YOUR question has nothing to do with abortion and I asked YOU first and you are running scared from my statements : Big letters draw attention to the fact that you haven't any proof there's racism. There is NO racism UNLESS you can prove minority women were FORCED to get abortions. YOU CAN'T, THEY WEREN'T
False. Some state governments fund abortion. Please admit your error. The trend is for more restrictions on the abortion industry. Evidence? Doctors who deliver babies have costs too. Here's Dr. Yvonne Moore: It had become a tradition within our residency program that the most lucrative and sought after moonlighting jobs were found in the three local abortion clinics. You could make good money without having to leave town to work nights in hospital emergency rooms.
I answered your questions and you run in terror from mine. See how you lose credibility? Increasing the size of your letters fails to cover up the weakness of your position. Obviously if a minority is being decimated that's racism. The abortion industry has decimated the minority community according to CDC figures.
you are running scared from my statements : Big letters draw attention to the fact that you haven't any proof there's racism. There is NO racism UNLESS you can prove minority women were FORCED to get abortions. YOU CAN'T, THEY WEREN'T
Killing a baby moments before birth is not extreme? Quote: Similarly, more than 6 in 10 Americans (61 percent), including 60 percent of women, support laws that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except to save the life of the mother. The percentage was the same for pro-choice supporters (62 percent). Link: http://news.yahoo.com/going-beyond-...vbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjExNjBfMQRzZWMDc2M- Most people want to ban abortions after 20 weeks. You want abortions up until moments before birth! That is extreme! - - - Updated - - - Keep repeating yourself and running from my questions. That'll make you appear credible. lol
I enjoy your inflated self-regard. It's so easy to puncture: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/recall_bias/ I'm not surprised you'll ignore the studies presented in the sites I linked to. The far left extremist websites you linked to tell you what to believe. Facts for you are irrelevant.
Only a moron would think that subservience to the abortion industry makes you pro-woman. 1) Planned Parenthood, which receives 100s of millions of taxpayer dollars, lies to women. If you really care about choice you don't lie to the one making the decision. Planned Parenthoods use of unscientific and fabricated medical information 2) Just a few of the women chewed up by the abortion industry: New 911 tape reveals botched abortion at Virginia Planned Parenthood Authorities: Abortion doctors charged with murder 16-Year-Old Girl Suffered Botched Abortion at Planned Parenthood DA: West Philadelphia abortion doctor killed 7 babies with scissors The abortion industry, like many industries, has captured the regulatory apparatus. Legalization means mistreatment of women and a huge expansion of the industry. For example: Lax state oversight results in widespread violations at Michigan abortion providers, report says 3) The abortion industry represents the greatest assault on women in human history. Tens of millions of unborn baby girls have been killed for the "crime" of being a girl! http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/opinion/27douthat.html?_r=1 4) Not a few abortions are forced on women. Pregnant Woman Threatened & Assaulted for Refusing Abortion Why it's The UnChoice Most abortions are unwanted or coerced, many forced. Women are dying, too. Human rights abuse misrepresented as "choice." And many rich people & bigots are eager to pressure working women & women of color into killing off their future. 5) The abortion industry just wants more abortions. They have no problem endangering women's health. Planned Parenthood pushes California bill to let non-physicians conduct abortions 6) Women report being victimized by the abortion industry. Quote: Its no wonder that 81 percent of women surveyed in a 1992 study reported in the Journal of Social Issues said they felt victimized by the abortion process, and that they were either coerced into the abortion or that information about alternatives or the actual procedure had been withheld. Link: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/how-abortion-hurts-women-the-hard-evidence
Funny how you think your irrelevant off topic questions prove some kind of point while you have proven nothing through this entire thread There is NO racism UNLESS you can prove minority women were FORCED to get abortions. YOU CAN'T, THEY WEREN'T
Ummmm... maybe not. You've read enough of my posts to know I'm firmly pro-choice, so this is merely a critique of the cost to personnel methodology you're using here. About a quarter of abortions in the US are medication-only, which involves no more personnel or time than a normal gyno visit. That might skew the numbers somewhat to the cheap side...
Average cost of a 1st trimester abortion is around $600 and that accounts for 90% of them. Even if they are only medication induced they still require that a doctor make that diagnosis and that nurses administer and monitor the process. Medical professionals are expensive and so are medications.
I can do that too FoxHastings. Only a racist could love the abortion industry. Abortion decimates minority communities! Data from the CDC: View attachment 40595
Plants respond to pain. Do we need to outlaw salad? http://www.collective-evolution.com...scientists-conduct-an-experiment-to-find-out/
OK, since big letters frighten you I'll make them smaller ....and they'll be just as true. There is no racism unless you can prove minority women were forced to get abortions. You can't because they were not forced. You have never proven that minority women were forced to get abortions but you have proved that you think it's OK for white women to get abortions but minority women should not be allowed to get abortions.
