Really? [video=youtube;aq0kBkUZbvQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq0kBkUZbvQ[/video] http://www.nationalreview.com/planned parenthoods-mammogram-lie- Evidence?
Making the letters big doesn't make your argument more convincing. Lying and manipulating the mothers and involving them in the killing makes the abortion industry even more cruel. You apologize for an industry that has killed millions of vulnerable people of color. So of course you are the racist. Is it racist to decimate people of color? Yes or no?
Not exactly: Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis More studies: http://www.lifenews.com/2013/06/14/...er-rates-of-breast-cancer-thanks-to-abortion/ http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/18/abortion-breast-cancer-53-of-66-studies-in-54-years-show-link/ quote: A new study published in the Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention in February reported a very statistically significant increased risk of breast cancer for women with previous abortions as opposed to women who have never had one. LINK The CDC says breastfeeding can reduce the risk of breast cancer. Why are they wrong?
Do you think the government should prevent animals from being mistreated? Do you think the government should prevent children from being beaten? If so why do you think YOU should make these decisions for everyone else???
This is what the pro-abortion fanatics are trying to justify. Transcript regarding PP activities: O'Donnell: so then I hear her calling, ‘hey Holly, come over here. I want you to see something kinda cool. It’s kinda neat, so I’m over here, and the moment I see it, I’m just flabbergasted. This is the gestated fetus, and closest thing to a baby I’ve ever seen. She’s like, okay, I want to show you something. She has one of her instruments, and she just taps the heart and it starts beating. I’m sitting here, and I’m looking at this fetus, and it’s heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think. O'Donnell again: It had a face. It wasn’t completely torn up, and its nose was very pronounced. It had eyelids and its mouth was pronounced, and then, since the fetus was so intact, she said, well, okay, this is a really good fetus and it looks like we can procure a lot from it. Um, we’re going to procure a brain, so the moment I heard that, that meant we’re going to have to cut the head open, we’re going to have to cut the head open. ‘So, okay, so what you do is you go through the face.’ I’m thinking, no, don’t do this, and she takes the scissors and she makes a small incision right here [O’Donnell points to her chin], and goes, I would say maybe a little through the mouth. She says, ‘okay, can you go the rest of the way,’ and I’m like…yes. And I didn’t want to do this. So she gave me the scissors and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face, and I can’t even, like, describe what that feels like.
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. You have never proved women were lied to and/or manipulated. You have never stated why you think abortion is fine for wealthy white women but not for minority women. THAT IS RACIST.
I don't, I NEVER have said I should.... NOW why can't you be brave enough to answer MY question which I asked first? It looks like you are afraid to answer it ....::Why do you think YOU should make health decisions for everyone else??? YOU make the claim you should so YOU should have to defend your claim......if you can't then quit trying to make medical decisions for others. And , no, a fetus has NO say...just like you have no say MORE ! Unanswered: Are you communist? Aren't they the ones who don't believe in profit? Could please attempt an explanation of why you think no one should make a profit (EVEN THOUGH IT'S BEEN PROVEN THEY DON'T) on a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE ???? You want doctors and surgeons to give YOU medical care for free??? That is exactly what you are saying.....
I see you compare women with animals and children....I'm not surprised. I see you can't answer my question so are squirming all over trying to change it Why do you think YOU should make health decisions for everyone else???
Lifesitenews ( LIEsitenews) is an Anti-Woman, Anti-Abortion site which has no credibility, all LIEsitenews crap posted here has been discredited... Why are you discussing breastfeeding? ........this is the abortion forum....
Yet another moronic disinformation website that the gullible anti-abortionists swallow because critical thinking skills are an endangered species amongst those who want to deny women their constitutional rights. The math exposes the fallacies on that site and the math doesn't lie which is way more than can be said for the authors of that disingenuous website. In essence they are lying by omission by maliciously failing to subtract the medical costs associated with those procedures. By excluding the cost of doctors, nurses, technicians, equipment, medical supplies, support staff, offices, etc, etc they are pretending that 100% of all income goes to profits. That is so patently bogus that even school kids know better. But time and time again we see this claptrap posted by the anti-rightists because they are blinded by emoting instead of being capable of thinking for themselves. What a farce! - - - Updated - - - You didn't post any facts ergo everything you alleged was 100% wrong.
Invoking Godwin's Law = Epic Fail = Automatice100% loss of all credibility on this topic! Have a nice day!
you really don't have a clue do you . .tell me what do you think retrospective research is, and what makes it unreliable. It seems that like most sock puppets you have to led by the hand. One of the biggest flaws with retrospective research is it's reliance on SELF REPORTING WHICH LEADS TO BIAS ... (I wrote in capitals so that even you cannot miss it) Even your own quote show that the research is based on self-reporting as highlighted. "Among the disadvantages" of retrospective research "are that some key statistics cannot be measured, and significant biases may affect the selection of controls" Additionally, major biases with retrospective cohort studies can impact the recall of former exposure to risk variables. Among the biases which can negatively impact the veracity of this type of study are selection bias and misclassification or information bias as a result of the retrospective aspect. With retrospective studies, the temporal relationship is frequently difficult to assess.[6] Also, those who conduct retrospective studies cannot control exposure or outcome assessment but instead need to rely on others for accurate recordkeeping. That is particularly problematic because it can be very difficult to make accurate comparisons between the exposed and the nonexposed. Retrospective studies also may need very large sample sizes for rare outcomes./I] - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/retrospective+study & http://ocw.tufts.edu/Content/1/lecturenotes/194039/194062 Furthermore the comment you have partially highlighted does not say what you want it to say, read the qualifying statement after the bit you have highlighted, "at least as measured by prior suicide attempts.", yet again the researchers have placed narrow objectives on the relevant inclusion data, the fact that they only looked at prior mental issues that had already led to a suicide attempt is pathetic and certainly bad researching, add to this the obvious problems with retrospective research and the article is, at best, nothing more than an attempt to find the evidence to fit the already decided conclusion ie conformation bias.
Yes really, actually listen to what she says and not what you want to hear. What I think is important is that our HHS funding is focused on issues of preventative care for women, things like mammograms, Please show me where she says that PP provide mammogram services. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/planned-parenthood-and-mammograms/
I'll happily respond to the first link, the others from life sh-ite news will be ignored based on the fact that life sh-ite news are proven liars. Life Sh-ite news lies - http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/life-site-news http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/08/05/lifesitenews-lies-women-about-plan-b-and-abortion/ http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/lifesitenews-defamation http://fanniesroom.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/lifesite-news-study-in-bias-and.html I'd suggest broadening your reading habits, but then you would be lost, with no one to pull your strings. As to the first linked research - https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/9613/9611/5578/Myths_About_Abortion_and_Breast_Cancer.pdf http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-P...ctice/Induced-Abortion-and-Breast-Cancer-Risk http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/moreinformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9812330 http://www.apocpcontrol.org/paper_file/issue_abs/Volume15_No8/3635-3640 2.19 Junqing Wu.pdf http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=412284 http://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/abortion-miscarriage-risk I didn't say they were wrong, I wish you would actually learn to read English. I said "while it has been suggested that pregnancy and breastfeeding can reduce the risk of breast cancer there is no reliable research that confirms it. ", that is not saying they are wrong, that is saying there is no reliable evidence to confirm it.
Did O'Donnell even work for the company, because I have seen no official statement confirming that she did? BTW: Using the videos produced by the Center For Medical Progress is only going to lower your creditability below where it rests because as it has been proven every one of their videos had been edited to misrepresent.
Three Pinocchios - Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions. This gets into the realm of mostly false. But it could include statements which are technically correct (such as based on official government data) but are so taken out of context as to be very misleading. The line between Two and Three can be bit fuzzy and we do not award half-Pinocchios. So we strive to explain the factors that tipped us toward a Three. Misleading is not necessarily lying, Suggest you actually look up the words. Misleading - giving the wrong idea or impression. Lying - Not telling the truth BTW, your insistent whining concerning my position on abortion is exceedingly boring as by far the majority of people here already know it, do you think it effects me in anyway .. nope, not in the slightest, simply because you don't have the mental capacity to even understand the research that went into my conclusion and as such your sock puppet persona means no more than a gnat sitting on an elephant. If you ever pull yourself away from your masters telling you what to do and actually want to have an intelligent debate on my position I will be more than happy to chew you up and spit you out.
I don't have to prove where their money came from if they do have money. You are the one making the claim that abortion is so lucrative, that is what you must prove, and simply stating that some abortionists have money does not prove that abortion is lucrative. It seems that if "some necessary protections" are not enforced, they probably aren't necessary at all. Gosnell got away with breaking the law for a time (he was caught and convicted) because the laws weren't enforced. The money PP receives from government grants and contracts have nothing to do with abortion. Perhaps that will not be case much longer as I see a lot of protests against the Hyde Amendment. If you are correct that $831 million each year is spent on abortions in the US and one million abortions are performed, that means each abortion costs $831 which seems a little high but not outrageously so. That money must pay for doctors, assistants, nurses, receptionists, security guards, medications, facilities, so forth. Nobody is getting rich from abortion, and besides all doctors performing abortions could be making much more money delivering babies.
Let's watch FoxHastings run from the question again: Is it racist to decimate people of color? Yes or no?
Of course not. Communists are often very pro-abortion. http://www.lifenews.com/2006/04/03/nat-2184/ I object to people profiting from activities like selling crack, slaves, or tearing apart unborn babies. Of course I don't. I just hope society provides some protection for vulnerable unborn babies. I've answered your questions. Not why do you run away from my questions: Do you think the government should prevent animals from being mistreated? Do you think the government should prevent children from being beaten? If so why do you think YOU should make these decisions for everyone else???
You said it is okay to kill a baby moments before birth. Of course that is extreme! A moment before this baby's birth Fugazi is on record saying it's okay to kill her:
