And Then There Were None: Shutting Down the Abortion Industry Person by Person

  
Via:  Donald J. Trump fan 1  •  one week ago  •  303 comments

By:   Jerry Newcombe

And Then There Were None: Shutting Down the Abortion Industry Person by Person
Person by person, former abortion clinic manager Abby Johnson’s pro-life ministry is now emptying the abortion industry of its workers and helping women find a new livlihood and new life outside of that bloody business in the process.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

This is good news!  The national nightmare that is the killing of our innocent children in abortuaries is finally beginning to recede.  Pointing out Planned Parenthood for the barbarians that they are and convincing people one by one to leave the baby killing industry is good as is the states using regulations to bring these monsters under closer control and setting high health safety standards.  The federal rules preventing planned non parenthood from hiding their baby parts selling and abortions behind the facade of other women’s health services better provided elsewhere.  A good start.  Only a few days until the next pro life baby memorial rally in Washington DC.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


abby-j-701x394.jpg

Surge Summary:   Person by person, former abortion clinic manager Abby Johnson’s pro-life ministry is now emptying the abortion industry of its workers and helping women find a new livlihood and new life outside of that bloody business in the process. 

In 2008, Abby Johnson, the manager of the Bryan, Texas (100 miles from Houston) Planned Parenthood, became that organization’s Employee of the Year.

By 2009, she quit for conscience’ sake. Why?

That year, for the first time, she saw an ultrasound of an abortion of a 13-week old unborn child in her own clinic. This was not a blob of tissue, a clump of cells, a non-living being. This was a baby that was fighting for his life.

Although Abby Johnson was a good salesman of abortions and thought that she was helping women through her work, seeing that baby fighting for his life caused the scales to fall from her eyes.

Abby says that after she saw that ultrasound, “I knew that I had been part of a lie. I had been a part of a corrupt system, a corrupt organization, that really preyed upon women in their vulnerable states, and I knew that I needed to leave.”

She has now written a book (with Cindy Lambert) called  Unplanned , and PureFlix (“God’s Not Dead”) has now turned that book into an excellent movie.

Abby Johnson has also started an outreach, And Then There Were None (ATTWN), to help abortion workers leave the field. I have interviewed Abby  before  and have previously  written  about her story. But here is an update about ATTWN, since I interviewed for Christian television two of her assistants at ATTWN recently.

One of them is Meagan Weber, who told me, “[Abby] wrote her book hoping that a worker would pick it up as a skeptic and see the truth, and see themselves through her words, and within three months of her book’s release in 2011, she had 17 abortion workers contact her for help.”

In effect, Abby and those 17 workers became the beginning of her work to help transition abortion clinic workers out of the field. Her reasoning is simple. She says in her ATTWN website,  abortionworker.com , “We always say that nobody grows up wanting to work in the abortion industry. Nobody. Our vision statement for ‘And then there were none’ is ‘No abortion clinic workers, no abortion clinics, no abortions’—it starts with the workers. We see ourselves as being part of a pro-love movement. That we want to love these workers out of the clinics. We want to love them to a path of healing, and we want to love them back into a relationship with Jesus Christ.”

As an abortion worker, Abby Johnson had thought that what she was doing at Planned Parenthood was helping women. But she learned the hard way that the real bottom line of Planned Parenthood was its bottom line.

Weber, who serves as Abby Johnson’s Assistant, told me, “They asked her to increase the number of abortions at her facility by half, and so she said, ‘Don’t we tell the media that we want to reduce the number of abortions to make them safe, legal, and rare?’ And her supervisor laughed and said, ‘Well, Abbey, how do you think we make our money?’ And she really was blindsided by that.”

Weber also says, “Leaving your job in the abortion industry is not like leaving your job in a fast food outlet. It has the same high turnover rate, but you don’t just leave your job, you leave your friends, you leave your ideology…you go from one day championing women’s rights and abortion rights to the next day having to humble yourself and say, ‘I was wrong. I was part of a very evil system,’ and they have to come to terms with that. So there is a lot of emotional trauma, and there is abandonment.”

I also have spoken with Laura Ricketts of ATTWN for Christian television. She observed, “As we walk through the process of healing them, as we meet their practical needs with financial assistance, with resume writing, with jobs search help, as we help them pay their bills, get back on their feet, once their practical needs are met, they are ready to meet their emotion and spiritual needs.”

So far the organization has been able to help hundreds of clinic workers get out of the abortion field. Meagan states, “And so here we are seven years later, and we’ve helped 550 workers and 7 full-time doctors.”

The movie alone helped cause about a hundred abortion clinic workers to respond…to consider coming out. Ricketts told me, “I think one of the most exciting things about the movie is the impact it had across the country and now across the world. We saw hearts changed, abortion clinic workers leaving their jobs.”

Abby Johnson says, “My story is really an exposé. It’s pulling back the curtain into an industry that has been normalized. Abortion has been so incredibly normalized in our society, and it’s anything but normal.”

The views here are those of the author and not necessarily Daily Surge. 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1  seeder  XXJefferson#51    one week ago

Abby and those 17 workers became the beginning of her work to help transition abortion clinic workers out of the field. Her reasoning is simple. She says in her ATTWN website, abortionworker.com , “We always say that nobody grows up wanting to work in the abortion industry. Nobody. Our vision statement for ‘And then there were none’ is ‘No abortion clinic workers, no abortion clinics, no abortions’—it starts with the workers. We see ourselves as being part of a pro-love movement. That we want to love these workers out of the clinics. We want to love them to a path of healing, and we want to love them back into a relationship with Jesus Christ.”

As an abortion worker, Abby Johnson had thought that what she was doing at Planned Parenthood was helping women. But she learned the hard way that the real bottom line of Planned Parenthood was its bottom line.

Weber, who serves as Abby Johnson’s Assistant, told me, “They asked her to increase the number of abortions at her facility by half, and so she said, ‘Don’t we tell the media that we want to reduce the number of abortions to make them safe, legal, and rare?’ And her supervisor laughed and said, ‘Well, Abbey, how do you think we make our money?’ And she really was blindsided by that.”

Weber also says, “Leaving your job in the abortion industry is not like leaving your job in a fast food outlet. It has the same high turnover rate, but you don’t just leave your job, you leave your friends, you leave your ideology…you go from one day championing women’s rights and abortion rights to the next day having to humble yourself and say, ‘I was wrong. I was part of a very evil system,’ and they have to come to terms with that. So there is a lot of emotional trauma, and there is abandonment.”

I also have spoken with Laura Ricketts of ATTWN for Christian television. She observed, “As we walk through the process of healing them, as we meet their practical needs with financial assistance, with resume writing, with jobs search help, as we help them pay their bills, get back on their feet, once their practical needs are met, they are ready to meet their emotion and spiritual needs.”

So far the organization has been able to help hundreds of clinic workers get out of the abortion field. https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/7503/and-then-there-were-none-shutting-down-the-abortion-industry-person-by-person

 
 
 
charger 383
2  charger 383    one week ago

Why is a woman having an abortion anybody else's business?

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  charger 383 @2    one week ago

Because as a result a baby boy or girl who has no choice in the matter ceases to exist. But this article wasn’t about that.  

 
 
 
charger 383
2.1.1  charger 383  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1    one week ago

OK, that's off topic. Is this about less trained workers doing abortions safely?

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  charger 383 @2.1.1    one week ago

No.  It’s about getting to where there are no abortion workers at all to do one anywhere except a hospital to save the life of the mother.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
2.1.3  Sunshine  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1.2    one week ago
It’s about getting to where there are no abortion workers at all to do one anywhere except a hospital to save the life of the mother.  

Heartland my friend, women and young girls will have abortions regardless. It is important to give them safe medical care. 

 
 
 
charger 383
2.1.4  charger 383  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1.2    one week ago

Even if you make abortion illegal and unsafe you will not stop it.  Do you want young girls and woman to die or suffer injury from trying to solve their problem themselves? 

When I was in high school (long time ago) some unlucky girls almost died trying to give themselves abortions and some were successful and did it without injury

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1.5  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.3    one week ago

We have a lot of hospitals to take care of people’s health needs.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.6  Split Personality  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.3    one week ago

I think I broke Firefox when I voted that up.

100% agreed.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.3    one week ago

Well said Sunshine!

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1    one week ago
Because as a result a baby boy or girl who has no choice in the matter ceases to exist.

It's not a baby until it's born. And emotional (and factually incorrect) platitudes like that is not sufficient reason to deny a woman her rights!

No.  It’s about getting to where there are no abortion workers at all to do one anywhere except a hospital to save the life of the mother.  

Keep dreaming. As long as women have the legal right and desire for an abortion, there will be providers.

We have a lot of hospitals to take care of people’s health needs.  

Why use up hospital space, time, and resources (which can be utilized for more serious health issues/cases) when an outpatient clinic can handle something as simple as an abortion? That's just an inefficient use of resources.

 
 
 
bbl-1
3  bbl-1    one week ago

Hooray Abby Johnson.  America must become the nation where all women, under penalty of law, must bear children regardless of financial, personal or emotional circumstance.

Besides, we all know the conservatives will raise the taxes and increase the budgets for healthcare, education and future opportunity.  Right?

 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  bbl-1 @3    one week ago

Abbey Johnson is a great American doing God’s work here.  She’s not taking to the streets to protest but going after to change the minds of women and men actually performing the abortion ritual.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1    one week ago
abortion ritual

Are there candles?  Incense?  Chants?  Hymns?  I'm interested, what makes a medical procedure a "ritual"?

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.1    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
3.1.3  Larry Hampton  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1.2    one week ago

You can say what ya want Heartland; stop playing the martyr, it’s disgusting.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.1.4  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Larry Hampton @3.1.3    one week ago

No I can’t. I never claimed martyrdom [deleted.]  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1.4    one week ago

That is total poppycock. As long as you don't insult a member and follow the CoC. your good to go.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.1.6  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.5    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1.4    one week ago
us conservatives can not just say what we want

You have every right to say what you want. What you dislike when you speak your mind are the many counter arguments showing you how the law is not on your side. We do not live in a theocracy, so no matter how much you believe you should have the right to another persons body, the law does not recognize your fantasy imagined theocratic rights.

assuage the consciences of the pro abortion side

By your continued use of this blatant lie (there is no such thing as the pro-abortion side) you expose yourself as not wanting to have a reasonable debate about women's health care but are simply here to accuse and condemn. No one is surprised with your seeds or your comments. What would surprise people is if you expressed anything actually worthwhile that wasn't just pointing and wagging fingers.

make sure that they can’t be exposed to real pro life rhetoric here

What have you been blocked from sharing here? What "pro-life rhetoric" are you not allowed to share? It seems as if you share your seeds daily but angry when the many legal and logical holes are poked it in. What you really seem to be upset at is that your non-stop religious conservative rhetoric isn't being received as well as you wish. It's not being hailed as the absolute truth you imagine it to be and instead is rightly challenged. The fact is, so far I've not heard a single decent argument from the anti-abortion side as for why women should have their rights stripped. I've occasionally heard arguments about "viability" or the 22-24 weeks limitations are too late which is a reasonable debate to have. But the anti-abortion crowd don't want any compromise, they demand a ban as early as conception and give no valid reasoning other their belief that a new "soul" is created as conception which of course they cannot prove.

for fear of them and their weak little minds being offended.

If that's what you have to tell yourself to soften the constant rejection of your spurious opinions, then you go right ahead. Just like no one is stopping you from speaking your mind if it's on topic and not personal in nature, no one is stopping you from lying to yourself about why few embrace your circular logic and pointless rhetoric.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
3.1.8  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1    one week ago

Abortion ritual?  Oh brother.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1    one week ago
She’s not taking to the streets to protest but going after to change the minds of women and men actually performing the abortion ritual.  

Since when is a medical procedure considered a "ritual?" Does the AMA know about this? jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.10  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1.4    one week ago

You can stop claiming martyrdom whenever your want...

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2  MUVA  replied to  bbl-1 @3    one week ago

Why would they raise taxes when there are jobs available and people can work?

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.3  Sunshine  replied to  bbl-1 @3    one week ago
Besides, we all know the conservatives will raise the taxes and increase the budgets for healthcare, education and future opportunity.  Right?

Well it was done prior to legal abortions.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.3.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sunshine @3.3    one week ago
Well it was done prior to legal abortions.  

Yes, and women died.

 
 
 
charger 383
4  charger 383    one week ago

Unwanted pregnancy is a major cause of poverty and other problems 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  charger 383 @4    one week ago

Adoption will greatly alleviate those problems.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1    one week ago

What makes you think that women want to be incubators for other people?

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.1    one week ago

The problem will just go away if only the baby is exterminated quickly. There have been more and more Juno’s out there looking to give their baby up for adoption and move on in their lives.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.2    one week ago

There are no stats on that. 

And for the record, I made both my daughters watch Juno. They had differing opinions and I was fine with both. That's called "Choice". 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.1.4  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.3    one week ago

I just want the preform baby to have the option to choose life for him or herself.  Is that too much to ask for? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.4    one week ago

But it's not a baby until about 16 weeks later, so yes it is. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
4.1.6  pat wilson  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.4    one week ago

There's no such thing as a preform baby. Are you referring to a fetus ?

I don't think a fetus is capable of making complex, existential decisions. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.1.7  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  pat wilson @4.1.6    one week ago

It’s a typo.  Supposed to be pre born but without the space the device spell checked it to preform.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.1.8  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.5    one week ago

It’s a human person from the moment of conception so we will have to agree to disagree.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.9  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.7    one week ago

There is no child before that. There is nothing called a performed baby. There is a child or there isn't. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.10  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.8    one week ago
It’s a human person from the moment of conception so we will have to agree to disagree.

And that is fine. Those are your beliefs and I'm good with them. What I am not good with is having you force them on other people. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.4    one week ago

What is a pre-form baby?

 
 
 
charger 383
4.1.12  charger 383  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.8    one week ago

That is not what your bible says, Remembering the exact passage nmbers were stated in previous discussions

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.13  Split Personality  replied to  charger 383 @4.1.12    one week ago

Life begins with the first breath and ends with the last breath?

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.14  katrix  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.4    one week ago
I just want the preform baby to have the option to choose life for him or herself.  Is that too much to ask for? 

Yes, it is. A fetus isn't a human being. Even your bible tells you that.

Making up terms like "preborn baby" doesn't help your argument, btw.

 
 
 
charger 383
4.1.15  charger 383  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.13    one week ago

256

 
 
 
charger 383
4.1.16  charger 383  replied to  charger 383 @4.1.15    one week ago

I found the above chart, it did not copy as clear as I would like but the verse numbers are there.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1    one week ago
Adoption will greatly alleviate those problems.

No, it won't! 

The problem will just go away if only the baby is exterminated quickly.

There's no baby to exterminate. But abortions done as early as possible is best, as it is much easier, cheaper, and safer.

There have been more and more Juno’s out there looking to give their baby up for adoption and move on in their lives.  

Good for them. That's their choice. That doesn't mean there's enough people willing to adopt.

I just want the preform baby to have the option to choose life for him or herself.  Is that too much to ask for?

Yes, it is! Because it's completely idiotic. How can an embryo/fetus "choose" anything? By that reasoning, they are considered minors, so parental rights are paramount, including the right to an abortion. There is no way to justify legally eliminating abortion or providing "choice" to a "baby" without infringing or removing a woman's already established right! Or do you think an embryo that miscarries "chose" to die?

It’s a human person from the moment of conception so we will have to agree to disagree.  

And you are free to be wrong, factually, legally, and scientifically!

 
 
 
Tacos!
5  Tacos!    one week ago
“They asked her to increase the number of abortions at her facility by half, and so she said, ‘Don’t we tell the media that we want to reduce the number of abortions to make them safe, legal, and rare?’ And her supervisor laughed and said, ‘Well, Abbey, how do you think we make our money?’ And she really was blindsided by that.”

Assuming this account to be true, shouldn't we have a problem with this? I hear all the time that nobody is "pro-abortion" but this kind of makes it sound like Planned Parenthood is pro-abortion because it's profitable. Anybody want to condemn or defend this?

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @5    one week ago

So you take what she is saying as gospel?

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
5.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Tessylo @5.1    one week ago

Yes !

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @5.1.1    one week ago

You shouldn't, she's lying, like your 'president'

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @5.1    one week ago

I said, "Assuming this account to be true" so that we could talk about it without getting into a pointless slap fight about whether or not it is true. The point is to talk about the content. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.3    one week ago

It's not true.  The content is bogus.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.4    one week ago

Then there is no reason for you to respond. Have a nice day.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @5    one week ago

Hint, she is lying about being told to increase the amount of abortions by half, LYING.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
5.2.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Tessylo @5.2    one week ago

prove it!  

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.3  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @5    one week ago

Can you name a medical profession that isn't designed to at least cover the expenses or be less than profitable?

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @5.3    one week ago

Would you consider it ethical for a doctor to "sell" someone on an expensive, risky, invasive procedure (not to mention possibly morally troubling) when a simple lifestyle change would solve their problem? Why push a root canal or heart surgery when brushing and flossing or diet exercise are viable alternatives, particularly when the doctor's primary motivation is profit?

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.3.2  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @5.3.1    one week ago
when a simple lifestyle change would solve their problem?

Sorry, no sale, Tacos.

They are addressing the issue AFTER the fact;  talk of prevention is most often unnecessary after one procedure,

which is not "expensive or risky" when performed by trained professionals. 

A child, on the other hand, is forever.

The patient has to live with her choice.

If the medical team has issues, they quit, like the subject of the article did.

Later

just picked up 2 dozen truck tacos

Dinner time!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @5    one week ago
Assuming this account to be true, shouldn't we have a problem with this?

And therein lies the problem. Her story may not be true. There are many inconsistencies told by her. You can read about them here:

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/fact-fiction-pro-life-celebrity-abby-johnson-unplanned/

Personally, I don't think anyone should be talked in or out of an abortion and that was not my experience with the local PP that I took my friends to. Instead, they were both told to go home and think about it and although their choices were very different, I think it goes to show that choice is the way to go. I am still friends with these women and it worked out well for both of them.

 
 
 
WallyW
6  WallyW    one week ago

The Democrat party has come to believe that abortion at any stage or age is legal and acceptable.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @6    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @6.2    one week ago

What is unlimited abortion?

 
 
 
WallyW
6.2.2  WallyW  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.1    one week ago

Up to and including the normal date of delivery....and sometimes beyond.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @6.2.2    one week ago
'Up to and including the normal date of delivery....and sometimes beyond.'

Prove it!

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.2.4  Split Personality  replied to  WallyW @6.2.2    one week ago
and sometimes beyond.

That would be murder.

The only thing more disappointing than your comment

is to see reasonable people vote it up.

Go Team !!! jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cjcold
6.3  cjcold  replied to  WallyW @6    one week ago

So only democrats have abortions? Sorry, life and death just doesn't work that way.

The vast majority of all abortions are spontaneous. God is the biggest abortionist.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
6.3.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  cjcold @6.3    one week ago

You believe he exists now? Or is he only there to be blamed by secular progressives when bad things happen?

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.3.2  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.3.1    one week ago
You believe he exists now? Or is he only there to be blamed by secular progressives when bad things happen?

If god exists, then logically, he deserves as much blame for the bad as the praise he gets for the good.

 
 
 
cjcold
6.3.3  cjcold  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.3.1    one week ago
You believe he exists now?

Nope, still an atheist. Thought I'd throw that in there for the fun of it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7  Tessylo    one week ago

The whole piece sounds like it's written by a moronic 13 year old.  No one at Planned Parenthood forces abortions/sells abortions to anyone.

A woman is given her options and the choice is left to her.  

Sounds like Johnson and Weber are lying.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @7    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
7.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Tessylo @7.1    one week ago

Prove it. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @7.1.1    one week ago

I took 2 of my friends to planned parenthood who were pregnant when I was in college. No one was talked into an abortion. They were asked what they wanted to do. One kept the pregnancy, the other did not, and it wasn't done at PP. 

 
 
 
WallyW
7.2.1  WallyW  replied to  WallyW @7.2    one week ago

.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @7.2    one week ago

More lies.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @7.2.1    one week ago

'.'

[Deleted]

 
 
 
katrix
7.2.4  katrix  replied to  WallyW @7.2    one week ago

The stupidity and gullibility of some people is simply amazing.

 
 
 
cjcold
7.2.5  cjcold  replied to  WallyW @7.2    6 days ago

Those highly edited videos were debunked as propaganda years ago and the people who propagated these lies served jail time for it, and are now being sued.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.2.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  cjcold @7.2.5    6 days ago
se highly edited videos were debunked as propaganda years ago

No they weren't, Unfortunately, youn believed the media and lies from Fusion GPS (caught lying again)   rather than watch the videotapes themselves. Simply watching them should have been enough to convince anyone they weren't in fact  edited. But the media ran with Fusion GPS lie (a taste of what would happen with the dossier) and people fell for the lie that wanted to believe.

Sadly, PP evneutally  had to deal with the tapes under oath. And then they coudln't lie anymore.

And then 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled:

[T]he record reflects that OIG had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited. A nd the plaintiffs [Planned Parenthood] did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage.

Not a single deceptive edit! when it came time to tell the truth.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-50282-CV0.pdf

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.2.7  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2.6    6 days ago
No they weren't,

Uh yeah, they were.

Unfortunately, youn believed the media and lies from Fusion GPS (caught lying again) 

Speak for yourself. What many people don't seem to realize is that PP can legally donate fetal tissue for research. They can charge expenditures to recoup cost for handling, transportation, storage, ect.. But they cannot sell it for profit. And they also require written consent of the fetal donor to do so. Many states investigated PP and fond no wrong doing on their part. Even the House Committee on Oversight and Reform found no wrong doing.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.2.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.7    6 days ago

h yeah, they were

A substance free response. Sad!

Planned Parenthood agrees the tapes weren't edited (when under oath), it's a shame you still let your emotions cloud your ability to reason. Please read the 5th Circuit case. 

hat many people don't seem to realize is that PP can legally donate fetal tissue for research

 They wrote the statute in question, so of course they don't get in legal trouble That's the entire point of having Henry Waxman write a statute for them.  They do what they want to do, which is sell fetal parts for "reasonable costs."  Now, the more experienced of us understand what a weasel phrase"reasonable costs" is. "Reasonable" allows for tons of wiggle room.  It's why Planned Parenthood wanted it in the statute. Because reasonable allows for profit taking, at the same time allowing the gullible to be misled into believing they aren't selling parts for profits. 

As you grow more experienced with how Washington works, you will be able to see through such charades more easily. Sadly, people still fall for platitudes and ignore substance.

Even the House Committee on Oversight and Reform 

Are you telling me the Democratic controlled House Committee that  takes money hand over fist from PP toes the PP line and regurgitates PP produced propaganda? I'm shocked, shocked to find that going on. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.2.9  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2.8    6 days ago
A substance free response. Sad!

A factual one.

Planned Parenthood agrees the tapes weren't edited (when under oath), it's a shame you still let your emotions cloud your ability to reason. Please read the 5th Circuit case. 

Read the House Committee on Oversight and Reform report.

They do what they want to do, which is sell fetal parts for "reasonable costs."  

Wrong again! They donate, which is perfectly legal.

Now, the more experienced of us understand what a weasel phrase"reasonable costs" is. "Reasonable" allows for tons of wiggle room.  

Merely your own opinion.

Are you telling me the Democratic controlled House Committee that  takes money hand over fist from PP toes the PP line and regurgitates PP produced propaganda?

