abortions. They need to know that the baby squirms and writhes as the baby is crushed, dismembered, mascerated, and pithed. They need to realize that there's a significant chance they will have to deal with the psychological after effects, possibly for a very long time. What I found to be most disturbing about this video was how the woman callously described the gruesome technical details while eating. If you don't find that at least a little disturbing, then I have to wonder about you. For 18 years, as part of a transplant team, I participated in organ procurement on organ donors. Even though their hearts were beating and they looked very much alive, they were brain dead. Without fail, the procedure was conducted as a very solemn procedure. Our behavior and conduct in that operating room was dignified and everyone felt gratified that some family was willing to donate the organs of a loved one. It really is a sight to behold, and nothing illustrates the better angels of our nature, as human beings. Deep inside, in a certain way, we also viewed it as a joyous occasion, because we knew the organs we harvested could save countless lives. The family also found consolation in knowing that their loved one was a hero in death to many people. That provided lasting comfort to them, in an otherwise very sad day. This is why I was appalled with the woman in the video. We conducted ourselves with dignity and respect. We didn't play our usual music, and nobody told jokes. We behaved as if we were under the watchful eye of that donor's family. I'll never forget the imagery of a 12 year old boy who was a donor. As I finished removing his heart, I looked over the drapes at his face, and over at his arm on the IV board. He had fallen out of a treehouse earlier that day. He still had Popsicle stains around his pink lips. He had a bandaid on his hand from a scrape he sustained probably several days earlier. He still had a washable bubblegum tattoo of a cartoon figure on his forearm. He was someone's pride and joy and very much loved. I later met the family and witnessed their joy and sadness at the same time, something a person can find hard to comprehend......until it happens to them. I would never ever allow a doctor this cold and calloused in my operating room. She wouldn't understand.....she wouldn't fit in.

TXBO - 2015-07-16 12:45 PM Anyone that treats the body parts of a living human being, at any age, as a comodity is an animal. 

mcdaniel14 - 2015-07-16 11:01 AM

we watched part of this last night and i am absolutely disgusted PP needs to be defunded! life starts at conception! this lady acts like it is no big deal at all! i am sure that there are plenty of loving families that would love to adopt these innocent babies!

cheryl makofka - 2015-07-16 2:24 PM


Sorry but your comment disturbs me. I respect you are pro life, but if there are so many families looking to adopt, then why are there so many children in foster homes?

How many children have been removed from families via social services, how many people have been convicted of abusing their own child.

To me abortion can save these unwanted children from a life of pain.

I also have an issue with someone dictating what a woman should do with her body, sometimes pregnancies are undetected till later in pregnancy, I know one person who kept going back to the doc for abdominal cramping, blood and urine pregnancy tests were negative, it wasn't till an abdominal ultrasound confirmed she was 7 months pregnant.

If abortion becomes outlawed, then women have no rights.

cheryl makofka - 2015-07-16 12:24 PM


Sorry but your comment disturbs me. I respect you are pro life, but if there are so many families looking to adopt, then why are there so many children in foster homes?

How many children have been removed from families via social services, how many people have been convicted of abusing their own child.

To me abortion can save these unwanted children from a life of pain.

I also have an issue with someone dictating what a woman should do with her body, sometimes pregnancies are undetected till later in pregnancy, I know one person who kept going back to the doc for abdominal cramping, blood and urine pregnancy tests were negative, it wasn't till an abdominal ultrasound confirmed she was 7 months pregnant.

If abortion becomes outlawed, then women have no rights.

Bear - 2015-07-16 1:23 PM What is "traditional sex care"? Am I missing something? Who made that one up? Providing free condoms is now part of "traditional sex care"?

barrelracr131 - 2015-07-16 2:55 PM


I think she was referring to reproductive health care, of which one part is birth control.

Any sexually active woman or woman after puberty should be seeing a gynecologist for regular health screenings. 

Personally, I think they should pay for their own care, but I was answering your question with my opinion of her intended meaning of that statement. 

cheryl makofka - 2015-07-16 2:24 PM Sorry but your comment disturbs me. I respect you are pro life, but if there are so many families looking to adopt, then why are there so many children in foster homes? How many children have been removed from families via social services, how many people have been convicted of abusing their own child. To me abortion can save these unwanted children from a life of pain. I also have an issue with someone dictating what a woman should do with her body, sometimes pregnancies are undetected till later in pregnancy, I know one person who kept going back to the doc for abdominal cramping, blood and urine pregnancy tests were negative, it wasn't till an abdominal ultrasound confirmed she was 7 months pregnant. If abortion becomes outlawed, then women have no rights.

barrelracr131 - 2015-07-16 2:55 PM


I think she was referring to reproductive health care, of which one part is birth control.

Any sexually active woman or woman after puberty should be seeing a gynecologist for regular health screenings. 

Personally, I think they should pay for their own care, but I was answering your question with my opinion of her intended meaning of that statement. 

cheryl makofka - 2015-07-16 2:24 PM


Sorry but your comment disturbs me. I respect you are pro life, but if there are so many families looking to adopt, then why are there so many children in foster homes?

