Evolution is Just Junk Science

May 18, 2007

On 18 Maj, 20:12, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <%Jk3i.3294$4Y....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,

>

> b...@nonespam.com wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > In article <f2k7uu$gb...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

> > >> Jason wrote:

> > >>> <snip>

>

> > >>> Jason wrote:

> > >>>>> Please tell me what lie that I told? I made an honest mistake. An honest

> > >>>>> mistake is different than a lie. I still don't remember the exact

> words of

> > >>>>> the television preacher. I don't take notes when I listen to a sermon.

> > >>>>> Jason

> > >>>> Jason, we just can't take your word for anything anymore. What

> > >>>> difference does it make if you made an honest mistake or if you

> > >>>> deliberately set out to deceive? I would hope that in the future you

> > >>>> can get your facts straight.

>

> > >>>> Frankly, when you say "I believe lots of people lied to me in this

> > >>>> thread" the impression I get is that you are arguing that it is okay

> > >>>> for you to lie because other people are lying too. I hope I am wrong

> > >>>> but I see no other reason for you to use the classic "But they've lied

> > >>>> too" argument if you are not admitting to (knowingly or unknowingly)

> > >>>> posting lies. Perhaps you can tell us what lies you've been told on

> > >>>> this thread.

>

> > >>>> Martin

> > >>> Martin,

> > >>> You are correct--it's not a good thing to do say: "Other people lied so

> > >>> therefore it's okay for me to lie".

> > >>> The main lie that I have heard is in relation to Planned Parenthood.

> > >> You haven't heard any lies about it unless you read your own posts

> out loud.

>

> > >>> Various posters have told me that abortions are an insignificant part of

> > >>> their operation. I have no doubt that the people that told me that

> > >>> information derived it from the Planned Parenthood website. That

> > >>> information at that site was probably written by a person or persons that

> > >>> have college degrees in the field of public relations. Almost all large

> > >>> companies and charity organizations have people like that on their staffs.

> > >>> I have received form letters from those sorts of people. Planned

> > >>> Parenthood derives millions of dollars per year as a result of abortions.

> > >>> Does Planned Parenthood offer other services--the answer is YES.

> > >> I have noticed that you have YET to actually REFUTE the statement that

> > >> abortions are an insignificant part of their operation. If a

> > >> company/organization brings in $500m a year and $5m of that is one

> > >> particular product/service, that IS an insignificant portion of the

> > >> company's income, even if it's "millions of dollars per year."

>

> > >>> I have also noticed that many of the people that responded to my posts

> > >>> seem to think that abortions do no harm to women.

> > >> Quote a single person who said abortions do "NO harm to women."

>

> > >> One poster indicated

> > >>> that only a very small number of women suffer severe depression as a

> > >>> result of abortions. I believe that is a lie but have no surveys for

> > >>> proof.

> > >> I.e. you claim it's a lie and yet can't support that claim.

>

> > >> I believe that over half of the woman that have had abortions

> > >>> suffer from severe depression problems--esp. if the abortions were

> > >>> performed during the second or third trimesters.

> > >> Any source for this belief other than your ass?

>

> > > You are being disrespectful. My evidence is the women that I have seen

> > > interviewed on Christian radio and television shows and the women that

> > > have told their stories in Church services. Even if I posted the survey

> > > results from a pro-life website--either you or someone else would say the

> > > survey has no credibility.

>

> > You have a biased source! Don't you understand? The women are selected

> > very carefully for such performances, probably more than the Jerry

> > Springer show, and just as much as the Bush campaign rallies during the

> > last election. You are only seeing what they want you to see.

>

> > Open your eyes, man. Look around. Talk to Planned Parenthood workers.

> > Try to listen to them respectfully and understand their point of view.

> > You don't have to agree with it. Plenty of people oppose abortion

> > without being reproduction fascists. Listening to other viewpoints does

> > not have to change yours, it should only give you a better, more

> > balanced understanding of the issues. These issues are complex, and you

> > are being fed simplistic lies by dishonest people.

>

> Yes, you are correct that I am only hearing from women that have suffered

> severe depression related to their abortion experiences. I have not talked

> to the women that are pleased with their abortion experiences and suffered

> no depression.- Skjul tekst i anf

May 18, 2007

In article <%Jk3i.3294$4Y.593@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,

bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <f2k7uu$gb0$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >

> >> Jason wrote:

> >>> <snip>

> >>>

> >>> Jason wrote:

> >>>>> Please tell me what lie that I told? I made an honest mistake. An honest

> >>>>> mistake is different than a lie. I still don't remember the exact

words of

> >>>>> the television preacher. I don't take notes when I listen to a sermon.

> >>>>> Jason

> >>>> Jason, we just can't take your word for anything anymore. What

> >>>> difference does it make if you made an honest mistake or if you

> >>>> deliberately set out to deceive? I would hope that in the future you

> >>>> can get your facts straight.

> >>>>

> >>>> Frankly, when you say "I believe lots of people lied to me in this

> >>>> thread" the impression I get is that you are arguing that it is okay

> >>>> for you to lie because other people are lying too. I hope I am wrong

> >>>> but I see no other reason for you to use the classic "But they've lied

> >>>> too" argument if you are not admitting to (knowingly or unknowingly)

> >>>> posting lies. Perhaps you can tell us what lies you've been told on

> >>>> this thread.

> >>>>

> >>>> Martin

> >>> Martin,

> >>> You are correct--it's not a good thing to do say: "Other people lied so

> >>> therefore it's okay for me to lie".

> >>> The main lie that I have heard is in relation to Planned Parenthood.

> >> You haven't heard any lies about it unless you read your own posts

out loud.

> >>

> >>> Various posters have told me that abortions are an insignificant part of

> >>> their operation. I have no doubt that the people that told me that

> >>> information derived it from the Planned Parenthood website. That

> >>> information at that site was probably written by a person or persons that

> >>> have college degrees in the field of public relations. Almost all large

> >>> companies and charity organizations have people like that on their staffs.

> >>> I have received form letters from those sorts of people. Planned

> >>> Parenthood derives millions of dollars per year as a result of abortions.

> >>> Does Planned Parenthood offer other services--the answer is YES.

> >> I have noticed that you have YET to actually REFUTE the statement that

> >> abortions are an insignificant part of their operation. If a

> >> company/organization brings in $500m a year and $5m of that is one

> >> particular product/service, that IS an insignificant portion of the

> >> company's income, even if it's "millions of dollars per year."

> >>

> >>> I have also noticed that many of the people that responded to my posts

> >>> seem to think that abortions do no harm to women.

> >> Quote a single person who said abortions do "NO harm to women."

> >>

> >> One poster indicated

> >>> that only a very small number of women suffer severe depression as a

> >>> result of abortions. I believe that is a lie but have no surveys for

> >>> proof.

> >> I.e. you claim it's a lie and yet can't support that claim.

> >>

> >> I believe that over half of the woman that have had abortions

> >>> suffer from severe depression problems--esp. if the abortions were

> >>> performed during the second or third trimesters.