I'm telling you what they found. Whether you want to accept it or not doesn't change the facts and is of no concern of mine.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.9    6 days ago

You are correct as usual Gordy.

Sean is incorrect as usual.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.2.11  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.10    6 days ago

Thank you Tess. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.2.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.9    5 days ago
ead the House Committee on Oversight and Reform report

The house didn't forensically examine the tapes. But I'm curious what report you keep referring to. Please provide a link to the actual report. 

  Whether the tapes were edited was at issue in an actual court case, and the Court ruled that no editing occurred. Why do you avoid that controlling fact?

You should stop parroting propaganda and deal in actual facts.

Wrong again! They donate, which is perfectly legal.

Wow. This is basic stuff. 

"The term “valuable consideration”  does  not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality  control , or storage of  human fetal tissue ." As I said they can take "reasonable" payments, which is the exception that swallows the whole rule against taking consideration. Do you honestly not understand that? 

Wrong again!

I' m telling you what they found

Yet you haven't provided a link to the House Democrats forensic analysis of the tape. Why is that?

 

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2.12    5 days ago

The tapes were doctored.  

Why do you insist on spreading lies?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.2.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.13    5 days ago

e tapes were doctored.

Why do you insist on spreading lies?

I'd post the link to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Case proving that the tapes weren't edited again, but we both know that would be a futile gesture.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.2.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.10    5 days ago

You are correct as usual Gordy.

Sean is incorrect as usual

Thank you for that Tessy.  There's no possible better endorsement of my argument.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.2.16  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2.12    5 days ago
Please provide a link to the actual report. 

Just Google the Committee on Oversight and Reform report regarding PP videos.

The house didn't forensically examine the tapes.

The Fusion GPS firm analyzed the taped and deemed they were edited.

You should stop parroting propaganda and deal in actual facts.

You first.

Wow. This is basic stuff. 

Then you should know that since PP was found of no wrongdoing and abided by the law, they were innocent of the accusations levied against them. Yes, quite basic.

"The term “valuable consideration”  does  not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality  control , or storage of  human fetal tissue ." As I said they can take "reasonable" payments, which is the exception that swallows the whole rule against taking consideration.

Those are compensation costs associated with fetal tissue donation. That does not mean  any profit is made, nor has any been demonstrated, which is what the accusation was all about.

Yet you haven't provided a link to the House Democrats forensic analysis of the tape.

Google is your friend. 

There's no possible better endorsement that I am correct. 

Such delusions of grandeur.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.2.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.16    5 days ago
Google the Committee on Oversight and Reform report regarding PP videos.

No report comes up. Just a public relations release  with simplistic talking points. I sincerely hope you don't think that's  what an actual report looks like.  So where's the actual report with actual evidence?

The Fusion GPS firm analyzed the taped and deemed they were edited.

I know what happened. That's why I already said that.  PP hired a disreputable firm to provide a public relations release. Fusion  was bought and paid for to fool gullible abortion cheerleaders who swallow whatever the industry tells them. 

Mission accomplished!

Because remember under oath, PP admitted and the 5th Circuit found that there were no substantive edits to the tapes. 

I've already explained this. But hopefully now  you understand not to rely on press releases put out by parties in their own self interest and wait until testimony is made under oath. 

hen you should know that since PP was found of no wrongdoing and abided by the law

well yes. The law allows them to sell fetal body parts without legal repercussion. I've already said that.

Google is your friend. 

You've already admitted it doesn't exist, no doubt after googling furiously to try and find an a report that PP didn't pay for. Google is apparently not your friend. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
7.2.18  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2.15    5 days ago

That’s for sure! 

 
 
 
Tessylo
8  Tessylo    one week ago
Health

Over 95% of women who have an abortion do not regret it, study finds

b3013450-de3e-11e9-beff-bc999ef1abff January 13, 2020, 8:08 AM EST
c0f87960-3604-11ea-aff7-23798e417cb9
A study has revealed the majority of women who have an abortion do not regret their decision [Photo: Getty]

The majority of women who have had abortion do not regret the decision to undergo the procedure, a new study has revealed.

The research, published in  Social Science & Medicine ,   found that five years after having an abortion, over 95% of the women said it was the right decision for them.

Researchers surveyed 667 women across 21 states in the US who had abortions at the start of the five year study, analysing their emotions surrounding their decision to get an abortion.

The women were surveyed a week after they sought care and every six months thereafter, for a total of 11 times. 

Participants were asked if they had any emotions of sadness, guilt, relief, regret, anger or happiness over their decision.

Results revealed 95% of women indicated that an abortion was the right decision for them over the course of the study.

Relief was the most common emotion throughout the five years of the study.

READ MORE:   Women should be approved for abortions over Skype to ‘prevent distress’, say doctors

Though the majority of women do not report regretting their decision, many did struggle to decide whether to have the procedure in the first place.

Just over a quarter (27%) said the decision to terminate their pregnancy was very difficult, while the same figure (27%) described it being somewhat difficult (27%).

The remainder (46%) said it was not difficult to make the choice.

Researchers found no evidence that women began to regret their decisions as years passed. In fact the women reported that both their positive and negative feelings about the abortion diminished over time.

At five years, the overwhelming majority (84%) had either positive feelings, or none at all. 

c0f39760-3604-11ea-add7-6c42f703939c
A study into the emotions surrounding an abortion found that the majority of women believe they made the right decision for them [Photo: Getty]

Commenting on the findings in an accompanying commentary on the study in  Social Science & Medicine , Julia Steinberg, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of family science at the University of Maryland said: “This research goes further than previous studies, in that it follows women for longer, and was conducted on a larger sample from many different clinics throughout the US.

“It shows that women remain certain in their decision to get an abortion over time. These results clearly disprove claims that regret is likely after abortion.”

The findings also revealed that around 70% of the study participants reported feeling concerned they would be stigmatised by their communities if people knew they had sought an abortion, with 29% reporting low levels and 31% reporting high levels of community stigma.

The results also revealed that those who struggled with their decisions or felt stigmatised were more likely to experience sadness, guilt and anger shortly after obtaining the abortion.

Though these feelings did diminish over time.

READ MORE:  What you need to know about having an abortion

The authors also note that, though abortion counselling is not entirely necessary according to the study’s findings, if offered, there should be a focus on helping to cope with the stigma surrounding having an abortion.

“Even if they had difficulty making the decision initially, or if they felt their community would not approve, our research shows that the overwhelming majority of women who obtain abortions continue to believe it was the right decision," said Corinne Rocca, PhD, MPH, associate professor in the  UCSF Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences , and first author of the study.

“This debunks the idea that most women suffer emotionally from having an abortion.”

READ MORE:  Morning after pill now available for same-day home delivery

The findings follow a study released last year by Marie Stopes International, which found that   only one in three women would tell their family if they were considering an abortion   due to fears of stigma and repercussions.

A further study,   published in the academic journal   PLOS One   in 2015, surveying 667 women over a three-year period and had similar results to the latest research in that 95% of women said that having an abortion was right for them.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
8.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Tessylo @8    one week ago

[deleted.]  

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.1.1  r.t..b...  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.1    one week ago
removed for context

That could be the most misinformed and misogynistic comment ever. Simply disgusting.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.2  Veronica  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1.1    one week ago

I totally agree.  Nice to know how HA knows the minds of EVERYONE.

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.3  katrix  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.1    one week ago

Except they aren't actually human beings at the point when the abortions occur.

But then, Trump idolaters aren't big on facts. Or morals.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
8.1.4  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Veronica @8.1.2    one week ago

I have seen women brag about it. To be honest though, I think it's more of a "in your face" kind of thing rather than cold blooded, heartless disregard for potential human life. Or maybe I'm wrong. Who knows.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.4    one week ago

Why would they brag about it?

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.6  Veronica  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.4    one week ago

I have seen some men brag about rape, but I don't assume a whole faction of our society wears rape as a bade of pride and brag about it...  it is assumption on HA's part.  

You are wrong.

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.7  katrix  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.4    one week ago

Not being traumatized by an abortion is a far cry from bragging about it, but then, [deleted] so what do you expect from his comments.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
8.1.8  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.5    one week ago

It's like HA said, they feel empowered over men or the system or whatever their hang up is. It is their reaction to criticism. Everybody has their own way of dealing with things, just might seem a little cold to some people.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
8.1.9  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.1    one week ago

Pro life comments are always inflammatory to the pro abortion crowd.  I stand by and double down on what I said and meant every word of it.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
8.1.10  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.8    one week ago

Well said.  Most in the pro life movement are women so this is not a “women’s” issue.  It’s a human rights issue for the unborn 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
8.1.11  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1.1    one week ago

it’s all true and no apologies.  I meant and stand by and double down on every word of it.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.1.10    one week ago

It is most definitely a womans issue

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
8.1.13  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.12    one week ago

Which ones?  The pro abortion ones or the pro life ones?  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.14  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.1.9    one week ago
Pro life comments are always inflammatory to the pro abortion crowd.

Wrong. Pro-life comments are not inflammatory unless they use terms like pro-abortion, which is not a term, but a misrepresentation. The term is PRO CHOICE. 

And if you double down on everything you just said then you are perpetuating a lie.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.15  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.1.10    one week ago
 It’s a human rights issue for the unborn 

No, it's a human rights issue to the women who are actually alive, and not a lump of cells. 

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
8.1.16  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.14    one week ago

Interesting how worried you are with the labeling. It's like you want to support abortion, just not directly. Somehow that didn't work for the South when they were pro-state's rights instead of pro-slavery.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.1.17  r.t..b...  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.1.11    one week ago
 I meant and stand by and double down on every word of it.

Understood, as my response to your inflammatory post is equally steadfast. Your passion is evident to everyone here. Given that, fully knowing this is certain to fall upon deaf ears, it is nonetheless submitted for your consideration...

"Disciples who are steadfast and immovable do not become fanatics or extremists, are not overzealous, and are not preoccupied with misguided gospel hobbies." ~ David A. Bednar

 
 
 
MUVA
8.1.18  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.15    one week ago

So a 3 month old unborn human is still a lump of cells?That is funny my daughter had a baby about three months ago her ultrasound at 3 months looked just about like a full human.Im not for banning abortion I just think  there should be way less In the 21 century.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.19  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.16    one week ago
Interesting how worried you are with the labeling. It's like you want to support abortion, just not directly.

Well, in my world, words matter, so yes how you "label" someone matters. So I will explain this to you. 

Being "Pro-choice" means people who are anti abortion are not forced to get one, and those who want one to be able to get one, the operative word being choice. 

Being Pro-abortion implies that you want everyone to be forced into an abortion. Pro-Choice people don't want that.

Somehow that didn't work for the South when they were pro-state's rights instead of pro-slavery.

Don't muddy the waters with a strawman.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
8.1.20  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.16    one week ago

There is not a bit of difference morally between the slave holders of those days and the abortionists of today.  Equally guilty in the eyes of the creator

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.21  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @8.1.18    one week ago
So a 3 month old unborn human is still a lump of cells?That is funny my daughter had a baby about three months ago her ultrasound at 3 months looked just about like a full human.

A 3 month old unborn fetus does not have a fully functioning neurological system. It does not think and has only rudimental reflexes. It's not even close to living outside of the mother's body. So what it looks like doesn't really matter. What matters is if it actually functions, and it doesn't. The moment it crosses over into functioning, then I think that choice goes out the window, and that is around 16 weeks. But for the reason that I do believe in giving a baby a chance, I think most abortions should only be done in the first trimester, which is 12 weeks. 

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.22  katrix  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.1.20    one week ago
Equally guilty in the eyes of the creator

That's hilarious. Your god ordered its followers to rape and enslave people, and it causes more abortions than all the doctors put together.

 
 
 
MUVA
8.1.23  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.21    one week ago

It also doesn’t look like a clump of cells it looks like and becomes human.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.24  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.1.20    one week ago
Equally guilty in the eyes of the creator

Wrong. The bible spells out how to have slaves, so apparently it is fine in the eyes of the creator. 

On the other hand, it specifically says that there is no soul in the body until the first breath. 

This is all in the bible. No where does it address abortion. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.25  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @8.1.23    one week ago

MUVA,

What it looks like and what it is are two different things. You may have brown eyes but your DNA might say you have both blue and brown eyes. Neither is a falsehood. 

Become something means that it is not there yet. So becoming human is like saying dysplasia is almost cancer, but it isn't. The outcome has yet to be developed. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.26  Gordy327  replied to  MUVA @8.1.23    one week ago
It also doesn’t look like a clump of cells it looks like and becomes human

If I showed you pictures of a human, dog, cat, and pig embryo, I doubt you'd be able to determine which is which with any consistency.

So a 3 month old unborn human is still a lump of cells?

Technically, yes. Although, at that stage, it is a fetus.

That is funny my daughter had a baby about three months ago her ultrasound at 3 months looked just about like a full human.

Congratulations to her.

Im not for banning abortion I just think  there should be way less In the 21 century.

There's less if women choose to not have abortions. As long as they have that choice though.

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.1.27  Split Personality  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.26    one week ago

True, all mammals follow the same development for the first 9 weeks

first gill slits all of which disappear except one which develops into the jaw bone and ears

then the belly bump some people associate with a yolk sac;

as that retreats a long tail develops then is reabsorbed the last few spinal bits forming the coccyx,

all of which are gone by the end of the 2nd month when the fur occurs.

The fur can be fine or course and should only last until the 7th or 8th month but

preemies are often still furry and the hair usually fall out quickly after birth.

By the 3rd month the DNA sends us toward our final product design

even though some webbing is still evident on ultrasounds  on the hands especially

and not uncommon at birth.

Fascinating subject.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.28  Gordy327  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.27    one week ago
True, all mammals follow the same development for the first 9 weeks

And yet, some people think the beginning of the production is the same as the end. Go figure.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
8.1.29  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.16    one week ago

 Not to mention The willful inflammatory language  using clump of cells as a put down of what we know on the pro life side to be a real human life.  This inflammatory comment thing is a two way street, and I find that term to be offensive and a deliberate provocation.

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.1.30  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.1.29    one week ago

All life is equal.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.31  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.1.29    one week ago
Not to mention The willful inflammatory language  using clump of cells as a put down of what we know on the pro life side to be a real human life.  

How is that inflammatory when it is true? I guess you're not familiar with embryology.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
8.1.32  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.31    one week ago

He is not talking about scientific fact, he is talking about political correctness. What you might call a lump of cells would be considered a lost life to someone who just had a miscarriage or a victim of domestic violence. You pro abortionists might want to rethink your heartless verbiage and remember it's not just "right wing bigots" you are offending.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.33  Tessylo  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.32    one week ago

We're not pro-abortion.  We are pro-choice.  

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
8.1.34  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.33    one week ago

What's the difference? Pro-abortion doesn't imply that you don't have a choice. It just means you support abortion. What other choice are we talking about?

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.35  Veronica  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.32    one week ago
You pro abortionists

Heartless verbiage - also inflammatory.

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.36  It Is ME  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.32    one week ago
You pro abortionists

SAVE A TREE !

SAVE THAT YELLOW FLOWER !

SAVE THAT BIRD !

SAVE THAT LIZARD !

SAVE THAT FISH !

SAVE THAT WORM !

SAVE THAT SNAIL !

SAVE THAT WHALE !

SAVE THAT POLAR BEAR !

Even …..…….. SAVE THE PLANET (Like Humans can save the planet jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif , they can't even save THEMSELVES jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif ) !

They're all more IMPORTANT ! jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.37  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.33    one week ago
We're not pro-abortion.  We are pro-choice.  

You also call yourselves "progressives". It's called "Newspeak."


Newspeak   Comes From 1984

The term "newspeak" was coined by George Orwell in his 1949 anti-utopian novel   1984 . In Orwell's fictional totalitarian state, Newspeak was a language favored by the minions of Big Brother and, in Orwell's words, "designed to diminish the range of thought." Newspeak was characterized by the elimination or alteration of certain words, the substitution of one word for another, the interchangeability of parts of speech, and the creation of words for political purposes. The word has caught on in general use to refer to confusing or deceptive bureaucratic jargon.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/newspeak

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
8.1.38  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Veronica @8.1.35    one week ago

Why? It's a fact. You support women's right to have an abortion. Why not just embrace it? Who cares if you like sucking lumps of cells out of women's wombs?

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.39  Veronica  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.37    one week ago

The term pro-abortion is only used to cause a negative reaction.  It does not & will never elicit a healthy discussion.  Just as the term anti-woman does.  But I guess healthy discussions is not what is wanted on an ADULT forum.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.40  Veronica  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.38    one week ago

You use the term only to inflame - how about you join a civil and healthy discussion without terms and phrases to elicit negative responses?

I believe a woman has the right to go to a doctor and get ANY health procedure she needs without you or anyone else getting into it.  I will not apologize for that EVER.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.41  Vic Eldred  replied to  Veronica @8.1.39    one week ago
The term pro-abortion

It was the original term. "Pro-choice" was the Newspeak creation.

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.42  It Is ME  replied to  Veronica @8.1.39    one week ago
It does not & will never elicit a healthy discussion. 

Speaking of "Healthy" ! jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

Do most "Human Abortions" occur because of Physical Health issues ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.43  Veronica  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.41    one week ago
It was the original term.

Big deal - there are a lot of terms that were "the original" that we have moved away.  Or do you really think the derogatory terms used for Irish, Jews, Italians should still be used to foster healthy discussion?

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.44  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.41    one week ago

We are not pro-abortion, we are PRO-CHOICE.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.45  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.41    one week ago

And of course, they won't call  those who oppose killing babies pro-life. 

And  for the linguistically challenged, we call babies in the wombs, babies. A pregnant woman doesn't say "the fetus is kicking."  Or "the ball of cells in my stomach is kicking."  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.46  Vic Eldred  replied to  Veronica @8.1.43    one week ago
Big deal - there are a lot of terms that were "the original" that we have moved away.

Sounds like Womansplanin.......Ya, "we" change a lot of words, don't "we?"

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.47  Veronica  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.42    one week ago

Does it matter you?  How does a medical decision (any medical decision) made by others affect you?  Do you need to know if I had a tumor removed?  Do you need to know if my husband had a vasectomy?  Do you need to know all the details of my daughter's medical issues so you can weigh in on how to treat her?  Do I have that same right to know ALL about you & your family's medical decisions?  

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.48  Dulay  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.34    one week ago
What other choice are we talking about?

The choice to make decisions about your own body and what kind of health care your chosen Physician can provide without government intervention. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.49  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.45    one week ago

The word "Pro-Life" is really a page right out of their book...One that turned out to be a perfect pitch!

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.50  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.46    one week ago

We don't need your Orwellian nonsense bullshit mansplanations either.  

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.51  Veronica  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.46    one week ago

So in other word you refuse to answer - got it. Do you commonly call Irish people "bog trotters", Italians - wops or dagos, Jews - Kikes?  Do you use those terms in conversations?  So why inflame when a healthy discussion can occur. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.52  It Is ME  replied to  Veronica @8.1.47    one week ago
Does it matter you? 

Why ….. Sure it does ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

It's my money, and I want it BACK …… Now ! jrSmiley_42_smiley_image.gif

I hear that "Condoms" are "Free", all over this great country of ours ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.53  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.32    one week ago

This has nada to do with political correctness, because I am not PC, so don't use that as an excuse. I've had 2 miscarriages and I understood that although I lost pregnancy (by the way, the word means Pregnant means: having possibilities of development or consequence : involving important issues), I was disappointed, but I didn't think I lost a baby. 

And you know that calling people pro-abortion is just being proactive. I have stated many times here that I am pro-choice, choice being the you can chose to keep the pregnancy or not. And I find it offensive, that you want to force your beliefs on people who don't believe in what you believe. Please don't lecture a mom, who had twins and was in hospital or bed ridden on medicine that stressed my heart for 3 months trying to keep my pregnancy. When you men have to do that, then you can lecture.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.54  Veronica  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.52    one week ago

Sigh - not even worth discussing it anymore.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.55  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.36    one week ago

Total strawman argument. 

 
 
 
MUVA
8.1.56  MUVA  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.37    one week ago

Thank you the leftist was exactly who Orwell was speaking of changing the meanings of words they even have some convinced socialist Nazi’s were right wing.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.57  Vic Eldred  replied to  Veronica @8.1.51    one week ago
Do you commonly call Irish people "bog trotters", Italians - wops or dagos, Jews - Kikes?  Do you use those terms in conversations? 

Why on earth would I do that?  Why would anyone do that?


So why inflame when a healthy discussion can occur. 

I don't see how calling someone in favor of a woman having a right to abortion as "pro-abortion" is inflaming the conversation. You either believe in your convictions or you don't. Are you ashamed of saying a woman has the right to abort?

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.58  It Is ME  replied to  Veronica @8.1.54    one week ago
Sigh - not even worth discussing it anymore.

I thought you were looking for a "Healthy" discussion.

Should I go the "Sick" route instead !

"Do most "Human Abortions" occur because of Physical Health issues ?" jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

Maybe I should Throw in for clarity, and to further a " Healthy " Discussion:

OR

Is it MOST. ..…. for "Birth Control" ? jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.59  Vic Eldred  replied to  MUVA @8.1.56    one week ago

Oh, If he could see America today, he be wearing a sign saying "I WARNED YOU."

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.60  katrix  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.45    one week ago
And of course, they won't call  those who oppose killing babies pro-life. 

Most of them aren't pro-life. After a baby is born, they have zero interest in its health or quality of life.

And  for the linguistically challenged, we call babies in the wombs, babies

Maybe the linguistically challenged call zygotes and embryos babies - but at that point they are not babies. Once they're 8 weeks or so, fetus is the proper term.

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.61  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.55    one week ago
Total strawman argument. 

Why ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

'cause Plants and Animals are more important to "Life" ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

USE the "Pregnancy" protections your given by "Planned Parenthood", and Big Gov. (Condemns and other Birth Control items)!

They work more times than NOT ! jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

USE THEM ....EVEN ABUSE THEM IF NECASSARY! jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

You'll actually ........... save a "Life" .... for a "Change" ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.62  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.45    one week ago
A pregnant woman doesn't say "the fetus is kicking."  Or "the ball of cells in my stomach is kicking."  

So your issue is only with the small percentage of abortions that occur after 'quickening'? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.63  Tessylo  replied to  Veronica @8.1.51    one week ago

'Do you use those terms in conversations?  So why inflame when a healthy discussion can occur.'

Some folks here only contributions are to inflame.  

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.64  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.61    one week ago
USE the "Pregnancy" protections your given by "Planned Parenthood"

The righties are making it very difficult for women to get birth control and sex ed from Planned Parenthood.

and Big Gov

So you're in favor of Big Gov taking over from all the backwards red states that teach abstinence only sex ed - if they even provide sex ed - to help reduce unwanted pregnancies? Awesome!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.65  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @8.1.62    one week ago

Right! Like gun control advocates who are upset a few schools get shot up! It's only a few schools! 

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.66  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @8.1.56    one week ago
'the leftist was exactly who Orwell was speaking of changing the meanings of words they even have some convinced socialist Nazi’s were right wing'

Please explain

Nazis were right wing.  

Haven't you and Vic really gone off off topic here?  Way off topic

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.67  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @8.1.64    one week ago
The righties are making it very difficult for women to get birth control and sex ed from Planned Parenthood.

7/11's and WaWa's  carry condom packs... for just a few bucks ! jrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gif

Stop "Standing for your MAN", and make your MAN, Stand for YOU ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

Women's Rights …. until "Physical Emotions" take over" ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

What a concept....huh !

If you're REALLY for "Women's Rights", Stand up against the MAN that won't put a Condom on....and Just say NO ! jrSmiley_32_smiley_image.gif

As to "Sex Ed." .....if someone doesn't know the ins and outs of what causes pregnancy by NOW, and how to STOP IT.....our parenting and education system is worse than I thought was Possible ! jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.69  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.67    one week ago
our parenting and education system is worse than I thought was Possible ! 

It really is. When you have schools and parents teaching abstinence only, those poor kids don't stand a chance once their hormones kick in. Telling them "just say no" is a proven track for failure.

And this may not be a popular thing for me to say - but if someone goes on public assistance, for crying out loud, offer them Norplant and educate them! If you can't afford to support yourself, you're in no position to be bringing a baby into this world. Same thing for drug addicts - if you have to revive someone with Narcan, offer them Norplant. For now that just impacts women, but once male birth control is widely available, do the same thing for the guys.

The reason I say Norplant is because there is no thought required; you don't have to remember to take a pill or talk a guy into using a condom (of course, they should be using condoms TOO to prevent STDs, but we know a lot of time people simply refuse to use them, or are too drunk to give a crap, or whatever).

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.70  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.61    one week ago
Why ? 'cause Plants and Animals are more important to "Life" ?

Because you are trying to make a false equivalency. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.71  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @8.1.69    one week ago
It really is. When you have schools and parents teaching abstinence only

Masturbation never got anybody pregnant, does not make anybody go crazy, and what we're about is preventing HIV in our bright young people. 
Joycelyn Elders

"The reason I say Norplant is because there is no thought required; you don't have to remember to take a pill or talk a guy into using a condom"

Isn't that just "Dumbing Down" folks..... even more ? jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

As far as what I have seen ....... That's NOT ..... a Good Thing ! jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

Maybe "Stop" certain "Outs", and FORCE people to be "Responsible for their actions" instead ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

When you give folks many "Bogies"(Golf Term) in life, they'll take advantage of it ..... EVERY TIME ! 

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.72  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.70    one week ago
Because you are trying to make a false equivalency. 

What ?

Plants and "Instinctually Sex driven " Animals, are more important than a "Human " ?

And here I thought "Humans" were the TOP OF THE WORLDS CHAIN OF COMMAND !

My Mistake. jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.73  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.63    one week ago
Some folks here only contributions are to inflame.  

Oh, the irony!

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.74  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.49    one week ago
The word "Pro-Life" is really a page right out of their book...

Whose book is that exactly? 

One that turned out to be a perfect pitch!

And as with so many other things, NOT as advertised...

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.75  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.32    one week ago

I'm not interested in political correctness, only in actual fact! And yes, a clump of cells is a clump of cells. If actual facts offends you or anyone,  then perhaps you make or engage in arguments based more on rational thinking instead of emotional appeals.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.76  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.75    one week ago
perhaps you make or engage in arguments based more on rational thinking instead of emotional appeals.

physician, heal thyself. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.77  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.75    one week ago
I'm not interested in political correctness, only in actual fact!

http://faculty.fmcc.suny.edu/mcdarby/Molecules&CellsBook/01-Life.htm

Introduction to Biology - Molecules and Cells

"A cell is a contained chamber with its own internal complexity, even its own chambers, but it is the smallest unit considered to be alive ."

Wierd huh ! jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.78  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.77    one week ago

Not weird at all. This is why we should arrest every man who doesn't impregnate a woman every day - all those living sperm cells he's murdering.

And we should also arrest every woman who gets her period ... all those living eggs we are murdering.

All those celibate religious fanatics - MURDERERS!!!

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
8.1.79  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.75    one week ago

Funny how you take that approach with abortion and religion, but not say transgenderism. Where there is not one shred of scientific evidence that it exists as anything more than a mental condition.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.80  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.77    one week ago

What's your point? No one has argued that cells aren't alive.

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.81  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @8.1.78    one week ago

If that's what you "Need" to happen.....try and go for it !

I hear/read, when those "Cells" actually get "Together", Things CHANGE, and they create Life as we see it, all over this planet !

No mechanical microscope needed.

Isn't life "GRAND" ? jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.82  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.45    one week ago

Some women get emotional about pregnancy and refer to a fetus as a baby. That might be emotionally comforting. But it's still a fetus no matter what one wants to call it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.85  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.38    one week ago

Nice attempt at an appeal to emotion. An epic fail. But still a nice attempt.

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.86  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.80    one week ago
What's your point? No one has argued that cells aren't alive.

I didn't post anything about that sort !

I just gave you …..a FACT !

You like facts....right ?

Think about that FACT ! jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
8.1.87  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.85    one week ago

Thanks but the proof is in the pudding. If abortion was no big deal and people really just thought of them as a clump of cells, they would have no problem tagging themselves as pro abortion. They can't seem to stomach it though. They want to be pro choice to keep the emphases on the mother, and not the potential human life they are choosing to end. I think people have a harder time thinking of a fetus as a clump of cells than you think. Otherwise let's just label you guys pro-abortionists and I don't see what the problem is.

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.88  katrix  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.87    one week ago

Sperm and eggs are potential lives. So,  you're pro-baby-murder if you don't impregnate a woman every few days. All those potential lives you're killing!

I am pro choice. I would never tell another woman to get an abortion but every woman should have the choice to do so.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.89  Veronica  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.87    one week ago

So we can call you anti-choice, not pro-life?  Pro-choice has the meaning that a woman has the right to CHOOSE what she does with her body when she becomes pregnant.  REGARDLESS of what Vic believes.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.90  Veronica  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.57    one week ago

I own the fact that i believe a woman should be able to choose what is best for herself, not you, not Trump, not the woman down the street.  HER CHOICE.  If I were pro-abortion I would think all pregnancies should be terminated since the world has enough people on it & we are beginning to outpace the earth.

You have any issue being called anti-choice or anti-woman?  Since you do not believe in a woman's right to choose what is best for her (by the way SHE IS ALIVE & therefore I am pro-life).

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.91  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.34    one week ago

Are you trying to be obtuse? Ok, I'll simplify things: pro choice does not equal "pro abortion," which is a disingenuous term. No one is going around saying or demanding women have abortions. Pro choicers acknowledge and repect a woman's right to chose, including whether to continue a pregnancy or not. Some pro-lifers and anti choicers clearly do not share that respect.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.92  Dulay  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.38    one week ago
Why? It's a fact.

Actually, it's not. 

You support women's right to have an abortion.

Yes if she CHOOSES to do so. 

Why not just embrace it?

Why would you want anyone embrace a misrepresentation? 

Who cares if you like sucking lumps of cells out of women's wombs? 

I'd much prefer they be able to use the medical method over the counter...

The issue with your POV is that you don't connect the dots.

If supporting a right means that you encourage it's use, it would follow that supporting the 2nd Amendment encourages the use of guns.

It's funny how 2nd Amendment supporters always bring up the 'slippery slope' scenario, any gun regulation will lead to all guns being taken away. But those same people seem incapable of applying that slippery slope scenario to abortion regulations...

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.1.93  Sparty On  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.67    one week ago
ins and outs of what causes pregnancy

Nicely done!

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
8.1.95  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.31    one week ago

It is inflammatory to call human life a clump of cells when human life is so much more than that.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
8.1.96  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.87    one week ago

Exactly.  Well said.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.97  Vic Eldred  replied to  Veronica @8.1.90    one week ago
Since you do not believe in a woman's right to choose what is best for her

Not when another life is in the balance. 


Sorry

EOQxPAnX0AEUpE3?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.98  katrix  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.1.95    one week ago
It is inflammatory to call human life a clump of cells when human life is so much more than that.  

Science offends you - who would have guessed!

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.99  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.87    one week ago

What proof exactly?  You've offered none. Justillogical appeals to emotion and pure conjecture, while still demonstrating a pround willful ignorance regarding pro choice.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
8.1.100  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.91    one week ago

So then gun rights activists should also call themselves prochoice, because they support everyone's choice to buy a gun. See how dumb that sounds?

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.101  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.79    one week ago

What's really funny is your Strawman argument, which only shows how weak your position really is.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.1.102  Veronica  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.97    one week ago

Maybe her life is, you have no idea.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.103  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.81    one week ago

Still irrelevant to the topic. But you go ahead and pretend it's not if it makes you feel better.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
8.1.104  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.101    6 days ago

No it's not. It's not about choice, it's a right. They support the right to abort their children. No one cares what choice a woman makes, the only thing that matters is they have the right to actually do what they chose.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.105  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.1.95    6 days ago

Except a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus is not yet a human life. So a clump of cells is an apt description. A blastocyst is literally a clump of cells. A zygote is just a single cell. Not even a clump yet.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.106  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.104    6 days ago

A woman has the RIGHT to CHOOSE to have an abortion or not. If she CHOOSES to have an abortion, that is her RIGHT. So yes, it is a choice.  And a right. I can't make it any simpler than that. A shame there are some who want to restrict or prohibit a womans rights and choices.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
8.1.107  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.106    6 days ago

OK, so then do we have to make a law to make sure women have the right to CHOOSE to eat breakfast in the morning? Again, it's not about the right to choose, it's the right to have an abortion without facing legal consequences. I think it's dumb abortion is the only RIGHT that we have to clarify that people can choose. Every right is a choice for Christ sake. You don't have to do anything you have the right to do. It's ridiculous and you just can't admit it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.108  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.97    6 days ago

Vic,

That's a baby and that would be murder. 

What are these:

01B0W1JX?imageId=22442399&imageCode=01B0

512

Mouse-_embryo_E11.5.jpg
s6or9tnyztoiswq62qin.jpg

Which is the human one?

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.109  Tessylo  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.107    6 days ago

'Again, it's not about the right to choose, it's the right to have an abortion without facing legal consequences.'

What legal consequences for a lawful medical procedure?  It's not illegal to have an abortion despite all the attempts of the 'right' to make it so.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.110  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.108    6 days ago

Oh.. So looks decide whether a human has the right to life.

Why in the world would how a baby looks be relevant in whether it's okay to kill it? Is that how life or death appearances should be made, on looks?

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.111  Dulay  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.107    6 days ago
OK, so then do we have to make a law to make sure women have the right to CHOOSE to eat breakfast in the morning?

Is that supposed to be a cogent analogy? jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

Again, it's not about the right to choose, it's the right to have an abortion without facing legal consequences.

Again, wrong. There were few if any 'legal consequences' for a woman having an abortion prior to Roe v. Wade. 

I think it's dumb abortion is the only RIGHT that we have to clarify that people can choose.

I suggest that you review the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. You'll find more there. 

Every right is a choice for Christ sake. You don't have to do anything you have the right to do.

So then it IS about choice. It's ridiculous that you just can't admit it.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.112  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.1.95    6 days ago
It is inflammatory to call human life a clump of cells when human life is so much more than that.  

No more than any other mammal embryo. We're just very smart animals Xx. Smart enough to know we live on a unique planet and too stupid not to make it uninhabitable for human life. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.113  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.110    6 days ago

'Oh.. So looks decide whether a human has the right to life.

Why in the world would how a baby looks be relevant in whether it's okay to kill it? Is that how life or death appearances should be made, on looks?'

So you couldn't tell which one was the human embryo, obviously. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.114  It Is ME  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.93    6 days ago
Nicely done!

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.115  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.107    6 days ago

Wow, way to make another asinine analogy. Good job.

Yes, a woman has the legal right to an abortion, The problem is that wasn't always the case and there are those who try or want that right and choice revoked or severely limited.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.116  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.110    6 days ago

It'd not OK to kill babies and there are laws against it. But an embryo/fetus is not yet a baby, legally, factually, or scientifically.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.117  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.116    6 days ago

What's the legal definition of baby?  

It is, as you apparently concede, perfectly appropriate linguistically to call a baby, a baby, while it is still in the womb. So it's perfectly correct to use the term as I did. You are just arguing about what subset of babies it's legally okay to kill now. 

 
 
 
MUVA
8.1.118  MUVA  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.117    6 days ago

I have never heard a women when asked what she is having while pregnant  reply a clump of male or female  cells.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.119  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.117    6 days ago

You misconstrued what I said, and probably intentionally too. I said people can call uterine contents a "baby" or whatever they want. But that doesn't mean it's an actual baby. It's not. And I never saidid it was. It's an embryo/fetus. And it's not a baby until birth. Thats just fact!

 
 
 
MUVA
8.1.120  MUVA  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.119    6 days ago

It’s not a baby at 6 months?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.121  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.108    6 days ago

We don't know - None of us. I always err on the side of life.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.122  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.119    6 days ago

I said people can call uterine contents a "baby" or whatever they want

They do. Because it is. 

ut that doesn't mean it's an actual baby. It's no

Sure it does. That's why people ask a pregnant woman "how the's baby?" It's the English language you are arguing against. 

 And it's not a baby until birth. Thats just fact!

But it's not.  the term baby refers to a baby in the womb as well as outside of it. That's the inescapable "fact"  of how the word is used. To deny it is dishonest.  Ask yourself which sentence a pregnant woman is more likely to say    "the embryo kept me awake by kicking all night." Or, "The baby kept me awake by kicking all night."  We all know it's the latter. 

So it's factually correct to say abortions kills babies. You don't get to redefine a word to suit your political agenda.  

It's always amusing to see abortion cheerleaders shy away from being honest about the reality of what they advocate for.  It speaks volumes. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.123  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.122    6 days ago
Sure it does. That's why people ask a pregnant woman "how the's baby?" It's the English language you are arguing against. 

No that is vernacular. How can you call this:

Mouse-_embryo_E11.5.jpg

A baby?. It isn't. 

No mother  says "the embryo kept me awake by kicking all night." 

Yes, because then it is a baby. 

So it's factually correct to say abortions kills babies. You don't get to redefine a word to suit your political agenda.

What political agenda? Maybe it's your religious beliefs that are getting in the way and that is why you can make something as clear as this into a political statement when it isn't.

It's always amusing to see abortion cheerleaders shy away from being honest about the reality of what they advocate for.  It speaks volumes. 

Well, 1. I am not an abortion cheerleader. I advocate for choice and 2. I believe that there are limitations to that choice. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.124  Gordy327  replied to  MUVA @8.1.120    6 days ago

6 months post birth, yes. 6 months gestation, no.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.125  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.123    6 days ago

      Yes, because then it is a baby. 

So you agree with me. Great. That human life which kept it's mother up all night with kicking, and which you agree is properly called a baby, can be aborted the next day.. Thus killing a baby. 

What political agend

Because its bad politics to admit you kill babies. You have to dehumanize the victims and refusing to refer to them as babies when you kill them makes it easier to do so. Dehumanization is the necessary first step to killing. Word choice (linguistics) and politics are inextricably intertwined. Ask Orwell or Chomsky.

Maybe it's your religious beliefs that are

My atheism makes me want to protect human life?  I'll think about that. k

I am not an abortion cheerleader. I advocate for choice and 2. I believe that there are limitations to that choic

Then why is so hard to admit that aborting a human that is capable of living outside the womb kills a baby, when you admit the word baby is a perfectly appropriate term for a pregnant mother  to use when referring to her kicking child in the womb 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.126  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.125    6 days ago
So you agree with me. Great. That human life which kept it's mother up all night with kicking, and which you agree is properly called a baby, can be aborted the next day.. Thus killing a baby. 

Personally, after 16 weeks, which is when a fetus makes all the appropriate neuro connections, I think it is a baby, and I don't advocate for abortions unless for the mother's life. 

My atheism makes me want to protect human life?  I'll think about that. k

OK you explain it. Because scientifically, prior to the 16 week period, it is not a baby.

Then why is so hard to admit that aborting a human that is capable of living outside the womb kills a baby, when you admit the word baby is a perfectly appropriate term for a pregnant mother  to use when referring to her kicking child in the womb 

Sean, do you read my posts? When have I advocated for killing a baby that can live outside the human body? Nevermind that.. I even hedge in favor of a very preterm baby which can't live outside the human body. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.127  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.126    6 days ago
ns, I think it is a baby, and I don't advocate for abortions unless for the mother's life

So I don't understand how you disagree with me. At 16 weeks, or much further along in the process, an abortion can be performed. Thus it's axiomatic that abortion kills babies because 16 week old babies can be aborted (and frequently are)

Because scientifically, prior to the 16 week period, it is not a baby.

But abortions occur all the time after 16 weeks. So abortions kill babies. 

s? When have I advocated for killing a baby that can live outside the human body?

I never claimed you did.  But  babies that can live outside the human body are sometimes aborted.

Please read what I wrote again. It was claimed that it's illegal to kill babies. I said that's false. It's obviously legal.  You've made clear that you believe that some abortions kill babies, so I don't know what you are disagreeing with. 

 
 
 
cjcold
8.1.128  cjcold  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.1.13    6 days ago
Which ones?

The pregnant ones. It is their decision to make.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.129  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.122    6 days ago
They do. Because it is.

They can, but it's not.

That's why people ask a pregnant woman "how the's baby?" It's the English language you are arguing against.

Why don't you look up the English word 'vernacular,' then get back to me.

But it's not.

Yes, it is.

 the term baby refers to a baby in the womb as well as outside of it.

It refers to uterine contents. But the correct term is embryo/fetus.

That's the inescapable "fact"  of how the word is used. To deny it is dishonest.

How it's used doesn't change the definition of what actually is. Baby is the correct term for after birth. Embryo/fetus, ect is the correct term before. Look it up.

 Ask yourself which sentence a pregnant woman is more likely to say    "the embryo kept me awake by kicking all night." Or, "The baby kept me awake by kicking all night."  We all know it's the latter. 

Immaterial. Term usage doesn't automatically mean it's the correct terminology.

At 16 weeks, or much further along in the process, an abortion can be performed.

Elective abortions can be performed up the point of viability.

Thus it's axiomatic that abortion kills babies because 16 week old babies can be aborted (and frequently are)

A 16 week fetus is not yet a baby. Again, look it up.

But abortions occur all the time after 16 weeks. So abortions kill babies. 

Wrong again, from both a scientific and legal perspective.

But  babies that can live outside the human body are sometimes aborted.

Only in cases of fetal deformity/demise or health threats to the woman. 

It was claimed that it's illegal to kill babies. I said that's false. It's obviously legal. 

Really? Which states makes it legal to kill babies? I'm willing to bet if I killed a baby, I'd be sent to prison.

You have to dehumanize the victims and refusing to refer to them as babies when you kill them makes it easier to do so. 

How melodramatic.

why is so hard to admit that aborting a human that is capable of living outside the womb kills a baby,

Because it's incorrect.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.130  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.129    6 days ago

Please stop the desperate flailing around.  Nothing you wrote contradicts the logic of my argument.  We call babies in the wombs babies, and babies (including viable ones)  are legally aborted. Those are inescapable facts. 

You've already admitted(how could you not! ) that we call babies in the womb babies. You can't argue against that anymore than you can argue you we don't call the sky blue.

In your world, what do expectant mothers call their babies while pregnant? Dogs? Clumps of cells? Wolverines?

Of course not. The correct word is baby. That's what language does. It conveys a generally understood meaning. And any honest person knows when an expectant mother talks about her baby kicking, she's referring to the human life in her stomach.

But I'm willing to let you discredit yourself. If you have to resort to arguing that mother's  don't commonly refer to their baby in the womb as a baby, it's your credibility.

 
 
 
pat wilson
8.1.131  pat wilson  replied to  It Is ME @8.1.36    6 days ago

Some of the species of each item on your list are threatened with extinction. This has zilch to do with abortion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.132  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.130    6 days ago
Please stop the desperate flailing around. 

Speak for yourself!

Nothing you wrote contradicts the logic of my argument.

Let me know when you formulate a logical argument instead of emotionally based rhetoric.

  We call babies in the wombs babies, and babies (including viable ones)  are legally aborted. Those are inescapable facts. 

You call it a flying Zucchini Person for all I care. The FACT is, no matter what you call it, it's an embryo or fetus. That's an inescapable scientific fact.

You've already admitted(how could you not! ) that we call babies in the womb babies. You can't argue against that anymore than you can argue you we don't call the sky blue

See previous statement. You're really grasping at straws in thinking calling an unborn a "baby" automatically makes it so.

In your world, what do expectant mothers call their babies while pregnant? Dogs? Clumps of cells? Wolverines?

In my world, I couldn't care less what anyone calls it. I'll call it for what it is, a fetus.

 The correct word is baby.

Only after birth.

That's what language does. It conveys a generally understood meaning. And any honest person knows when an expectant mother talks about her baby kicking, she's referring to the human life in her stomach

Immaterial. I use proper terminology. Not emotionally based vernaculars.

But I'm willing to let you discredit yourself. If you have to resort to arguing that mother's  don't commonly refer to their baby in the womb as a baby, it's your credibility.

I never said an expectant mother doesn't refer to her unborn as a "baby." I've said the term "baby" is the incorrect terminology. And I've provided the correct scientific terms. Clearly you either haven't been paying attention to what I said, or just didn't get it. Which is it?

 
 
 
cjcold
8.1.133  cjcold  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.1.29    6 days ago
Not to mention The willful inflammatory language

Coming from you that is a hoot. 

Thought you had the market cornered on willful inflammatory language.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.134  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.132    6 days ago

formulate a logical argument instead of emotionally based rhetoric.

I can always tell you are getting desperate when you start whining that others use "emotionally based rhetoric"   Your shtick is obvious. 

My argument is perfectly logical, which is why you can't refute it. 

The FACT is, no matter what you call it, it's an embryo or fetus

If  expectant mothers said "The embryo is kicking!," you might have a point  

But you know, I know, and everyone reading this forum knows the standard word used is "baby." To claim otherwise is dishonest.

And this should be obvious to anyone familiar with the English language, but more than one word can be used to describe something.  The idea that because it can be called a fetus somehow means it cannot be called a baby is preposterous.  

, I couldn't care less what anyone calls it. I'll call it for what it is, a fetus.

You can call it what you want. I'm sure you are a hit at parties correcting women about what they call their babies.

 never said an expectant mother doesn't refer to her unborn as a "baby.'

Then you've lost the argument. You agree that the word baby refers to unborn children. Whether you, personally, approve of it's usage in that context is completely irrelevant. It's meaning is defined by usage, not your wishes.  That's how language works. 

See. we agree that the word baby refers to unborn children and that said that unborn children can be aborted. Thus abortion kills babies. It's an airtight argument.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.135  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.127    6 days ago
So I don't understand how you disagree with me. At 16 weeks, or much further along in the process, an abortion can be performed. Thus it's axiomatic that abortion kills babies because 16 week old babies can be aborted (and frequently are)

Sean, most abortions are done within the first trimester. That is 12 weeks. From the CDC:

The majority of abortions in 2016 took place early in gestation: 91.0% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.7%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.2%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. In 2016,

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

But  babies that can live outside the human body are sometimes aborted.

But there is usually a reason, like because of the mother's health. When I was in the hospital trying to keep my pregnancy, I actually saw a mom have to decide to die from the meds that were keeping the baby but giving her mini strokes or abort. Luckily that wasn't me. 

You've made clear that you believe that some abortions kill babies, so I don't know what you are disagreeing with. 

My issue is that most late term abortions are not done willy nilly. They are done for a reason. 

 
 
 
charger 383
8.1.136  charger 383  replied to  katrix @8.1.69    6 days ago

I like that idea

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.137  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.135    6 days ago

Sean, most abortions are done within the first trimester. That is 12 weeks. From the CDC:

so what? That doesn’t  have anything to do the point I made.  Given that there’s about a million abortions a year, there’s a lot that don’t occur in first 12 weeks, even if “most” do.

But there is usually a reason,

again, so what? Usually, most and all the other qualifications you need to use simply means not all.

most late term abortions are not done willy nilly. They are done for a reason. 


Even if we are just talking about late term, third trimester abortions, “most” leaves a lot of wiggle room.

at the end of the day, a significant number babies are killed, no matter how many qualifications you use.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.138  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.137    6 days ago
Given that there’s about a million abortions a year, there’s a lot that don’t occur in first 12 weeks, even if “most” do.

Sean, in 2016 (which is the most recent stat) there were 623,471 legal induced abortions, so you are off by about 400,000. Furthermore, 91% were done before 12 weeks or 567,358, which is hardly the numbers you are talking about. 

Usually, most and all the other qualifications you need to use simply means not all.

What do you base that on? 

at the end of the day, a significant number babies are killed, no matter how many qualifications you use.

At the end of the day, all late term abortions are done by doctors, who are the ones who make the call, if these are legal abortions. 

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.140  Dulay  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @8.1.87    6 days ago

For someone who insist that terminology is of utmost importance, it may behoove you to learn the terminology of the stages of development. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.141  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.138    6 days ago

Perrie, I used the average historically, rather than pick one year, because the actual number has no bearing on the actual point being discussed.  

Babies, as you yourself define them, are still legally killed.  Nothing you've written changes that, or even addresses that. 

.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.142  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.141    6 days ago

No babies are being killed no matter how many times you say it.  Nothing you've written changes that or addresses that.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.143  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.142    6 days ago

You'll excuse me if I don't invest the time and energy to explain what's going on to you today.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.144  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.143    6 days ago

No need.  You have absolutely nothing to contribute in that regard.

Since you appear to need to have the last word, proceed.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.145  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.134    6 days ago
Your shtick is obvious. 

You must be projecting.

My argument is perfectly logical, which is why you can't refute it. 

You haven't made any real argument. Just erroneous proclamations. But hey, if you want to be a legend in your own mind, go right ahead.

And this should be obvious to anyone familiar with the English language, but more than one word can be used to describe something.  The idea that because it can be called a fetus somehow means it cannot be called a baby is preposterous.  

When you learn proper scientific terminology, then get back to me. 

You can call it what you want. 

I call it what it is, especially from the scientific standpoint.

Then you've lost the argument. You agree that the word baby refers to unborn children. Whether you, personally, approve of it's usage in that context is completely irrelevant. It's meaning is defined by usage, not your wishes.  That's how language works. 

It seems you still fail to understand vernaculars.

See. we agree that the word baby refers to unborn children and that said that unborn children can be aborted. Thus abortion kills babies. It's an airtight argument.

Try arguing that in a court of law. They'll laugh you right out, as I'm doing.

Babies, as you yourself define them, are still legally killed.  Nothing you've written changes that, or even addresses that. 

Except that an embryo/fetus is not a baby, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise. And since abortion is legal, there's really no problem.

You'll excuse me if I don't invest the time and energy to explain what's going on to you today.

That's because you seem incapable of doing so without resorting to the usual platitudes.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.146  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.145    6 days ago

You haven't made any real argument. Just erroneous proclamations. 

You must be projecting. Your "argument" consists of conceding I am, in fact correct, and then bizarrely claiming that because you personally prefer using other word, it's wrong to use a word you've already conceded is correct.  That's now how the  English language works, and it's sad I have to keep pointing out that you don't control which appropriate words are used. 

It seems you still fail to understand vernaculars

It seems you don't, if you think that helps you.  Of course I'm speaking in  the vernacular, I'm on website discussion forum. Unless you can prove it's wrong to use in the vernacular, you have no point. 

Your whole argument consists of "you are appropriately using the vernacular on an informal web discussion board." To which my response would be, "no shit, Sherlock"

ry arguing that in a court of law. They'll laugh you right out, as I'm doin

I'm sorry. Do you think this is a court of law? Obviously not, because your next line, "they'll laugh you right as I'm doing" would of course be laughed out of the court room itself if you ever tried to use it to rebut an argument in a Court of law.  So while you have no problem using the vernacular on this site, it's hypocritical to claim others can't.  Given that your response to arguments often consists of nothing more than the juvenile, unsubstantiated "no, it's not" why would you even think it's a good idea to attack the use of the vernacular?  Let's be honest, those responses of yours are barely a  bare step up from sticking your fingers in your ears and going "na na a bo bo"

This is a website discussion forum, not a court of law. Everyone here is speaking in the vernacular, if you haven't noticed. So, the usage, which you admit is correct, is quite appropriate in the circumstance. To try and single out one correctly used  word  in sea of vernacular speech as forbidden shows just how powerful a hold that word has on you emotionally. 

 

bryo/fetus is not a baby, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise

But you've agreed to the opposite, that's an embryo is commonly referred to a baby. Put your emotions aside and follow the logic. We've agreed, it's perfectly appropriate to refer to an unborn child as a baby. It's also uncontested that an abortion ends the unborn child's life. Therefore, abortion kills babies. 

It's sad you can't get past your emotional reaction to the word baby.

And since abortion is legal, there's really no problem.

Unless you are the baby being cut up. But abortion's legality has nothing to do with this. Would they suddenly be babies if abortion were illegal? You think the acceptability of calling a baby in the womb a baby hinges on the legality of abortion? What a random thin 

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.147  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.65    5 days ago

So I presume that means that you are against abortion even prior to quickening and your comment was irrelevant. Thanks for clearing that up. 

 
 
 
Dulay
8.1.148  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.70    5 days ago

Is someone trying to claim that humans aren't animals? 

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.1.149  Split Personality  replied to  MUVA @8.1.118    5 days ago

No one ever says they are baking batter either.

they usually describe what they expect, like a cake...

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
8.1.150  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.33    5 days ago

As if there’s a difference 

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.151  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.1.150    5 days ago

"As if there’s a difference' 

It would be helpful if you copied and pasted what you were responding to.  I don't have the time or patience to go through all the comments to figure out what you're referring to.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
8.2  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Tessylo @8    one week ago

And now we have a safe way to attempt to reverse that method as well.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.2    one week ago

What the fuck are you talking about 

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.2    one week ago

Reverse what method?

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
8.2.3  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.2    one week ago

The two pill method.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
8.2.4  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.2    one week ago

The two pill method.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.2.4    one week ago

Attempt to reverse an abortion?  Moronic.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.2.6  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.2.4    one week ago
The two pill method.  

A quite ineffective and time limited method, with little scientific backing to support its use.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
8.2.7  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Gordy327 @8.2.6    one week ago

Mifepristone is generally used to prevent a miscarriage. It is easily available.  It gives the woman who changes her mind the chance to make that choice 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8.2.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.2.7    one week ago

Mifeprestone is used to induce an abortion.  Progesterone has been proposed as a method to reverse the effects of mifeprestone.  Before putting forth such information, you might want to check that you're proposing the correct meds.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/12/05/785262221/safety-problems-lead-to-early-end-for-study-of-abortion-pill-reversal

For the study, the researchers aimed to enroll 40 women who were scheduled to have surgical abortions. Before their surgical procedures, the women received mifepristone, the first pill in the two-medication regimen that's used for medical abortions. The women were then randomly assigned to receive either a placebo or progesterone, which advocates claim can block the effects of mifepristone.

But researchers stopped the study in July, after only 12 women had enrolled. Three of the women required ambulance transport to a hospital for treatment of severe vaginal bleeding.

The researchers decided the risk to women of participation was too great to continue with the study. The study was unable to show what, if any, effectiveness progesterone has in reversing a medical abortion.

I don't think offering women a "treatment" that could cause them to bleed out is very "pro-life".

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.2.9  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.2.7    one week ago
Mifepristone is generally used to prevent a miscarriage. It is easily available.  It gives the woman who changes her mind the chance to make that choice 

That doesn't change or refute my statement. And based on what Sandy found, it seems to cause more harm than good.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.2.8    one week ago

Like trying to re-implant an ectopic pregnancy.

 
 
 
lady in black
8.2.11  lady in black  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.2.8    one week ago

Pro lifers only care about the fetus...they don't care if the woman dies because she spread her legs in the first place.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.2.12  Gordy327  replied to  lady in black @8.2.11    one week ago

I've actually heard some people say if a woman dies or suffers a complication from abortiom, then she deserves it for having an abortion. How someone can hate women like that boggles the mind.

 
 
 
lady in black
8.2.13  lady in black  replied to  Gordy327 @8.2.12    one week ago

They are only pro-fetus and it's disgusting.  They are NOT prolife they are anti-women

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.2.14  Gordy327  replied to  lady in black @8.2.13    one week ago

You hit the nail on the head.

 
 
 
Veronica
8.2.15  Veronica  replied to  lady in black @8.2.13    one week ago
They are NOT prolife they are anti-women

I have the hardest time with many 'pro-lifers" that get all up in arms about paying taxes ("keep your government hands off my money") but think it is perfectly acceptable to get their hands inside a woman's uterus.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
8.2.16  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Gordy327 @8.2.9    one week ago

The medication that is used to reduce the odds of a miscarriage is safe.  It’s used regularly for that.  The abortion pill seeks to cause one.  One who is supposedly pro choice should have no problem with a woman choosing to change her mind has a way to try to undo her prior choice.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2.17  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.2.16    one week ago

You need to provide proof/documentation of this medication and its' safety.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.2.18  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.17    6 days ago

I've asked him for that too: scientific, peer reviewed studies regarding the efficacy of that med. But I also agree that if a woman chooses to reverse an abortion, she should be allowed to do so.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2.19  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @8.2.18    6 days ago
'But I also agree that if a woman chooses to reverse an abortion, she should be allowed to do so.'

I agree also but I doubt that's an option, anywhere.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8.2.20  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @8.2.18    6 days ago
But I also agree that if a woman chooses to reverse an abortion, she should be allowed to do so.

I would agree, if it hadn't already been shown to be so risky that emergency transport was required.  Since the efficacy hasn't been demonstrated, and lack of safety has, I can't agree that this should be an option.  And I doubt many health care providers would be willing to take the risk of prescribing it.  From the study, the risks far outweigh the benefits.

If the risk:benefit ratio could be reversed, I would agree that it should be an option.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.2.21  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.2.20    6 days ago

It''s funny how some people forget the details. They're so tunnel vis ione on their beliefs, they neglect anything else.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.2.22  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.2.16    6 days ago
It's always amusing to see abortion cheerleaders shy away from being honest about the reality of what they advocate for.  It speaks volumes. 

Did you not read Sandy's post? It is clearly not safe. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
8.2.23  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.2.22    6 days ago

I didn’t say in 8.2.16 what I’m quoted in 8.2.22 as saying there. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8.2.24  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @8.2.23    6 days ago

How is your quote relevant?  The words I quoted directly from your comment merely reveal that you don't know what the meds you're talking about actually do, and yet you want to propose that they be used in a manner that has been demonstrated to be extremely unsafe.

There has been a study started to research your proposed method of reversing a medication abortion.  It was shown to be so unsafe that the study had to be abandoned quickly.

And yet you're still pushing that method as viable.

That's not pro-life.  It's potentially pro-death, for the women in question.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
 
 
Tessylo
9.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @9.1    one week ago

Your rebuttal is nonsense.  Dinesh D'Souza is a lying tRumpster.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
10  Tessylo    one week ago
A Planned Parenthood in St. Paul, Minnesota.   Ken Wolter/shutterstock.com

Who are the 1 in 4 American women who choose abortion?

May 30, 2019 8.51am EDT

Author

  1. 3682.jpg Luu D. Ireland

    Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Massachusetts Medical School

Disclosure statement

Luu D Ireland is affiliated with Physicians for Reproductive Health.

Partners

logo-1521580100.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&

University of Massachusetts   provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

The abortion debate is at the center of U.S. political dialogue. Voices from both sides flood social media feeds, newspapers, radio and television programs.

In the last year, attacks on reproductive rights sharply increased. In 2019, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky and Mississippi successfully passed so-called “heartbeat” bans to prohibit abortion as early as 6 to 8 weeks. Alabama is the first state to pass   a complete abortion ban   without exceptions for rape or incest. Due to ongoing legal challenges, these bans have yet to go into effect.

One important group’s voice is often absent in this heated debate: the women who choose abortion. While   1 in 4 women   will undergo abortion in her lifetime, stigma keeps their stories untold. As an obstetrician/gynecologist who provides full spectrum reproductive health care, I hear these stories daily.

Unintended pregnancy

In 2011, nearly half of pregnancies in the U.S.   were unintended . This reflects   a 6% drop in unintended pregnancies   since 2008,   largely due to   Title X   family planning programs and easier access to birth control.

Unintended pregnancy   remains most common among poor women, women of color and women without a high school education. Women living in poverty have a rate of unintended pregnancy five times higher than those with middle or high incomes. Black women are twice as likely to have an unintended pregnancy as white women.

Barriers to contraception play a major role. Among women with unintended pregnancies, 54% were using no birth control. Another 41% were inconsistently using birth control at the time of conception.

Forty-two percent of women with unintended pregnancy choose to end their pregnancies.

The women who choose abortion

Abortion is a routine part of reproductive health care. Approximately 25% of women in the U.S.   will undergo an abortion   before the age of 45. The Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy institute in New York City, has been tracking these data for the last 50 years.

This iframe is not allowed

American women have abortions with similar frequency   to women living in other developed nations . The bulk of abortion patients   are in their 20s .

Women of all races and ethnicities choose abortion. In 2014, 39% of abortion patients were white, 28% were black and 25% were Latinx. Similarly, women of all religious affiliations choose to end their pregnancies at similar frequencies.

Most of these women understand what it means to parent a child. More than half of abortion patients in 2014 were already mothers.

Poor women account for the majority of abortion patients. Fifty-three percent of women pay out-of-pocket for their abortion. The rest use private or state-funded insurance plans.

Women choose abortion   for multiple reasons . The most common reason cited is that pregnancy would interfere with education, work or ability to care for dependents.

Financial stress also plays a major role in women’s decision-making. Seventy-three percent of women reported that they could not afford a baby at the time. Nearly half cited relationship difficulties or wanting to avoid single motherhood. More than a third of women felt their families were complete.

This iframe is not allowed

Twelve percent chose abortion due to their own health problems. For example, one of my patients and her husband were thrilled to find out she was pregnant for the first time. Then she received the diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer. She had to choose between lifesaving chemotherapy and radiation or her pregnancy.

Safety of abortion

Nine in 10 women who receive abortions undergo abortion in the first trimester. Only 1.3% of abortions happen with pregnancies past 20 weeks of gestation.

This iframe is not allowed

When performed legally by skilled practitioners, abortion is   a safe medical procedure   with a low complication rate. The risk of major complications – such as hospitalization, infection, blood transfusion or surgery – in first-trimester procedures is less than 0.5%.   The risk of dying in childbirth   is 14 times higher than the risk of dying from safe abortion.

Studies show   that abortion is not linked to long-term health complications, including breast cancer, infertility, miscarriage or psychiatric disorders.   The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , the nation’s leading professional organization of obstetricians and gynecologists, has reaffirmed the safety of abortion.

Conversely, the negative impacts from abortion restrictions are well-documented.   Women unable to obtain abortions   are more likely live in poverty or depend on cash assistance, and less likely to work full-time.

Since 2011, politicians have enacted over   400 pieces of legislation   restricting this medical procedure.

Access to safe and legal abortion is an essential part of health care.   Most Americans agree . Sixty-four percent of Americans, regardless of pro-choice or pro-life status, would like to see the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision upheld. Another 79% want abortion to remain legal. As a physician, the health and livelihood of my patients depend on it.

This is an updated version of   an article originally published on July 27, 2018 .

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
11  jungkonservativ111    one week ago

The only way to end abortions, is to stop the "free love" sex movement that the hippies started in the 60s. Until people start to learn that sex comes at a price and is not "free", we will have this problem. It's probably hopeless to be honest. Contraceptives are readily available and affordable in this country as well as public school education, yet this continues to be an issue. What can you do about dumb people?

 
 
 
katrix
11.1  katrix  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @11    one week ago

Well, a lot of conservatives push "abstinence only" education and work their asses off to close places like Planned Parenthood that provide birth control and sex ed. Until these dumb people stop being so stupid, it probably IS hopeless.

 
 
 
Ronin2
11.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  katrix @11.1    one week ago

When did high school stop teaching sex ed? That is publicly funded and mandatory; unless something has changed.

Of course it didn't stop teenage pregnancy back when I went; but maybe today's youth are smarter and more informed since teenage pregnancy seems to be on the decline.

https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/teen-pregnancy

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/02/why-is-the-teen-birth-rate-falling/

The teen birth rate in the United States is at a record low, dropping below 18 births per 1,000 girls and women ages 15 to 19 for the first time since the government began regularly collecting data on this group, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of newly released data from the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, the birth rate among 15- to 19-year-old girls and women was less than half of what it had been in 2008 (41.5 births per 1,000). Asians and Pacific Islanders led the way over this time, followed by Hispanics, with teen birth rate declines of 74% and 65%, respectively. Rates for white and black teens fell by more than 50% over the past decade as well.

I personally don't like Planned Parenthood. Had one very bad experience with them back when I was in college. I have no problem with their existence; but tax payer money should not go to funding them. Of course I feel the same way about any "non profit' or organization that operates a PAC.

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @11.1.1    one week ago

They don't take taxpayer funding

 
 
 
Sparty On
11.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Ronin2 @11.1.1    one week ago
I have no problem with their existence; but tax payer money should not go to funding them.

I agree when related to abortion but i don't agree with outlawing a persons freedom to get an abortion if so desired.   There are enough pro choice people out there, that are passionate about "Pro Choice", that they should have no problem collecting enough donations to fund their own abortion clinics.   Other than that, i have zero problem with PP.

Release the hounds!

 
 
 
Ronin2
11.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @11.1.2    one week ago

Right.

What do you call it when PP receives federal funding?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

Planned Parenthood has received federal funding since 1970, when President Richard Nixon  signed into law the  Family Planning Services and Population Research Act , amending the  Public Health Service Act Title X  of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning information. The law had support from both  Republicans  and  Democrats . [71]  Nixon described Title X funding as based on the premise that "no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition." [72]

https://www.istandwithpp.org/defund-defined/how-federal-funding-works-planned-parenthood

About a third of the revenue received at Planned Parenthood (34%) is from government health services reimbursements and grants, such as Medicaid and Title X. In 2017, those reimbursements and grants added up to $564 million — all of which went to health centers for medical services. Most of that money came through patients’ Medicaid coverage; a smaller fraction, totaling between $50 million and $60 million, came through Title X grants. In a purposeful move to push Planned Parenthood out of the program, the Trump-Pence administration has made  recent changes to Title X —risking health care for tens of thousands of patients.

Next time try something that isn't so easy to disprove.

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @11.1.4    one week ago

See comment 13

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.6  katrix  replied to  Ronin2 @11.1.1    one week ago
When did high school stop teaching sex ed? That is publicly funded and mandatory

Teaching "abstinence only" sex ed doesn't actually count as teaching sex ed. Kids taught abstinence only don't have less sex, but when they do have sex they're more likely to get pregnant/get someone pregnant/get an STD because they don't use protection.

And no, sex ed isn't mandatory.

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.7  katrix  replied to  Ronin2 @11.1.4    one week ago
Next time try something that isn't so easy to disprove.

They don't spend any taxpayer funds on abortion.

Instead, they provide health care to lots of people and they do a lot to prevent unwanted pregnancies. A great organization.

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Ronin2 @11.1.4    one week ago
Next time try something that isn't so easy to disprove.

Tess can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was referring to PP receiving tax money for abortions. On that, with certain exceptions, he is correct.

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.8    one week ago

That's she, Gordy, no harm done, and I was mistaken, they no longer receive Title X funding.  

You are correct though.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @11.1.9    one week ago

My mistake. Apologies Tess

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.10    one week ago

No need.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.2  Gordy327  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @11    one week ago
The only way to end abortions, is to stop the "free love" sex movement that the hippies started in the 60s. Until people start to learn that sex comes at a price and is not "free", we will have this problem.

So your solution is what, regress back to Puritan times?

Contraceptives are readily available and affordable in this country as well as public school education,

As they should be. Although, some schools might opt for abstinence only education or parents might prohibit sex ed for their children.

yet this continues to be an issue. 

Only because some people think abortion is their business and want to restrict or prohibit it. It probably wouldn't be if people minded their own business, especially when it comes to another's choice.

 
 
 
It Is ME
12  It Is ME    one week ago

"They don't take taxpayer funding"

Whaaaaaaa ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
13  Tessylo    one week ago

My mistake, they no longer receive Title IX funding

Though many morons are trying to shut them down completely despite only 3% of their services are towards abortion 

 
 
 
It Is ME
14  It Is ME    one week ago

"My mistake, they no longer receive Title IX funding"

"X" Funding ?

So ..… now they only receive 440 million a year, instead of 500 million a year in tax payer money ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
15  Tessylo    one week ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
Tessylo
15.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @15.1    one week ago

So what?

I made a mistake.

Who cares?

It is me was correct, for once

I'll mark it on my calendar

 
 
 
MUVA
15.1.2  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @15.1.1    one week ago

Full calendar?

 
 
 
Tessylo
15.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @15.1.2    one week ago

No, I'm sure yours is though.  

 
 
 
evilgenius
16  evilgenius    one week ago

I don't think anyone would like the world where fair access to abortion is outlawed. Row v Wade is based on privacy rights between a individual and her health care practitioner. Reverse that and you open the door to reverse HIPPA. I'm certain Conservatives will be happy to share all their health information with anyone and everyone that can pay a hospital to get it.

 
 
 
charger 383
17  charger 383    one week ago

In the Bible, did Jesus Christ ever specifically say abortion was bad?

 
 
 
DRHunk
17.1  DRHunk  replied to  charger 383 @17    one week ago

Most people when presented with evidence of what the bible really does or does not say could care less. All they care about are their own feelings and interpretations of the world and they use any means necessary to try and enforce it on everyone else, including using religion as a scapegoat.

At no time has anyone I talked to that has used "God" or the bible as an excuse ever went...oh really, I did not realize the bible really said that, I am going to change the way I feel about X.

 
 
 
Kathleen
18  Kathleen    one week ago

Woman should be able to make up their own minds about their healthcare. You have to really think before you decide to bring a human being into this world. Think about what kind of life they are going to have.  Who will raise them properly and give them the basic needs along with the love they deserve. Just having them without knowing what future they will have, to me is irresponsible. When we have kids it’s always unpredictable, but we basically know that we can provide a good home to them. Some people can’t. There is abuse, and no stability and sometimes death to these unwanted children. 

So I think it’s better to end the pregnancy, then to bring a child into this world unwanted. 

 
 
 
charger 383
18.1  charger 383  replied to  Kathleen @18    one week ago
So I think it’s better to end the pregnancy, then to bring a child into this world unwanted. 

If something is not wanted, usually it will not be taken good  care of

 
 
 
Sparty On
19  Sparty On    one week ago

And now for something completely different:

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
19.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @19    6 days ago

Love that skit! 

 
 
 
pat wilson
20  pat wilson    6 days ago

384

 
 
 
Tessylo
21.1  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @21    5 days ago

Not funny, stupid.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online




31 visitors