How many children have been removed from families via social services, how many people have been convicted of abusing their own child.

To me abortion can save these unwanted children from a life of pain.

I also have an issue with someone dictating what a woman should do with her body, sometimes pregnancies are undetected till later in pregnancy, I know one person who kept going back to the doc for abdominal cramping, blood and urine pregnancy tests were negative, it wasn't till an abdominal ultrasound confirmed she was 7 months pregnant.

If abortion becomes outlawed, then women have no rights.

Bear - 2015-07-16 1:03 PM


You seem to be fixated on the meal. Her eating and swilling wine was part of the imagery. Most if us couldn't do that very easily, given the topic of discussion and her description of the procedure. You are right in that some people can do what she did. Joseph Mengela is one example. I know I couldn't.
If it helps you to focus on the subject, I'd suggest you just forget the meal.

cheryl makofka - 2015-07-16 2:24 PM


Sorry but your comment disturbs me. I respect you are pro life, but if there are so many families looking to adopt, then why are there so many children in foster homes?

How many children have been removed from families via social services, how many people have been convicted of abusing their own child.

To me abortion can save these unwanted children from a life of pain.

I also have an issue with someone dictating what a woman should do with her body, sometimes pregnancies are undetected till later in pregnancy, I know one person who kept going back to the doc for abdominal cramping, blood and urine pregnancy tests were negative, it wasn't till an abdominal ultrasound confirmed she was 7 months pregnant.

If abortion becomes outlawed, then women have no rights.

GLP - 2015-07-16 2:37 PM I get offended by smart women sinking to the "if you take away my right to abortion, I will lose all my rights" bulls**t.

Bear - 2015-07-16 3:36 PM So why "traditional"? How about "health care" or "women's health care"? This sounds too much like something some RN with an MBA in "health care administration" contrived. Now we have "traditional sex care"? Oyy

cheryl makofka - 2015-07-16 2:24 PM


Sorry but your comment disturbs me. I respect you are pro life, but if there are so many families looking to adopt, then why are there so many children in foster homes?

How many children have been removed from families via social services, how many people have been convicted of abusing their own child.

To me abortion can save these unwanted children from a life of pain.

I also have an issue with someone dictating what a woman should do with her body, sometimes pregnancies are undetected till later in pregnancy, I know one person who kept going back to the doc for abdominal cramping, blood and urine pregnancy tests were negative, it wasn't till an abdominal ultrasound confirmed she was 7 months pregnant.

If abortion becomes outlawed, then women have no rights.

GLP - 2015-07-17 1:37 PM I get offended by smart women sinking to the "if you take away my right to abortion, I will lose all my rights" bulls**t.

TXBO - 2015-07-16 12:48 PM


 How can that be?  Abortions only remove inviable tissue mass.  There can't be any useful developed organs.

oija - 2015-07-16 3:50 PM


That WAS what I was suggesting. That everyone talk about the issue and not her meal, and then everyone tried to defend the fact that the context of the interview is more important. The whole point is she is going to come across as cold and callous in any interview, period. I just thought the hateful comments about her meal were uncalled for and a distraction from the actual issue.

I hate it when people fall for basic logical fallacies in any type of political discussions. People do it all the time during elections with negative campaigning. Distract everybody with whatever dirt we can dig up on such and such a candidate so that voters don't pay attention to what the candidate thinks about the issue. I frankly don't care if a politician got a BJ or a DUI at 20. I do care what they think about foreign affairs, military spending, and education. I don't care about whether or not this woman was eating; I care about what she thinks and says about abortion and late term abortions more. When we get distracted with the drivel, it keeps us from calling our politicians to order on those things that really need addressed. So when I see someone doing it over any political issue, no matter my personal feelings on the matter, you can be sure I'm going to point it out. I hate it when any group from any side behaves in such a manner. We are better than that.

oija - 2015-07-16 4:10 PM


Totally unrelated point. You are trying to attack the common argument that abortions are performed because the ones involved do not think it is a 'life,' which might be pertinent except the particular discussion and video under discussion is about late term abortions. In late term abortions certain organs are certainly viable for donation. It is one of the major points the woman addresses. One does not have to think of organs as a commodity at all to recognize the value of needed organs or tissue for another child who needs that organ. I would much rather such organs be obtained in another fashion than late term abortions, but it is certainly part of the argument that people who are in support of late term abortions do use to defend their position.

Bear - 2015-07-16 4:24 PM


You are wrong. These organs were procured for research, not transplantation. We don't use organs from babies that were terminated prematurely in transplantation......not yet anyway. Nobody knowledgeable will say that organs for transplantation is one reason to support late term abortion, because they aren't used for that purpose.

oija - 2015-07-16 4:10 PM Totally unrelated point. You are trying to attack the common argument that abortions are performed because the ones involved do not think it is a 'life,' which might be pertinent except the particular discussion and video under discussion is about late term abortions. In late term abortions certain organs are certainly viable for donation. It is one of the major points the woman addresses. One does not have to think of organs as a commodity at all to recognize the value of needed organs or tissue for another child who needs that organ. I would much rather such organs be obtained in another fashion than late term abortions, but it is certainly part of the argument that people who are in support of late term abortions do use to defend their position.

foundation horse - 2015-07-16 9:12 PM I would recommend Folks research (a simple google search will suffice) the name Margaret Sanger and review the origin of abortion and purpose...................................Especially those who purport 'Women's Right to Choose'. Then please look in the mirror at One's Self and see/who looks back!

Bear - 2015-07-16 3:43 PM


Without abortion, women have no rights? Really? I think a lot of people are crying out that those babies have no rights. What do you say to them?

If a woman is 22 weeks pregnant and her boyfriend shoots her in the abdomen, killing the unborn baby, but not the mom, is that murder?

cheryl makofka - 2015-07-16 11:44 PM


If women loose the right to make a decision on whether to have an abortion is the beginning or loosing women's rights.

Why I believe this if abortion is outlawed, then women's, health and right to choose is superseded by an unborn fetus that has the same characteristics of a parasite, it is feeding off of the woman.

Since the fetus is protected, then society/government will be deciding what a pregnant woman can and can't do, ie alcohol (no sustainable proof on how much, at what stage, etc this is why abstinence is best but many children are born from mothers who have consumed some alcohol), riding horses, due to the fetus well being is more important then the mother we will not be allowed. It becomes a slippery slope when the fetus rights are more important then a woman's.

Also during delivery there are risks and adverse effects to delivering a child, if abortion is outlawed it can be seen as torture, drugs, epidurals, during labor and delivery have negative effects on the fetus during the delivery and after, since the fetus is more important, the woman will be forced to go through delivery without anything.

Ongoing bladder problems, tearing, episiotomy, emergency c section (if the fetus has more rights elective c sections will be outlawed as evidence suggests it has adverse effects to the child)

This is all possible if the fetus rights are put before women's rights

As for your murder comment, as the way the law reads in my country a fetus does not become a living being until they take their first breath of air, so no I don't see this as murder, but I do know that some courts have ruled it is murder, and I also know some courts have already taken away women's rights to protect the fetus (incarcerating due to drug or alcohol use till fetus is born).

This also comes down to religion. We have the freedom of religion, and most people do not believe in abortion due to religious reasons. This is also a way these religions are shoving their religion down a woman's throat so to speak. I have noticed religious organizations who use graphic images, and attempt to shame the individual into going through with the pregnancy.

As for the people crying out for the unborn babies rights, they are not a baby, they are a fetus. Again this boils down to beliefs, culture, and values. As I said the law in my country does not consider a fetus a human till it takes it's first breath of air, not sure on the laws in the USA, this is what I go by.

Again I think abortion may be the lesser of two evils, I have seen a baby born with physical deformities, a laundry list of medical issues in foster care because the mom was on hard core drugs throughout the entire pregnancy.

I will also comment on the comment that says she believes all fetuses born would be adopted.

Sadly where I live this is not the case, families only want healthy babies, some families are gender specific too. I am an advocate for adoption, my neighbours adopted two boys, and during their application they stated no drugs no alcohol prenatally. Who wants a one eyed multiple medical issue baby when a healthy child is the same price? It is also cheaper to adopt abroad, when my neighbours adopted it was 10k/child this was 18 yrs ago and this includes all the lawyer fees and was a public adoption.

Also more people are leaning more to surrogacy or egg/sperm banks as a surrogate mother is used when the individual cannot carry their own child or don't want to this way this child is genetically theirs. Egg/sperm banks if one is infertile, atleast the child genetic make up is half family. Also an easy option for a single parent, or homosexual couple looking to start a family.

There are so many other options besides adoption that are less stressful, less time consuming, and immediate results so no I don't believe all infants would be adopted.

I also believe it would be cheaper for the government to perform the abortions free versus caring for an unwanted child for 18 yrs. This also needs to be considered if abortion is outlawed who is going to fund all medical, and social (housing, feed, schooling) costs that each child would incur

cheryl makofka - 2015-07-16 10:44 PM If women loose the right to make a decision on whether to have an abortion is the beginning or loosing women's rights. Why I believe this if abortion is outlawed, then women's, health and right to choose is superseded by an unborn fetus that has the same characteristics of a parasite, it is feeding off of the woman. Since the fetus is protected, then society/government will be deciding what a pregnant woman can and can't do, ie alcohol (no sustainable proof on how much, at what stage, etc this is why abstinence is best but many children are born from mothers who have consumed some alcohol), riding horses, due to the fetus well being is more important then the mother we will not be allowed. It becomes a slippery slope when the fetus rights are more important then a woman's. Also during delivery there are risks and adverse effects to delivering a child, if abortion is outlawed it can be seen as torture, drugs, epidurals, during labor and delivery have negative effects on the fetus during the delivery and after, since the fetus is more important, the woman will be forced to go through delivery without anything. Ongoing bladder problems, tearing, episiotomy, emergency c section (if the fetus has more rights elective c sections will be outlawed as evidence suggests it has adverse effects to the child) This is all possible if the fetus rights are put before women's rights As for your murder comment, as the way the law reads in my country a fetus does not become a living being until they take their first breath of air, so no I don't see this as murder, but I do know that some courts have ruled it is murder, and I also know some courts have already taken away women's rights to protect the fetus (incarcerating due to drug or alcohol use till fetus is born). This also comes down to religion. We have the freedom of religion, and most people do not believe in abortion due to religious reasons. This is also a way these religions are shoving their religion down a woman's throat so to speak. I have noticed religious organizations who use graphic images, and attempt to shame the individual into going through with the pregnancy. As for the people crying out for the unborn babies rights, they are not a baby, they are a fetus. Again this boils down to beliefs, culture, and values. As I said the law in my country does not consider a fetus a human till it takes it's first breath of air, not sure on the laws in the USA, this is what I go by. Again I think abortion may be the lesser of two evils, I have seen a baby born with physical deformities, a laundry list of medical issues in foster care because the mom was on hard core drugs throughout the entire pregnancy. I will also comment on the comment that says she believes all fetuses born would be adopted. Sadly where I live this is not the case, families only want healthy babies, some families are gender specific too. I am an advocate for adoption, my neighbours adopted two boys, and during their application they stated no drugs no alcohol prenatally. Who wants a one eyed multiple medical issue baby when a healthy child is the same price? It is also cheaper to adopt abroad, when my neighbours adopted it was 10k/child this was 18 yrs ago and this includes all the lawyer fees and was a public adoption. Also more people are leaning more to surrogacy or egg/sperm banks as a surrogate mother is used when the individual cannot carry their own child or don't want to this way this child is genetically theirs. Egg/sperm banks if one is infertile, atleast the child genetic make up is half family. Also an easy option for a single parent, or homosexual couple looking to start a family. There are so many other options besides adoption that are less stressful, less time consuming, and immediate results so no I don't believe all infants would be adopted. I also believe it would be cheaper for the government to perform the abortions free versus caring for an unwanted child for 18 yrs. This also needs to be considered if abortion is outlawed who is going to fund all medical, and social (housing, feed, schooling) costs that each child would incur

heartswideopen - 2015-07-17 2:12 AM

 In this country we already fund people for 18 years when their parents cannot carry them (and in some cases up to 27 years old per the new Obamacare). It's called taxation. We tax those who work and who hold assets and we allow the "not so motivated" to continue to engage in unwanted pregnancy and continue to have abortion, after abortion, after abortion. If a woman has had one abortion, it is likely that she has had multiple.   

The problem with the arguments you present as "solutions" are not liberal in nature, but are deeply steeped in socialism.   
No one is this country is arguing that a woman's immediate health should be secondary to that of her fetus. In fact, by allowing abortion to act as an insurance policy against unwanted pregnancy, this country has watched its rate of venereal disease increase which as you seem to know, leads to more than a modicum of health problems associated not just with the reproduction system, but also with the immune system and general physiology.  

What we are arguing is that the mass slaughter of children is unethical.  For many it has nothing to do with religion, but has everything to do with ethics and moral obligation not to a deity, but to piece of mind and to humanity itself.   What separates us from animals is our humanity, our ability to formulate and reason using a moral and ethical compass as a means to differentiate between right and wrong.  Abortions end life. Taking life is murder. Thus, in every sense of the word, they are UNETHICAL and they defile the very nature of humanity.

Since you quoted several medical arguments, I suppose you're also familiar with cell migration (fetomaternal microchimerism). In cell adhesion and migration the pluripotent cells of a fetus will attempt to aid any wound or affliction the mother incurs, even preventing aging and will persist within the mother's system over the course of more than two decades, but in the opposite and predatory manner, a mother who aborts her child commits absolute treachery since she willingly harms the thing that would so generously give her life. 

 We DO NOT better society by REMOVING or ELIMINATING the poor, the afflicted, or those who are worse off. As others have commented, doing so is no better than the grotesque practices of Dr. Mengele.  We do not believe in the extermination of those in suffering third world nations, so why do Pro-Choicers condone the extermination of those who are unborn? Seems to me this goes against sociological  theory and greatly defies any human rights doctrine. 

You also argue that women should be freed of  responsibility to an unwanted child, but what frees the taxpayer from the responsibility of a unknown child, or the humanist the ethical responsibility? 

You also speak of torture, and as such, how can you argue that abortion to the child is not torture when ultrasound abortions show a child moving away and even screaming (Google the infamous Silent Scream) in pain?  If we look to female infanticide within developing nations such as a China and India, often performed against the pleas of the mother, how can you not call abortion torture? 