As I said if you actually did the research into your own laws and constitution you would find that it is not. Here is the full, RESEARCHED argument, though I doubt you will bother to read it. If you have any problems with some of the words let me know I'll dumb it down for you. http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/363145-abortion-choice-consent.html http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/390819-choice-consent-cont.html
It is irrelevant what popular opinion says, the US is not a mob ruled country, it is a Democratic Constitutional Republic and as such any laws have to pass Constitutional scrutiny. Americans have a Constitutional right to self-defence as confirmed by SCOTUS in District of Columbia v. Heller (200, the ideology of self-defence under law is "[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another." When the use of deadly force is involved in a self-defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction or great bodily harm or death. Since the US government already provides (limited) protection to the fetus after 24 weeks they are basically saying that the fetus is a person under the law, as a person the fetus must gain explicit consent to impose onto the woman, no different to the consent you must receive to impose on any other person, should that consent not be given then legally the fetus is causing non-consented injury, which under self-defence, and consent, legislation allows the woman to do what ever is necessary to immediately stop herself from being injured by another person, she cannot retreat, she cannot use non-deadly force, her only recourse is to use deadly force and because the state CANNOT offer a right to one person without offering the same right to all other people the fact the state gives you the right to defend yourself against non-consented injuries up to, and including deadly force, means the state HAS to give the same right to a pregnant woman and just as the state aids you in protecting yourself from non-consented injuries it MUST also do the same for a pregnant woman. The very fact that the state protects a fetus after 24 weeks implies that it is, in part, a person and as such MUST abide by the restrictions that all people have to abide by. The fetus as a person actually strengthens the case for abortion to be fully legal, at any time, for any reason AND the state having to pay for it, so the reality is-is that it is the pro-lifers who push for personhood status for the unborn who are creating the position of abortion being available at any time, for any reason and the state having to pay for it.
I fully understand in your limited ability to understand English and actually do your own research that you would never understand the difference between misleading and lying, that however does not change the reality that they are not the same. It is plainly obvious by the way you comment that you have no ability to formulate your own arguments and points, all you do is cherry pick other peoples ideas and arguments and paste them here ie your masters are telling you what to write.
Dr. Joel Brind is a very single voice in the field of epidemiology, by far the majority and consensus in the field is that his (so called) research is unsound based on incomplete data and conclusions drawn that meshed with his own pro-life views. Epidemiology, the study of diseases in populations, is an inexact science that requires practitioners to look critically at their own work, searching for factors that might corrupt the results and drawing conclusions only when they see strong and consistent evidence. "Circumspection, unfortunately, is what you have to do to practice epidemiology," says Polly Newcomb, a researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. "That's something Brind is incapable of doing. He has such a strong prior belief in the association [between abortion and cancer] that he just can't evaluate the data critically." In January 1997, three months after Brind's analysis appeared in Epidemiology and Community Health, a Danish epidemiologist published a paper in The New England Journal of Medicine that, according to many of his colleagues, made much previous research on the subject moot. Mads Melbye of the Statens Serum Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark, looked at the records of 1.5 million women born in his country between 1935 and 1978. Like neighboring Sweden, Denmark records all abortions; it also has a national cancer registry. Melbye linked these two databases—and found a relative risk of 1.00. In other words, women who underwent abortions developed breast cancer at exactly the same rate as women who didn't. - http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/feathated Brind is just another example of a pro-lifer looking for the evidence to fit their ideology or better known as confirmation bias. By far the majority of sites I use have no political axe to grind, the same cannot be said for all the sites you use, nothing you have posted is new to me, I've read pretty much everything from all sides of the issue, the fact remains that places like life sh-ite news are not reliable and neither are they truthful. Furthermore all of your other so-called evidence is addressed in the link above.
Yes of course it is, but then you need to prove that this is the intention, as a counter question, is it racist to stop people of colour getting an abortion that is allowed for whites?
Of course the problem with your questions is - The government does not prevent the female animal from terminating her own offspring, something we humans do try to prevent. Born children are not injuring another person, a fetus is.
Facts can be a glorious thing, not so much for pro-lifers though. 32 states and the District of Columbia follow the federal standard and provide abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape and incest. - 3 of these states also provide state funds for abortions in cases of fetal impairment. - 3 of these states also provide state funds for abortions that are necessary to prevent grave, long-lasting damage to the womans physical health. 1 state provides abortions only in cases of life endangerment, in apparent violation of the federal standard. 17 states use state funds to provide all or most medically necessary abortions. - 4 of these states provide such funds voluntarily. - 13 of these states do so pursuant to a court order. As can be seen the majority of states only fund abortions for MEDICALLY NECESSARY reasons. medically necessary - A covered health service or treatment that is mandatory to protect and enhance the health status of a patient, and could adversely affect the patients condition if omitted, in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice. - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/medically+necessary