> >> Any source for this belief other than your ass?

> >

> > You are being disrespectful. My evidence is the women that I have seen

> > interviewed on Christian radio and television shows and the women that

> > have told their stories in Church services. Even if I posted the survey

> > results from a pro-life website--either you or someone else would say the

> > survey has no credibility.

> >

>

> You have a biased source! Don't you understand? The women are selected

> very carefully for such performances, probably more than the Jerry

> Springer show, and just as much as the Bush campaign rallies during the

> last election. You are only seeing what they want you to see.

>

> Open your eyes, man. Look around. Talk to Planned Parenthood workers.

> Try to listen to them respectfully and understand their point of view.

> You don't have to agree with it. Plenty of people oppose abortion

> without being reproduction fascists. Listening to other viewpoints does

> not have to change yours, it should only give you a better, more

> balanced understanding of the issues. These issues are complex, and you

> are being fed simplistic lies by dishonest people.

Yes, you are correct that I am only hearing from women that have suffered

severe depression related to their abortion experiences. I have not talked

to the women that are pleased with their abortion experiences and suffered

no depression.

May 18, 2007

In article <Tvk3i.21160$YL5.5173@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,

bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <1179472005.049946.225150@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

> > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> >

> >> On 17 Maj, 22:30, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote:

> >>> Jason wrote:

> >>>> In article <1179392300.841908.294...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

> >>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> >>>>> On 16 Maj, 20:22, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >>>>>> In article

> > <1179316001.502902.218...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >>>>>>> On May 16, 3:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >>>>>>>> In article

> >>>> <1179292465.099634.114...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >>>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >>>>>>>>> On May 16, 11:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>> In article

> >>>>>> <1179278239.106024.108...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >>>>>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>> And yet during the first three months (when 90% of abortions take

> >>>>>>>>>>> place) that is all that the baby is. More abortions would

> >>>> take place

> >>>>>>>>>>> during the first three months if women were able to get easy

> >>>> access to

> >>>>>>>>>>> abortions. It is my personal opinion that women should not

> >>>> choose to

> >>>>>>>>>>> have abortions after three months and I would approve of any

> >>>> law that

> >>>>>>>>>>> discouraged women from having abortions after three months: it so

> >>>>>>>>>>> happens that late term abortiions are already illegal in 36

> >>>> states.

> >>>>>>>>>>> (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion) Here "late

> >>>>>>>>>>> term" refers to abortions that take place as early as five

> >>>> months into

> >>>>>>>>>>> the pregnancy. (See

> >>>>>> alsohttp://www.answers.com/topic/late-term-abortion

> >>>>>>>>>>> )

> >>>>>>>>>> I agree that abortions should only be legal during the first three

> >>>>>> months.

> >>>>>>>>>> The only exception would be if the mother's life was in danger.

> >>>>>>>>> That's not what I said.

> >>>>>>>>> 90% of abortions take place during the first three months anyway, I

> >>>>>>>>> would personally _discourage_ somebody from having an abortion after

> >>>>>>>>> three months but that's not the same thing as making it

illegal after

> >>>>>>>>> three months: when I said "I would approve of any law that

> > discouraged

> >>>>>>>>> women from having abortions after three months" I am not

> > talking about

> >>>>>>>>> an outright ban because, frankly, it is ultimately a matter

between a

> >>>>>>>>> woman and her doctor. I know (because my wife tells me) that

> > the baby

> >>>>>>>>> is quite heavy after three months and only gets heavier so an

> > unwanted

> >>>>>>>>> pregnancy might cause a woman to be unable to continue to work or

> >>>>>>>>> study or carry on a relationship or even keep her house clean,

do her

> >>>>>>>>> own cooking, etc. Unless you've had a baby (and I haven't -not

> >>>>>>>>> personally although my wife has- and I know you haven't) then you

> >>>>>>>>> can't even imagine what that would be like. It is my own personal

> >>>>>>>>> opinion that the baby becomes a person at some point after the three

> >>>>>>>>> month period and before the baby is born and that a woman

should give

> >>>>>>>>> serious thought to whether or not she wanted to have a late term

> >>>>>>>>> abortion. For a doctor to suggest that a woman considering a _late_

> >>>>>>>>> term abortion first undergo an ultrasound would not be unreasonable:

> >>>>>>>>> for the first three months, it would be an absolutely silly

thing for

> >>>>>>>>> a doctor to suggest because all they will see is a collection of

> >>>>>>>>> cells. Really. Have you actually seen an ultrasound of a baby

> > at two

> >>>>>>>>> months? I have. It was actually a bit disappointing.

> >>>>>>>> No, I have not seen an ultrasoud of a baby at two months. I have

> > seen 3D

> >>>>>>>> ultrasounds of babies in the last trimester. I have seen detailed

> >>>> drawings

> >>>>>>>> in books about babies at every stage of development. It's really tiny

> >>>>>>>> during the first month.

> >>>>>>> My wife is pregnant right now and she is coming up for four months. A

> >>>>>>> month ago she had an ultrasound and we could see arms and legs and a

> >>>>>>> head but two months ago all we saw was a lump of flesh. The doctor

> >>>>>>> printed out a picture and he had to circle where the baby was because,

> >>>>>>> frankly, we couldn't tell. The baby obviously grows a lot during the

> >>>>>>> third month. It was actually a bit silly doing an ultrasound at two

> >>>>>>> months under the circumstances but it is a 100% reliable way of

> >>>>>>> determining whether or not a woman is pregnant.

> >>>>>>> This is the third time my wife has gotten pregnant since we were

> >>>>>>> married. Several years ago, my wife had a miscarriage after three

> >>>>>>> months. The baby came out and literally died in her hands. I have no

> >>>>>>> doubt that the baby had been alive and we both felt guilt wondering

> >>>>>>> what we could have done to prevent the miscarriage. I can understand

> >>>>>>> very well how women who have abortions feel with regards to depression

> >>>>>>> after the fact. They don't need religious people calling them

> >>>>>>> murderers: an early term abortion is a cessation of pregnancy and not

> >>>>>>> murder. I don't approve of late term abortions except for medical

> >>>>>>> emergencies: most doctors won't perform them and it would be

> >>>>>>> irresponsible for anyone to recommend one in so far as they could be a

> >>>>>>> danger to the mother herself. A woman would be well advised to either

> >>>>>>> have an abortion early (if she doesn't want the baby) or else consider

> >>>>>>> having the baby and then putting it up for adoption.

> >>>>>>> Martin

> >>>>>> Good points--I agree--since abortions are legal--they should be done

> >>>>>> during the first trimester. The exception would be--if the

mother's life

> >>>>>> was in danger.

> >>>>> Why should that be an exception? You are (gasp!) contradicting

> >>>>> yourself.

> >>>> I have thought about that subject. The mother is alive and in most cases

> >>>> has a husband and in many cases has other children. Her death would cause

> >>>> great harm to that family if that woman died in childbirth. The death of

> >>>> the child would also cause harm to that family but not as much harm

as the

> >>>> death of the woman would cause. She may even be able to have

another baby.

> >>>> I realize that it's a contradiction. Some people in the pro-life movement

> >>>> believe the mother should be forced to have a baby even if it puts her

> >>>> life in danger.

> >>>> Jason

> >>> That was a very thoughtful response. Nicely done.-

> >> Too bad he cannot allow the woman to determine what the right thing to

> >> do is. He is nobly willing to "allow" a woman to have an abortion, if

> >> he determines there is a good reason. Clearly the woman cannot be

> >> allowed to make such a decision in Jason's world.

> >

> > I would not force a woman to not have an abortion. However, I see nothing

> > wrong with pro-life protestors carrying signs in front of abortion clinics

> > and in front of the offices of doctors that perform abortions. Do you

> > think that pro-life protestors should be arrested? In one of the southern

> > states, there is only one abortion clinic. In the Bible Belt States, we

> > are winning the battle.

>

> Yes I believe that such picketers should be arrested if the commit

> trespass, or disturb the peace, or do not leave when asked to do so.

> Such behavior is harassment and borders on stalking.

>

> It's also hypocritical. They don't do this in front of military

> recruiting offices, they don't picket at executions (even my rabbi does

> that), they don't picket crack houses, and they don't picket the offices

> of corrupt officials.

>

> No, they go where it's safe, easy, glamorous (at least for them), and

> they can usually get away with it. It's bullying, pure and simple.

>

> It forces health care providers out of the community on the basis of a

> single, necessary service that they perform. Forcing health care

> providers who perform abortions to stop will force women to turn to

> self-abortion, quacks who do not use sterile or other proper techniques.

> Not only that, they generate pressure on the provider to leave the

> community. Both of those results will damage public health, endanger

> women, and promote discriminate against the poor.

>

> These picketers are hypocritical, unchristian, vicious and uncaring.

> They are women-hating interlopers who are incapable of imagining that

> something might happen to their daughters that would require an

> abortion. They can't see beyond the glamor and the rush of bullying

> someone who helps the community.

Have you seen any news reports about environmentalists that stand in the

roads to block huge trucks that are carrying logs? They carry protest

signs.

Do you think that those people--even the ones standing next to the

road--should be arrested?

May 18, 2007

In article <vFk3i.21165$YL5.10779@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,

bm1@nonespam.com wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <978r43hiof5vpgts2td1d96scjie9lmjuk@4ax.com>, Don Kresch

> > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

> >

> >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 17 May 2007 21:19:17 -0700, Jason@nospam.com

> >> (Jason) let us all know that:

> >>

> >>> In article <mg4q435t6fji1qvqkhfj4o29fjssdnl4q0@4ax.com>, Don Kresch

> >>> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> In alt.atheism On Thu, 17 May 2007 14:07:11 -0700, Jason@nospam.com

> >>>> (Jason) let us all know that:

> >>>>

> >>>>> In article <fuap43loh53g9d20rt0h3bno3ehovi00vs@4ax.com>, Don Kresch

> >>>>> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> In alt.atheism On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:27:56 -0700, Jason@nospam.com

> >>>>>> (Jason) let us all know that:

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Several years ago, I read a book that was written by a lady that

> > "managed"

> >>>>>>> an abortion clinic. The only procedures that were performed in that

> >>>>>>> abortion clinic were abortions. When I use the term "abortion

> >>>>>>> clinic"--that's the type of clinic that I have in mind. If the

> > clinic is a

> >>>>>>> "full service facility" where abortions are only one of the many

> >>>>>>> procedures that are performed--I don't refer to such a clinic as an

> >>>>>>> "abortion clinic". There is a "Woman's Clinic" in a nearby town that

> >>>>>>> performs abortions as one of many services. I don't call that

clinic an

> >>>>>>> abortion clinic. I should note that the lady that wrote that book

> > is now

> >>>>>>> an advocate for pro-life. She exposed (in her book) the truth

> > about what

> >>>>>>> goes on inside abortion clinics. For example, I learned what abortion

> >>>>>>> doctors do when a baby survives an abortion. They place the baby

> > in a room

> >>>>>>> and the baby dies as a result of dehydration and starvation.

> >>>>>>> jason

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>> Notice how you never name names. Or cite book titles.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> There's a reason for that: you either make it all up, or you

> >>>>>> heard if from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from

> >>>>>> someone's brother's cousin's former roommate.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>> I no longer have a copy of the book or even remember the title. Upon

> >>>>> request, I could probably find out the name of the author but the

book is

> >>>>> out of print.

> >>>>>

> >>>> IOW: you made it up.

> >>>

> >>> I found it:

> >>>

> >>> Sue Hertz, author of Caught in the Crossfire: A Year on Abortion's Front

> >>> Line, documents what she saw in and at one busy abortion clinic:

> >> But she didn't "manage" it. She was doing research for her

> >> book.

> >>

> >> At least you took some time to find the book, though. That's

> >> more than most other anti-woman whackos do.

> >>

> >> As for the quote: I wonder if you think that matters at all to

> >> whether or not abortion is moral.

> >>

> >> Don

> >

> > Don,

> > Thanks. Yes, I spent over an hour trying to find the name of the author.

> > I did learn from that book that abortion also does harm to the people

> > (including doctors) that work in abortion clinics. The doctors develop a

> > lack of respect for life and learn to see the unborn babies as objects

> > instead of unborn babies.

>

> Have you researched this about cosmetic surgeons?

>

> Many of the staff members "burn out" after a

> > couple of years.

>

> They don't last long at dialysis clinics. Some burn out doing hospice work.

>

> The people that work in the front office learn by

> > experience to never go in the back portion of the clinic. That's one of

> > the reasons that I hope the morning after pill means that lots of abortion

> > clinics to close down due to the lack of customers.

>

> How many clinics have closed due to lack of customers? How many were

> closed down because of the acts of vicious reproduction fascists?

> I think it's more the latter than the former.

Yes, that is true. In one of the Bible states, there is only one abortion

clinic in that entire state. That abortion clinic has prolife protesters

in front of it during most business hours. There are no abortion clinics

in many cities in the Bible Belt. I live in a small city in California.

There is a Planned Parenthood office but no abortion clinics. Some of the

local doctors perform abortions in their offices or local hospitals. One

of those doctors stopped performing abortions--probably because of prolife

protestors. He probably lost some of his regular patients as a result of

the prolife protesters. There is a women's clinic in a nearby town. They

perform lots of abortions in that clinic.

Jason

May 18, 2007

Jason wrote:

> It appears that we agree that it's best to do abortions in the first

> trimester.

No, it's BEST not to do abortions at all. But it's not up to you to

decide for the woman what she is to do.

May 18, 2007

On Wed, 16 May 2007 22:39:02 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>In article <1179369893.911685.259180@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> On May 17, 5:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> > In article <1179344281.193023.30...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Hatter

>>

>> > <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>> > > But other systems of Religion have prophosies that have come true in

>> > > later stories of those relgions. How Achilles would die, or the fall

>> > > of troy for example. Several event in Roman history were fortold by

>> > > the oracle at Delphi...there are numberous examples.

>> > > Most of them not Jahweh related.

>> >

>> > > Which brings us back to why do you believe your texts of Jahweh, but

>> > > not these texts that also had tales of things fortold?

>> >

>> > Because many of the prophesies have come true is one of the reasons. I

>> > took a course in college related to the major religions in the World. It

>> > was my conclusion that Christianity was far superior to any of those other

>> > religions. The fact that my parents were Christians may also have played a

>> > role.

>>

>> Did it ever opccur to you that perhaps NONE of the world's religions

>> are true? Why do you feel obliged to have to pick one?

>>

>> Martin

>

>I don't worry about dying.

Neither do I. There's nothing I can do about it, and I have better

things to do with what time I have than to waste it worrying about

things I can't change.

>It's my guess that

>many atheists will decide to become Christians when their doctors tell

>them a have a disease that will kill them in the near future.

Don't you think it would be better to base your conclusions on facts

rather than on "guesses" that are so far from right that they aren't

even wrong?

I suppose you actually believe those bogus "deathbed conversion"

stories that are frequently told about various famous atheists too.

>There are no

>atheist in fox holes.

You're the one who can't handle life without an imaginary friend to

hold your hand, Skippy. Who's the real coward here?

>Jason

>

May 18, 2007

Jason wrote:

> The pro-life groups want to stop abortions the exact same way that Martin

> Luther King and his followers caused millions of people to demand that

> Civil Rights Laws would be passed. He succeeded. We are succeeding in some

> of the states and not succeeding in other states. Our end goal is to get

> the vast majority of people in America to agree that unborn babies have

> the right to life. People that bomb abortion clinics or write "BABY

> KILLER" on the walls of abortion clinics are HURTING our cause by making

> people not want to join our cause. To get back to your point: I don't want

> to force a woman to not have an abortion--instead--I want women to decide

> not to have an abortion or to not get pregnant if they don't want to have

> babies. In the short term, since abortions are legal, the best option is

> the morning after pill. I also support the law in one of the states that

> requires women to look at 3D color ultrasounds of their unborn

> babies--prior to abortions.

Do you support laws requiring women to be fully informed about

gestational diabetes, toxemia or the other various life threatening

conditions can can come from being pregnant? Laws requiring women to be

informed about the medical risks of giving birth and the cost of raising

a child? Laws requiring any man found to have fathered a child to marry

the baby's mother and provide for them both for the next 18 years?

--

L. Raymond

May 18, 2007

L. Raymond wrote:

> Jason wrote:

>

>> The pro-life groups want to stop abortions the exact same way that Martin

>> Luther King and his followers caused millions of people to demand that

>> Civil Rights Laws would be passed. He succeeded. We are succeeding in some

>> of the states and not succeeding in other states. Our end goal is to get

>> the vast majority of people in America to agree that unborn babies have

>> the right to life. People that bomb abortion clinics or write "BABY

>> KILLER" on the walls of abortion clinics are HURTING our cause by making

>> people not want to join our cause. To get back to your point: I don't want

>> to force a woman to not have an abortion--instead--I want women to decide

>> not to have an abortion or to not get pregnant if they don't want to have

>> babies. In the short term, since abortions are legal, the best option is

>> the morning after pill. I also support the law in one of the states that

>> requires women to look at 3D color ultrasounds of their unborn

>> babies--prior to abortions.

>

> Do you support laws requiring women to be fully informed about

> gestational diabetes, toxemia or the other various life threatening

> conditions can can come from being pregnant? Laws requiring women to be

> informed about the medical risks of giving birth and the cost of raising

> a child? Laws requiring any man found to have fathered a child to marry

> the baby's mother and provide for them both for the next 18 years?

Of course not. What do you think he is, a logical person??????

May 18, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <f2k7uu$gb0$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> <snip>

>>>

>>> Martin,

>>> You are correct--it's not a good thing to do say: "Other people lied so

>>> therefore it's okay for me to lie".

>>> The main lie that I have heard is in relation to Planned Parenthood.

>> You haven't heard any lies about it unless you read your own posts out loud.

>>

>>> Various posters have told me that abortions are an insignificant part of

>>> their operation. I have no doubt that the people that told me that

>>> information derived it from the Planned Parenthood website. That

>>> information at that site was probably written by a person or persons that

>>> have college degrees in the field of public relations. Almost all large

>>> companies and charity organizations have people like that on their staffs.

>>> I have received form letters from those sorts of people. Planned

>>> Parenthood derives millions of dollars per year as a result of abortions.

>>> Does Planned Parenthood offer other services--the answer is YES.

>> I have noticed that you have YET to actually REFUTE the statement that

>> abortions are an insignificant part of their operation. If a

>> company/organization brings in $500m a year and $5m of that is one

>> particular product/service, that IS an insignificant portion of the

>> company's income, even if it's "millions of dollars per year."

>>

>>> I have also noticed that many of the people that responded to my posts

>>> seem to think that abortions do no harm to women.

>> Quote a single person who said abortions do "NO harm to women."

>>

>> One poster indicated

>>> that only a very small number of women suffer severe depression as a

>>> result of abortions. I believe that is a lie but have no surveys for

>>> proof.

>> I.e. you claim it's a lie and yet can't support that claim.

>>

>> I believe that over half of the woman that have had abortions

>>> suffer from severe depression problems--esp. if the abortions were

>>> performed during the second or third trimesters.

>> Any source for this belief other than your ass?

>

> You are being disrespectful.

When you start earning respect, you'll get it.

My evidence is the women that I have seen

> interviewed on Christian radio and television shows and the women that

> have told their stories in Church services.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

Even if I posted the survey

> results from a pro-life website--either you or someone else would say the

> survey has no credibility.

If it's a valid survey, it will have credibility. How about providing a

cite to a VALID survey?

May 18, 2007

In article <1179510375.780869.111090@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> On 18 Maj, 09:54, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On May 18, 4:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >

> > > In article <1179473352.119729.116...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

> >

> > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > > On 18 Maj, 06:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > > In article <4h3q43h64tgggeh816im12husij76kg...@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> >

> > > > > <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

> > > > > > On Thu, 17 May 2007 14:56:47 -0700, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >

> > > > > > >Do you believe that members of pro-life organizations should NOT=

> be

> > > > > > >allowed to carry signs outside abortion clinics and the offices =

> of doc=3D

> > > > tors

> > > > > > >that perform abortions?

> >

> > > > > > Do you believe that people should be allowed to follow men around

> > > > > > outside drug stores carrying anti-condom signs?

> >

> > > > > > > I heard about one pro-life group that carried

> > > > > > >signs on the city steet outside the home of a doctor that perfor=

> med

> > > > > > >abortions. Do you think that those pro-life protestors should ha=

> ve been

> > > > > > >arrested?

> >

> > > > > > How would they have felt if people picketed their homes with "D=

> octor

> > > > > > Murderer" signs?

> >

> > > > > You failed to answer my questions.

> > > > Actually he did.

> >

> > > I wish that you had been one of my professors. When I was in college, I

> > > would not have passed any classes if I had answered all exam questions

> > > with a question. I was hoping for yes or no answers.

> >

> > Times have changed. Professors nowadays expect you to think about a

> > question and not simply answer with a "yes" or a "no".

>

> Think about a question? How cruel!

Things have sure changed. When I was in college, we had to take notes in

class and read the chapters. The tests only had one correct answer for

each question.

May 18, 2007

[snips]

On Tue, 15 May 2007 02:56:40 -0700, gudloos wrote:

>> There was one state--I don't remember which one--that passed a law that

>> required any woman that wanted an abortion to get a 3D ultrasound of her

>> unborn baby. That pregnant woman would have been required to look at the

>> ultrasound before she could have an abortion. I liked that law and wish it

>> was a law in every state. I seem to recall reading that Planned Parenthood

>> and ACLU are fighting that law in court. Do you approve of that law?

>> Jason- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -

>

> Why do you hate women?

He doesn't. He rather likes them, in fact, and thinks everyone should own

one.

May 18, 2007

In article <1179510218.722129.104340@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> On 18 Maj, 10:53, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1179472005.049946.225...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

> >

> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > On 17 Maj, 22:30, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote:

> > > > Jason wrote:

> > > > > In article <1179392300.841908.294...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

> > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> >

> > > > >> On 16 Maj, 20:22, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > >>> In article

> >

> > <1179316001.502902.218...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > > > >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > >>>> On May 16, 3:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > >>>>> In article

> > > > > <1179292465.099634.114...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> > > > >>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > >>>>>> On May 16, 11:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > >>>>>>> In article

> > > > >>> <1179278239.106024.108...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > > > >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > >>>>>>>> And yet during the first three months (when 90% of

abortions take

> > > > >>>>>>>> place) that is all that the baby is. More abortions would

> > > > > take place

> > > > >>>>>>>> during the first three months if women were able to get easy

> > > > > access to

> > > > >>>>>>>> abortions. It is my personal opinion that women should not

> > > > > choose to

> > > > >>>>>>>> have abortions after three months and I would approve of any

> > > > > law that

> > > > >>>>>>>> discouraged women from having abortions after three

months: it so

> > > > >>>>>>>> happens that late term abortiions are already illegal in 36

> > > > > states.

> > > > >>>>>>>> (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion)

Here "late

> > > > >>>>>>>> term" refers to abortions that take place as early as five

> > > > > months into

> > > > >>>>>>>> the pregnancy. (See

> > > > >>> alsohttp://www.answers.com/topic/late-term-abortion

> >

> > > > >>>>>>>> )

> > > > >>>>>>> I agree that abortions should only be legal during the

first three

> > > > >>> months.

> > > > >>>>>>> The only exception would be if the mother's life was in danger.

> > > > >>>>>> That's not what I said.

> > > > >>>>>> 90% of abortions take place during the first three months

anyway, I

> > > > >>>>>> would personally _discourage_ somebody from having an

abortion after

> > > > >>>>>> three months but that's not the same thing as making it

illegal after

> > > > >>>>>> three months: when I said "I would approve of any law that

> > discouraged

> > > > >>>>>> women from having abortions after three months" I am not

> > talking about

> > > > >>>>>> an outright ban because, frankly, it is ultimately a matter

between a

> > > > >>>>>> woman and her doctor. I know (because my wife tells me) that

> > the baby

> > > > >>>>>> is quite heavy after three months and only gets heavier so an

> > unwanted

> > > > >>>>>> pregnancy might cause a woman to be unable to continue to work or

> > > > >>>>>> study or carry on a relationship or even keep her house

clean, do her

> > > > >>>>>> own cooking, etc. Unless you've had a baby (and I haven't -not

> > > > >>>>>> personally although my wife has- and I know you haven't) then you

> > > > >>>>>> can't even imagine what that would be like. It is my own

personal

> > > > >>>>>> opinion that the baby becomes a person at some point after

the three

> > > > >>>>>> month period and before the baby is born and that a woman

should give

> > > > >>>>>> serious thought to whether or not she wanted to have a late term

> > > > >>>>>> abortion. For a doctor to suggest that a woman considering

a _late_

> > > > >>>>>> term abortion first undergo an ultrasound would not be

unreasonable:

> > > > >>>>>> for the first three months, it would be an absolutely silly

thing for

> > > > >>>>>> a doctor to suggest because all they will see is a collection of

> > > > >>>>>> cells. Really. Have you actually seen an ultrasound of a baby

> > at two

> > > > >>>>>> months? I have. It was actually a bit disappointing.

> > > > >>>>> No, I have not seen an ultrasoud of a baby at two months. I have

> > seen 3D

> > > > >>>>> ultrasounds of babies in the last trimester. I have seen detailed

> > > > > drawings

> > > > >>>>> in books about babies at every stage of development. It's

really tiny

> > > > >>>>> during the first month.

> > > > >>>> My wife is pregnant right now and she is coming up for four

months. A

> > > > >>>> month ago she had an ultrasound and we could see arms and

legs and a

> > > > >>>> head but two months ago all we saw was a lump of flesh. The doctor

> > > > >>>> printed out a picture and he had to circle where the baby was

because,

> > > > >>>> frankly, we couldn't tell. The baby obviously grows a lot

during the

> > > > >>>> third month. It was actually a bit silly doing an ultrasound

at two

> > > > >>>> months under the circumstances but it is a 100% reliable way of

> > > > >>>> determining whether or not a woman is pregnant.

> > > > >>>> This is the third time my wife has gotten pregnant since we were

> > > > >>>> married. Several years ago, my wife had a miscarriage after three

> > > > >>>> months. The baby came out and literally died in her hands.

I have no

> > > > >>>> doubt that the baby had been alive and we both felt guilt wondering

> > > > >>>> what we could have done to prevent the miscarriage. I can

understand

> > > > >>>> very well how women who have abortions feel with regards to

depression

> > > > >>>> after the fact. They don't need religious people calling them

> > > > >>>> murderers: an early term abortion is a cessation of pregnancy

and not

> > > > >>>> murder. I don't approve of late term abortions except for medical

> > > > >>>> emergencies: most doctors won't perform them and it would be

> > > > >>>> irresponsible for anyone to recommend one in so far as they

could be a

> > > > >>>> danger to the mother herself. A woman would be well advised

to either

> > > > >>>> have an abortion early (if she doesn't want the baby) or else

consider

> > > > >>>> having the baby and then putting it up for adoption.

> > > > >>>> Martin

> > > > >>> Good points--I agree--since abortions are legal--they should be done

> > > > >>> during the first trimester. The exception would be--if the

mother's life

> > > > >>> was in danger.

> > > > >> Why should that be an exception? You are (gasp!) contradicting

> > > > >> yourself.

> >

> > > > > I have thought about that subject. The mother is alive and in

most cases

> > > > > has a husband and in many cases has other children. Her death

would cause

> > > > > great harm to that family if that woman died in childbirth. The

death of

> > > > > the child would also cause harm to that family but not as much

harm as the

> > > > > death of the woman would cause. She may even be able to have

another baby.

> > > > > I realize that it's a contradiction. Some people in the pro-life

movement

> > > > > believe the mother should be forced to have a baby even if it puts her

> > > > > life in danger.

> > > > > Jason

> >

> > > > That was a very thoughtful response. Nicely done.-

> >

> > > Too bad he cannot allow the woman to determine what the right thing to

> > > do is. He is nobly willing to "allow" a woman to have an abortion, if

> > > he determines there is a good reason. Clearly the woman cannot be

> > > allowed to make such a decision in Jason's world.

> >

> > I would not force a woman to not have an abortion.

>

> Of course you would. You want to make abortions illegal.

The pro-life groups want to stop abortions the exact same way that Martin

Luther King and his followers caused millions of people to demand that

Civil Rights Laws would be passed. He succeeded. We are succeeding in some

of the states and not succeeding in other states. Our end goal is to get

the vast majority of people in America to agree that unborn babies have

the right to life. People that bomb abortion clinics or write "BABY

KILLER" on the walls of abortion clinics are HURTING our cause by making

people not want to join our cause. To get back to your point: I don't want

to force a woman to not have an abortion--instead--I want women to decide

not to have an abortion or to not get pregnant if they don't want to have

babies. In the short term, since abortions are legal, the best option is

the morning after pill. I also support the law in one of the states that

requires women to look at 3D color ultrasounds of their unborn

babies--prior to abortions.

jason

>

> >However, I see nothing

> > wrong with pro-life protestors carrying signs in front of abortion clinics

> > and in front of the offices of doctors that perform abortions. Do you

> > think that pro-life protestors should be arrested?

>

> Do you think that Rev. Phelp's people should be arrested when they

> picket a funeral? Harrassment is illegal.

>

> >In one of the southern

> > states, there is only one abortion clinic. In the Bible Belt States, we

> > are winning the battle.-

>

> Clearly you do not want women to have the right to decide for

> themselves. You will force them to not have abortions. Please do not

> lie about it again.

Yes, I would love it if no women had abortions but it is legal in America.

I follow the law. Since it is legal, I would never prevent any woman from

having an abortion. If a woman asked my advice, I would advise her to have

the baby and put it up for adoption. If she wanted an abortion, I would

advise her to take the morning after pill. If that was not possible, I

would encourage her to have the abortion during the first trimester. If

there as a ballot proposition that made third trimester abortions

illegal--I would vote in favor of it.

May 18, 2007

In article <1179511172.336016.7660@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> On 18 Maj, 18:43, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <978r43hiof5vpgts2td1d96scjie9lm...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch

> >

> > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

> > > In alt.atheism On Thu, 17 May 2007 21:19:17 -0700, J...@nospam.com

> > > (Jason) let us all know that:

> >

> > > >In article <mg4q435t6fji1qvqkhfj4o29fjssdnl...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch

> > > ><ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

> >

> > > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 17 May 2007 14:07:11 -0700, J...@nospam.com

> > > >> (Jason) let us all know that:

> >

> > > >> >In article <fuap43loh53g9d20rt0h3bno3ehovi0...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch

> > > >> ><ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

> >

> > > >> >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:27:56 -0700, J...@nospam.com

> > > >> >> (Jason) let us all know that:

> >

> > > >> >> >Several years ago, I read a book that was written by a lady that

> > "managed"

> > > >> >> >an abortion clinic. The only procedures that were performed in that

> > > >> >> >abortion clinic were abortions. When I use the term "abortion

> > > >> >> >clinic"--that's the type of clinic that I have in mind. If the

> > clinic is a

> > > >> >> >"full service facility" where abortions are only one of the many

> > > >> >> >procedures that are performed--I don't refer to such a clinic as an

> > > >> >> >"abortion clinic". There is a "Woman's Clinic" in a nearby

town that

> > > >> >> >performs abortions as one of many services. I don't call that

clinic an

> > > >> >> >abortion clinic. I should note that the lady that wrote that book

> > is now

> > > >> >> >an advocate for pro-life. She exposed (in her book) the truth

> > about what

> > > >> >> >goes on inside abortion clinics. For example, I learned what

abortion

> > > >> >> >doctors do when a baby survives an abortion. They place the baby

> > in a room

> > > >> >> >and the baby dies as a result of dehydration and starvation.

> > > >> >> >jason

> >

> > > >> >> Notice how you never name names. Or cite book titles.

> >

> > > >> >> There's a reason for that: you either make it all up, or you

> > > >> >> heard if from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from

> > > >> >> someone's brother's cousin's former roommate.

> >

> > > >> >I no longer have a copy of the book or even remember the title. Upon

> > > >> >request, I could probably find out the name of the author but

the book is

> > > >> >out of print.

> >

> > > >> IOW: you made it up.

> >

> > > >I found it:

> >

> > > >Sue Hertz, author of Caught in the Crossfire: A Year on Abortion's Front

> > > >Line, documents what she saw in and at one busy abortion clinic:

> >

> > > But she didn't "manage" it. She was doing research for her

> > > book.

> >

> > > At least you took some time to find the book, though. That's

> > > more than most other anti-woman whackos do.

> >

> > > As for the quote: I wonder if you think that matters at all to

> > > whether or not abortion is moral.

> >

> > > Don

> >

> > Don,

> > Thanks. Yes, I spent over an hour trying to find the name of the author.

> > I did learn from that book that abortion also does harm to the people

> > (including doctors) that work in abortion clinics. The doctors develop a

> > lack of respect for life and learn to see the unborn babies as objects

> > instead of unborn babies. Many of the staff members "burn out" after a

> > couple of years. The people that work in the front office learn by

> > experience to never go in the back portion of the clinic.

>

> I see, she did a scientific study and had it published in a peer-

> reviewed publication did she? If not, she is, at best, expressing a

> personal opinion.

>

> That's one of

> > the reasons that I hope the morning after pill means that lots of abortion

> > clinics to close down due to the lack of customers.

>

> I see. What is the reason that you ignore actual, objective data and

> accept subjective expressions? Why do you only accept what ever

> confirms what you already believe?

Believe it or not--millions of people do it that way. Other people, seem

to believe any survey or research study that supports their points of

view. They discount any survey or research study that does NOT support

their points of view. Is that the way you do it.

One person told me that he would reject any survey or reasearch study that

was funded or done by a pro-life group.

See my point? That person would have rejected it since the results would

not have fit his point of view. Of course, he probably would have stated

that the study had no credibility.

May 18, 2007

In article <1179511437.662520.225990@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,

gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> On 18 Maj, 18:49, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <f2k7uu$gb...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> >

> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> > > Jason wrote:

> > > > <snip>

> >

> > > > Jason wrote:

> > > >>> Please tell me what lie that I told? I made an honest mistake.

An honest

> > > >>> mistake is different than a lie. I still don't remember the

exact words of

> > > >>> the television preacher. I don't take notes when I listen to a sermon.

> > > >>> Jason

> > > >> Jason, we just can't take your word for anything anymore. What

> > > >> difference does it make if you made an honest mistake or if you

> > > >> deliberately set out to deceive? I would hope that in the future you

> > > >> can get your facts straight.

> >

> > > >> Frankly, when you say "I believe lots of people lied to me in this

> > > >> thread" the impression I get is that you are arguing that it is okay

> > > >> for you to lie because other people are lying too. I hope I am wrong

> > > >> but I see no other reason for you to use the classic "But they've lied

> > > >> too" argument if you are not admitting to (knowingly or unknowingly)

> > > >> posting lies. Perhaps you can tell us what lies you've been told on

> > > >> this thread.

> >

> > > >> Martin

> >

> > > > Martin,

> > > > You are correct--it's not a good thing to do say: "Other people lied so

> > > > therefore it's okay for me to lie".

> > > > The main lie that I have heard is in relation to Planned Parenthood.

> >

> > > You haven't heard any lies about it unless you read your own posts

out loud.

> >

> > > > Various posters have told me that abortions are an insignificant part of

> > > > their operation. I have no doubt that the people that told me that

> > > > information derived it from the Planned Parenthood website. That

> > > > information at that site was probably written by a person or

persons that

> > > > have college degrees in the field of public relations. Almost all large

> > > > companies and charity organizations have people like that on their

staffs.

> > > > I have received form letters from those sorts of people. Planned

> > > > Parenthood derives millions of dollars per year as a result of

abortions.

> > > > Does Planned Parenthood offer other services--the answer is YES.

> >

> > > I have noticed that you have YET to actually REFUTE the statement that

> > > abortions are an insignificant part of their operation. If a

> > > company/organization brings in $500m a year and $5m of that is one

> > > particular product/service, that IS an insignificant portion of the

> > > company's income, even if it's "millions of dollars per year."

> >

> > > > I have also noticed that many of the people that responded to my posts

> > > > seem to think that abortions do no harm to women.

> >

> > > Quote a single person who said abortions do "NO harm to women."

> >

> > > One poster indicated

> > > > that only a very small number of women suffer severe depression as a

> > > > result of abortions. I believe that is a lie but have no surveys for

> > > > proof.

> >

> > > I.e. you claim it's a lie and yet can't support that claim.

> >

> > > I believe that over half of the woman that have had abortions

> > > > suffer from severe depression problems--esp. if the abortions were

> > > > performed during the second or third trimesters.

> >

> > > Any source for this belief other than your ass?

> >

> > You are being disrespectful. My evidence is the women that I have seen

> > interviewed on Christian radio and television shows and the women that

> > have told their stories in Church services. Even if I posted the survey

> > results from a pro-life website--either you or someone else would say the

> > survey has no credibility.-

>

> Of course it would, if it was published in a peer-reviewed journal.

> Otherwise it amounts to propaganda. As far as the radio and

> television shows are concerned, has it ever occurred to you that they

> are not going to invite women who think they did the right thing

> getting an abortion and who suffered no long-term problems physical or

> mental?

good point

May 18, 2007

In article <1179511569.230981.15260@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> On 18 Maj, 19:18, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <5b5vjlF2okt3...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

> >

> > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:

> > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote

> >

> > > in message

> > >news:Jason-1805070140390001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> > > > In article <1179471115.012608.35...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

> > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> >

> > > >> On 17 Maj, 22:49, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > >> > <snip>

> > > snip

> > > > I don't change my beliefs based on one study. For example, if I poste=

> d a

> > > > study that done by a pro-life organization that showed that 50 percen=

> t of

> > > > the women that had abortions suffered from severe depression--would y=

> ou

> > > > believe the survey results?

> >

> > > Maybe - Maybe not.

> >

> > > I also wouldn't care.

> >

> > > I'm sure some women do feel depressed after having an abortion. So what?

> > > That's they're problem.

> >

> > Someone told me that I don't care about women. It appears that you don't

> > have much sympathy for women that suffer from severe depression as a

> > result of having abortions. I do have sympathy for those women.- Skjul te=

> kst i anf=F8rselstegn -

> >

> > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

>

> How about the greater number of women who completed their pregnancies

> and experienced depression, do you have sympathy for them; or is it

> only fantasy women you feel sorry for?

Yes, I have sympathy for them. Those women that I mentioned were not

fantasy women. They were real women that suffered severe depression.

May 18, 2007

In article <mtqr431c6og6v6k3qddnlkpec68e245mik@4ax.com>, John Baker

<nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 May 2007 01:46:43 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> >In article <1179473352.119729.116890@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

> >

> >> On 18 Maj, 06:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >> > In article <4h3q43h64tgggeh816im12husij76kg...@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> >> >

> >> > <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

> >> > > On Thu, 17 May 2007 14:56:47 -0700, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >> >

> >> > > >Do you believe that members of pro-life organizations should NOT be

> >> > > >allowed to carry signs outside abortion clinics and the offices

of doc=

> >> tors

> >> > > >that perform abortions?

> >> >

> >> > > Do you believe that people should be allowed to follow men around

> >> > > outside drug stores carrying anti-condom signs?

> >> >

> >> > > > I heard about one pro-life group that carried

> >> > > >signs on the city steet outside the home of a doctor that performed

> >> > > >abortions. Do you think that those pro-life protestors should

have been

> >> > > >arrested?

> >> >

> >> > > How would they have felt if people picketed their homes with "Doctor

> >> > > Murderer" signs?

> >> >

> >> > You failed to answer my questions.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

> >>

> >> Actually he did.

> >

> >I wish that you had been one of my professors. When I was in college, I

> >would not have passed any classes if I had answered all exam questions

> >with a question. I was hoping for yes or no answers.

>

> You aren't in college now, Jason. You're in the real world - well,

> physically at least - and things aren't quite that simple.

>

> >

That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions with a

question. Even schools have changed. I found out that they are now showing

Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those students came home from

school and was crying. She said that the planet would be destroyed by the

time she was an adult and was worried that she would not be able to have a

normal life. This real world is a crazy world. We were worried about

Russia firing nuclear missiles at America when I was a child.

May 18, 2007

In article <4iethmjhcqty$.16923i7d80rtb$.dlg@40tude.net>, "L. Raymond"

<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

>

> > The pro-life groups want to stop abortions the exact same way that Martin

> > Luther King and his followers caused millions of people to demand that

> > Civil Rights Laws would be passed. He succeeded. We are succeeding in some

> > of the states and not succeeding in other states. Our end goal is to get

> > the vast majority of people in America to agree that unborn babies have

> > the right to life. People that bomb abortion clinics or write "BABY

> > KILLER" on the walls of abortion clinics are HURTING our cause by making

> > people not want to join our cause. To get back to your point: I don't want

> > to force a woman to not have an abortion--instead--I want women to decide

> > not to have an abortion or to not get pregnant if they don't want to have

> > babies. In the short term, since abortions are legal, the best option is

> > the morning after pill. I also support the law in one of the states that

> > requires women to look at 3D color ultrasounds of their unborn

> > babies--prior to abortions.