Also the argument you make for crime rates being decreased as a result of abortion, is FALSE. The data for that argument is also dated. There is simply correlation and no empirical evidence to suggest CAUSATION.  Anyone with any sort of background in statistical inference can tell you that without the empirical evidence you cannot infer causation simply given correlation.   
In fact, the evidence against the +abortion/-crime argument has strong statistical refutation. Had abortion been a cause for reduced crime, we would have seen among the population who generally commits crime (males 17-25), that the crime rate by this demographic would have DROPPED first.  This was NOT the case. Instead, crimes committed by OLDER rather than younger Americans declined first. We also see evidence in other countries such as England which legalized abortion in 1968. Fast forward 18 years to 1985, however, when the crime rate should have fallen (per the argument that abortion leads to reduced crime), violent crime in England instead increased.  

If we DO use non-refuted empirical evidence, we can look to developmental economics for predictors of the very long term effects of abortion; we can again look to the fertility replacement rate. In the developing world, high child mortality rates are positively correlated with how many additional children will be born to a mother throughout her child bearing years. In this rare case, we CAN infer causation from correlation:  the higher the mortality rate, the more children a woman will bear throughout her life.  We don't see this same pattern in the developed world as NATURAL child mortality is low,  however, by artificially INDUCING means of child mortality we open Pandora's Box and flip an economic switch. 

 If we flip the switch as a nation which has exported its industrial sector and increasingly demands HIGH skilled labor, with abortion ==> high artificial mortality ==> increased birth rate among young women, we land up with low-skilled laborers producing more children, while high skilled laborers have fewer children, greater income, and less economic burden. Again, this is empirically backed. The more education a female receives, the LESS children she will have.  In this country it is currently easier to have children and obtain a welfare check than it is to go to college. Thus,  If we live in a service-based economy such as the U.S. (and most developed nations) and also have an aging population, by allowing for abortion, we increase the rate at which women will continue to have MORE children and LESS education. Thus, by allowing for a large population of low skilled labor, and conversely a low population of high skilled labor, we have a recipe for economic disaster and we further stratify the social classes and increase the income gap.  

So while abortion might work in the long term, over the very long term, you induce women to have more births over the course of her child bearing years than she would have had had the option for an abortion never been present.  

Now I don't believe abortion should be outlawed, I think women should have to watch the procedure as it is revolting. I think most people feel this way, we simply do not condone the rampant abuse of the procedure and the for-profit market which has turned the procedure into an INDUSTRY. It's so very interesting to me that feminists are the ones behind Planned Parenthood, but they make no mention of the men who help create the babies.  In this country we have a program called the Maury Povich Show... Please Google it as it'll give you a better idea as to why people in this counttry are so upset about so called women's rights. Abortion does nothing to promote the well-being of women. It simply objectifies women and allows for a liberal-patriarchal system which upholds women as sex objects and genrates votes.  

I've presented you a very long, yet condensed argument which has no basis in religion. Such supposition is created in non-discerning citizens via the ploys of liberal controlled media outlets.  

TrailGirl - 2015-07-16 10:35 AM

Sorry....I certainly do not see her callous nature as "irrelevant".

heartswideopen - 2015-07-17 2:12 AM

 In this country we already fund people for 18 years when their parents cannot carry them (and in some cases up to 27 years old per the new Obamacare). It's called taxation. We tax those who work and who hold assets and we allow the "not so motivated" to continue to engage in unwanted pregnancy and continue to have abortion, after abortion, after abortion. If a woman has had one abortion, it is likely that she has had multiple.   

The problem with the arguments you present as "solutions" are not liberal in nature, but are deeply steeped in socialism.   
No one is this country is arguing that a woman's immediate health should be secondary to that of her fetus. In fact, by allowing abortion to act as an insurance policy against unwanted pregnancy, this country has watched its rate of venereal disease increase which as you seem to know, leads to more than a modicum of health problems associated not just with the reproduction system, but also with the immune system and general physiology.  

What we are arguing is that the mass slaughter of children is unethical.  For many it has nothing to do with religion, but has everything to do with ethics and moral obligation not to a deity, but to piece of mind and to humanity itself.   What separates us from animals is our humanity, our ability to formulate and reason using a moral and ethical compass as a means to differentiate between right and wrong.  Abortions end life. Taking life is murder. Thus, in every sense of the word, they are UNETHICAL and they defile the very nature of humanity.

Since you quoted several medical arguments, I suppose you're also familiar with cell migration (fetomaternal microchimerism). In cell adhesion and migration the pluripotent cells of a fetus will attempt to aid any wound or affliction the mother incurs, even preventing aging and will persist within the mother's system over the course of more than two decades, but in the opposite and predatory manner, a mother who aborts her child commits absolute treachery since she willingly harms the thing that would so generously give her life. 

 We DO NOT better society by REMOVING or ELIMINATING the poor, the afflicted, or those who are worse off. As others have commented, doing so is no better than the grotesque practices of Dr. Mengele.  We do not believe in the extermination of those in suffering third world nations, so why do Pro-Choicers condone the extermination of those who are unborn? Seems to me this goes against sociological  theory and greatly defies any human rights doctrine. 

You also argue that women should be freed of  responsibility to an unwanted child, but what frees the taxpayer from the responsibility of a unknown child, or the humanist the ethical responsibility? 

You also speak of torture, and as such, how can you argue that abortion to the child is not torture when ultrasound abortions show a child moving away and even screaming (Google the infamous Silent Scream) in pain?  If we look to female infanticide within developing nations such as a China and India, often performed against the pleas of the mother, how can you not call abortion torture? 

Also the argument you make for crime rates being decreased as a result of abortion, is FALSE. The data for that argument is also dated. There is simply correlation and no empirical evidence to suggest CAUSATION.  Anyone with any sort of background in statistical inference can tell you that without the empirical evidence you cannot infer causation simply given correlation.   
In fact, the evidence against the +abortion/-crime argument has strong statistical refutation. Had abortion been a cause for reduced crime, we would have seen among the population who generally commits crime (males 17-25), that the crime rate by this demographic would have DROPPED first.  This was NOT the case. Instead, crimes committed by OLDER rather than younger Americans declined first. We also see evidence in other countries such as England which legalized abortion in 1968. Fast forward 18 years to 1985, however, when the crime rate should have fallen (per the argument that abortion leads to reduced crime), violent crime in England instead increased.  

If we DO use non-refuted empirical evidence, we can look to developmental economics for predictors of the very long term effects of abortion; we can again look to the fertility replacement rate. In the developing world, high child mortality rates are positively correlated with how many additional children will be born to a mother throughout her child bearing years. In this rare case, we CAN infer causation from correlation:  the higher the mortality rate, the more children a woman will bear throughout her life.  We don't see this same pattern in the developed world as NATURAL child mortality is low,  however, by artificially INDUCING means of child mortality we open Pandora's Box and flip an economic switch. 

 If we flip the switch as a nation which has exported its industrial sector and increasingly demands HIGH skilled labor, with abortion ==> high artificial mortality ==> increased birth rate among young women, we land up with low-skilled laborers producing more children, while high skilled laborers have fewer children, greater income, and less economic burden. Again, this is empirically backed. The more education a female receives, the LESS children she will have.  In this country it is currently easier to have children and obtain a welfare check than it is to go to college. Thus,  If we live in a service-based economy such as the U.S. (and most developed nations) and also have an aging population, by allowing for abortion, we increase the rate at which women will continue to have MORE children and LESS education. Thus, by allowing for a large population of low skilled labor, and conversely a low population of high skilled labor, we have a recipe for economic disaster and we further stratify the social classes and increase the income gap.  

So while abortion might work in the long term, over the very long term, you induce women to have more births over the course of her child bearing years than she would have had had the option for an abortion never been present.  

Now I don't believe abortion should be outlawed, I think women should have to watch the procedure as it is revolting. I think most people feel this way, we simply do not condone the rampant abuse of the procedure and the for-profit market which has turned the procedure into an INDUSTRY. It's so very interesting to me that feminists are the ones behind Planned Parenthood, but they make no mention of the men who help create the babies.  In this country we have a program called the Maury Povich Show... Please Google it as it'll give you a better idea as to why people in this counttry are so upset about so called women's rights. Abortion does nothing to promote the well-being of women. It simply objectifies women and allows for a liberal-patriarchal system which upholds women as sex objects and genrates votes.  

I've presented you a very long, yet condensed argument which has no basis in religion. Such supposition is created in non-discerning citizens via the ploys of liberal controlled media outlets.  

Bear - 2015-07-17 8:44 AM Excellent.....well worth the read.

equussynergy - 2015-07-17 10:08 AM Best thread I've read on this subject in a long time!



 

oija - 2015-07-16 11:56 AM No I think she would come across as callous even without eating. I still find the meal irrelevant. I think it is being overplayed only because people feel so emotional about this topic. Abortion and her attitude is what matters, not her meal.

rodeomom3 - 2015-07-17 10:24 AM Ditto 

TrailGirl - 2015-07-16 11:24 AM The fact that she is talking about this casually over a meal IS relevant. It speaks to her absolute comfort with the topic. While a heart transplant surgeon may be comfortable discussing his work over dinner...that is completely different. It's not just her comfort level with the blood/organs/tissues itself (I get that as I can discuss veterinary procedures all day eating a hamburger)...it's the fact that unlike the heart surgeon who is performing a life saving procedure...she is discussing the best means to kill an infant in order to keep it's parts useful for sale. See the difference? See why context matters?

Cindy Hamilton - 2015-07-17 11:15 AM  AMEN....Abortion is the holy grail of the left and trumps EVERYTHING...oh yeah, but they are anti death penalty...huh???...just shows how screwed up they all are...

TXBO - 2015-07-17 11:34 AM You just got your second "like" from me today. 

Nevertooold - 2015-07-17 1:29 PM Heartswideopen...That was an awesome read. 



This part sure explains a lot of why this country is so screwed up.



If we flip the switch as a nation which has exported its industrial sector and increasingly demands HIGH skilled labor, with abortion ==> high artificial mortality ==> increased birth rate among young women, we land up with low-skilled laborers producing more children, while high skilled laborers have fewer children, greater income, and less economic burden. Again, this is empirically backed. The more education a female receives, the LESS children she will have.  In this country it is currently easier to have children and obtain a welfare check than it is to go to college. Thus,  If we live in a service-based economy such as the U.S. (and most developed nations) and also have an aging population, by allowing for abortion, we increase the rate at which women will continue to have MORE children and LESS education. Thus, by allowing for a large population of low skilled labor, and conversely a low population of high skilled labor, we have a recipe for economic disaster and we further stratify the social classes and increase the income gap.

 

3canstorun - 2015-07-17 1:16 PM JMO - but this paragraph alone needs to be sent to all news stations, papers, etc.  Anyone with any sense will read it and realize in a nutshell this is what is happening.  

 

 

Cindy Hamilton - 2015-07-17 10:28 AM


I didn't have time to read all of the posts, but if you don't get emotional over this topic and feel like it's being overplayed, you are beyond help.....I know there are people out there who can remain emotionless in the face of horrible tragedies, but they aren't the kind I want to know....there's something very cold about your acceptance of the circumstances surrounding this event, and I fear it's the same feeling that is overtaking the country and going to send us down the tubes....

oija - 2015-07-17 5:07 PM


This comment is inappropriate because you failed to read those posts. I never said the woman's attitude was acceptable. I said she would come across that way in any context. I simply said people comments should focus more on the issue of abortion than what the woman was eating.

ETA. The meal was overplayed on the first page. The post has largely corrected itself to the actual issue now which is a much more fruitful discussion.

oija - 2015-07-16 12:35 PM


To the person who can't afford a box of condoms and probably can't afford a kid either or treatment for STDs, that condom may make a real difference. Better a condom than an abortion, cheaper too. And marketing can work. We all became convinced we needed diamond engagement rings because of marketing, silly as that may be. If marketing can make someone use a condom then hallelujah. Taxpayers paying for biirth control is a completely different issue. I never said anything about the government needing to fund it. Private groups can hand these out as easily as public ones.

I totally agree on the point that we should treat any of these issues and any lives connected with them with dignity and respect. I just firmly believe that whether she were eating or not that people who disagree with her views are going to see her as callous due to her tone of voice and opinions. I believe that she has given herself some emotional distance from this procedure as a survival skill and this comes across; it would come across in any context. I think it is more pertinent to talk about the issue and the procedure than her meal.

When we simply attack her as completely disgusting we are engaging in an ad hominem attack, criticizing the person and not the issue. She is not disgusting though her attitude may be. She is a fully developed human being who believes that what she is doing helps other people. Anyone has the right to disagree with her. Don't attack the person, attack the problem. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

We should not dehumanize her and talk about her like she is an animal at a trough with no human feeling anymore than she should appear to dehumanize the lives of the children that are lost through abortion. She would talk about the technical details the same in any context though I am convinced and seem cold thus I still firmly believe that the meal is irrelevant.

Bear - 2015-07-16 11:55 AM


Handing out condoms is a cheap ploy....a ruse. Condoms are cheap.....go out and buy your own condoms. They hand out condoms so people can talk about how wonderful they are. It's a marketing tool. For that matter, I think birth control, in general, ought to be the responsibility of those who decide they need it. Why should hard working taxpayers be expected to provide free birth control? That money would be much better spent educating idiots on basic communication skills like grammar and spelling, because it would benefit society in general. If someone decides they want to have an abortion, that is their right. They are the ones who will have to live with it. They should also be fully aware that they are terminating life. They should be aware that those unborn babies can perceive pain much earlier than once thought. They should also be aware of how abortions are performed, particularly late term abortions. They need to know that the baby squirms and writhes as the baby is crushed, dismembered, mascerated, and pithed. They need to realize that there's a significant chance they will have to deal with the psychological after effects, possibly for a very long time.

What I found to be most disturbing about this video was how the woman callously described the gruesome technical details while eating. If you don't find that at least a little disturbing, then I have to wonder about you.
For 18 years, as part of a transplant team, I participated in organ procurement on organ donors. Even though their hearts were beating and they looked very much alive, they were brain dead. Without fail, the procedure was conducted as a very solemn procedure. Our behavior and conduct in that operating room was dignified and everyone felt gratified that some family was willing to donate the organs of a loved one. It really is a sight to behold, and nothing illustrates the better angels of our nature, as human beings. Deep inside, in a certain way, we also viewed it as a joyous occasion, because we knew the organs we harvested could save countless lives. The family also found consolation in knowing that their loved one was a hero in death to many people. That provided lasting comfort to them, in an otherwise very sad day. This is why I was appalled with the woman in the video. We conducted ourselves with dignity and respect. We didn't play our usual music, and nobody told jokes. We behaved as if we were under the watchful eye of that donor's family. I'll never forget the imagery of a 12 year old boy who was a donor. As I finished removing his heart, I looked over the drapes at his face, and over at his arm on the IV board. He had fallen out of a treehouse earlier that day. He still had Popsicle stains around his pink lips. He had a bandaid on his hand from a scrape he sustained probably several days earlier. He still had a washable bubblegum tattoo of a cartoon figure on his forearm. He was someone's pride and joy and very much loved. I later met the family and witnessed their joy and sadness at the same time, something a person can find hard to comprehend......until it happens to them.
I would never ever allow a doctor this cold and calloused in my operating room. She wouldn't understand.....she wouldn't fit in.

Bear - 2015-07-16 11:55 AM Handing out condoms is a cheap ploy....a ruse. Condoms are cheap.....go out and buy your own condoms. They hand out condoms so people can talk about how wonderful they are. It's a marketing tool. For that matter, I think birth control, in general, ought to be the responsibility of those who decide they need it. Why should hard working taxpayers be expected to provide free birth control? That money would be much better spent educating idiots on basic communication skills like grammar and spelling, because it would benefit society in general. If someone decides they want to have an abortion, that is their right. They are the ones who will have to live with it. They should also be fully aware that they are terminating life. They should be aware that those unborn babies can perceive pain much earlier than once thought. They should also be aware of how abortions are performed, particularly late term abortions. They need to know that the baby squirms and writhes as the baby is crushed, dismembered, mascerated, and pithed. They need to realize that there's a significant chance they will have to deal with the psychological after effects, possibly for a very long time. What I found to be most disturbing about this video was how the woman callously described the gruesome technical details while eating. If you don't find that at least a little disturbing, then I have to wonder about you. For 18 years, as part of a transplant team, I participated in organ procurement on organ donors. Even though their hearts were beating and they looked very much alive, they were brain dead. Without fail, the procedure was conducted as a very solemn procedure. Our behavior and conduct in that operating room was dignified and everyone felt gratified that some family was willing to donate the organs of a loved one. It really is a sight to behold, and nothing illustrates the better angels of our nature, as human beings. Deep inside, in a certain way, we also viewed it as a joyous occasion, because we knew the organs we harvested could save countless lives. The family also found consolation in knowing that their loved one was a hero in death to many people. That provided lasting comfort to them, in an otherwise very sad day. This is why I was appalled with the woman in the video. We conducted ourselves with dignity and respect. We didn't play our usual music, and nobody told jokes. We behaved as if we were under the watchful eye of that donor's family. I'll never forget the imagery of a 12 year old boy who was a donor. As I finished removing his heart, I looked over the drapes at his face, and over at his arm on the IV board. He had fallen out of a treehouse earlier that day. He still had Popsicle stains around his pink lips. He had a bandaid on his hand from a scrape he sustained probably several days earlier. He still had a washable bubblegum tattoo of a cartoon figure on his forearm. He was someone's pride and joy and very much loved. I later met the family and witnessed their joy and sadness at the same time, something a person can find hard to comprehend......until it happens to them. I would never ever allow a doctor this cold and calloused in my operating room. She wouldn't understand.....she wouldn't fit in.

Stitch4k9 - 2015-07-18 10:51 AM

Doc,
  
I have no doubt you were a great surg.  but your psych skills suck.  

The information I offered proves that education and low to no cost Birth Control works. 

Please feel free to rail on about Nazi's and free condoms.  Others are working to actually solve the problem. 

I am off to help at a low cost Rabies clinic and then help some kids get ready for fair.  Things I consider much more important than playing here.

karen

 

komet. - 2015-07-18 1:49 PM

Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services. They have done a lot of good over the years and I don't think we should trash the whole program because of this. I believe simply denying them the ability to perform abortions will fix this without denying the rest of the services to the poor.

Nevertooold - 2015-07-18 12:59 PM

This thread is about late term abortions and I know many aren't against early term abortions and if a mother has to wait until she is 17 weeks or longer to decide to terminate, she indeed needs a pysch test.

As far as a third world country, come down to southern Texas, we are already there and it has nothing to do with abortions, it's about all the illegals crossing our border and then you have lib cities like Detroit, Chicago and Baltimore where Libs have created their false utopias where people are taken care of by our government. You can't keep giving people stuff without teaching them how to make money to buy their own stuff. You can't continue to throw money at these problems. If a kid has no structure from the home, how can they have any structure in society? Where having illegitimate children is awarded by more welfare dollars, how do you expect these people to stop having them? Just like middle America has taught their children to work hard and make something of themselves, the lib ghettos continue to teach women to lay on their backs with numerous men and have illegitimate children to get more money. Don't even think of getting married and have a real family as the government dollars stop.

I believe in helping people that really need help, not the people that have been taught by generations before them to work the system and complain how whitey enslaved some of them over a hundred years ago, but be in denial that blacks are the ones that sold slaves to whitey and blacks.