>

> Do you support laws requiring women to be fully informed about

> gestational diabetes, toxemia or the other various life threatening

> conditions can can come from being pregnant? Laws requiring women to be

> informed about the medical risks of giving birth and the cost of raising

> a child? Laws requiring any man found to have fathered a child to marry

> the baby's mother and provide for them both for the next 18 years?

No, I don't worry about most of those things unless they end up on a

ballot. In those cases, I would decide on a case by case basis.

May 18, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <f2ksf4$6jv$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>

>> L. Raymond wrote:

>>> Jason wrote:

>>>

>>>> The pro-life groups want to stop abortions the exact same way that Martin

>>>> Luther King and his followers caused millions of people to demand that

>>>> Civil Rights Laws would be passed. He succeeded. We are succeeding in some

>>>> of the states and not succeeding in other states. Our end goal is to get

>>>> the vast majority of people in America to agree that unborn babies have

>>>> the right to life. People that bomb abortion clinics or write "BABY

>>>> KILLER" on the walls of abortion clinics are HURTING our cause by making

>>>> people not want to join our cause. To get back to your point: I don't want

>>>> to force a woman to not have an abortion--instead--I want women to decide

>>>> not to have an abortion or to not get pregnant if they don't want to have

>>>> babies. In the short term, since abortions are legal, the best option is

>>>> the morning after pill. I also support the law in one of the states that

>>>> requires women to look at 3D color ultrasounds of their unborn

>>>> babies--prior to abortions.

>>>

>>> Do you support laws requiring women to be fully informed about

>>> gestational diabetes, toxemia or the other various life threatening

>>> conditions can can come from being pregnant? Laws requiring women to be

>>> informed about the medical risks of giving birth and the cost of raising

>>> a child? Laws requiring any man found to have fathered a child to marry

>>> the baby's mother and provide for them both for the next 18 years?

>>

>> Of course not. What do you think he is, a logical person??????

I'll decide if he responds to my question.

--

L. Raymond

May 18, 2007

In article <f2ksf4$6jv$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> L. Raymond wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> >

> >> The pro-life groups want to stop abortions the exact same way that Martin

> >> Luther King and his followers caused millions of people to demand that

> >> Civil Rights Laws would be passed. He succeeded. We are succeeding in some

> >> of the states and not succeeding in other states. Our end goal is to get

> >> the vast majority of people in America to agree that unborn babies have

> >> the right to life. People that bomb abortion clinics or write "BABY

> >> KILLER" on the walls of abortion clinics are HURTING our cause by making

> >> people not want to join our cause. To get back to your point: I don't want

> >> to force a woman to not have an abortion--instead--I want women to decide

> >> not to have an abortion or to not get pregnant if they don't want to have

> >> babies. In the short term, since abortions are legal, the best option is

> >> the morning after pill. I also support the law in one of the states that

> >> requires women to look at 3D color ultrasounds of their unborn

> >> babies--prior to abortions.

> >

> > Do you support laws requiring women to be fully informed about

> > gestational diabetes, toxemia or the other various life threatening

> > conditions can can come from being pregnant? Laws requiring women to be

> > informed about the medical risks of giving birth and the cost of raising

> > a child? Laws requiring any man found to have fathered a child to marry

> > the baby's mother and provide for them both for the next 18 years?

>

> Of course not. What do you think he is, a logical person??????

Several people requested that I had no real proof that lots of women

suffer severe depression as a result of abortions. They were correct. I

goggled "abortion depression" and was shocked at the number of sites that

appeared. I picked the one that was from a medical journal:

Here it is:

For Release 1/18/02

Clinical Depression After Unintended Pregnancy Linked To Abortion

Springfield, IL -- This week's prestigious British Medical Journal

reports that women who abort a first pregnancy are at greater risk of

subsequent long term clinical depression compared to women who carry an

unintended first pregnancy to term. Publication of the study coincides

with anniversary events related to the Supreme Court's January 22, 1973

Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

Data from a national study of American youths, begun in 1979, was used to

conduct the research. In 1992, a subset of 4,463 women were surveyed about

depression, intendedness of pregnancy, and pregnancy outcome. A total of

421 women had had their first abortion or first unintended delivery

between 1980 and 1992.

An average of eight years after their abortions, married women were 138

percent more likely to be at high risk of clinical depression compared to

similar women who carried their unintended first pregnancies to term.

Among women who were unmarried in 1992, rates of high risk depression were

not significantly different. The authors suggest that the lack of

significance in unmarried women may be explained by the higher rate of

nonreporting of abortions among unmarried women. Compared with national

averages, unmarried women in this study report only 30 percent of the

expected abortions compared with married women, who report 74 percent of

the expected abortions. This may make the results for married women more

reliable, say the authors. Another explanation is that unmarried women who

are raising a child without the support of a husband experience

significantly more depression than their married counterparts.

Since shame, secrecy, and thought suppression regarding an abortion are

all associated with greater post-abortion depression, anxiety, and

hostility, the authors conclude that the high rate of concealing past

abortions in this population (60 percent overall) would tend to suppress

the full effect of abortion on subsequent depression. Unreported abortions

would result in women who experience depression following an abortion

being misclassified as delivering women.

"Given the very high rate of concealment of past abortions "the fact that

significant differences still emerged suggests that we are just catching

the tip of the iceberg," said David C. Reardon, Ph.D., the study's lead

author.

Reardon, the director of the Elliot Institute in Springfield, Illinois,

says the study's findings are consistent with other recent research that

has shown a four to six fold increased risk of suicide and substance abuse

associated with prior abortion. He says the findings are also important

because this is the first national representative study to examine rates

of rates of depression many years after an abortion, on average

approximately eight years later in this sample.

The data set used was the same as that used by feminist psychologist Nancy

Russo of Arizona State University, whose examination of a self-esteem

scale revealed no significant difference between aborting women and women

who carried to term. Russo concluded that the absence of difference in

self-esteem scores in this large national data set proved that abortion

has no "substantial and important impact on women's well-being." (see

critique of Russo study here.)

According to Reardon, Russo's much publicized study has frequently been

used to support the claim that, on average, abortion has no significant

effect on women's mental health. The Elliot Institute's new analysis of

the same data set reveals that significant differences do exist.

"The most serious flaw of the Russo study is that the authors did not even

comment on the extraordinarily high rate of concealment of past abortions

in the sample," Reardon said. "Women who do not want to mention a past

abortion are most likely the ones who will have unresolved feelings of

shame, guilt, or grief."

Reardon says that another problem with the prior analysis was that Russo's

team relied solely on a measure of self-esteem that is not sensitive to

post-abortion stress. He says the examination of depression scores is more

relevant to the known negative reactions to abortion.

"Russo's previous analysis of this data set was methodologically weak and

was frankly a poor basis on which to build the claim that abortion has no

measurable effect on women's well- being," he said. "The results of our

reexamination of this data set

May 18, 2007

In article <f2kt2t$76h$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike