Once a woman decides to have an abortion, the next step is to find a facility in her area that actually can perform the abortion. In years past, most women would go to their closet, get out the Yellow Pages and let their fingers do the walking to the “Abortion” category. Once there, she would see a number of ads placed by the clinics.
What a lot of women didn’t realize, however, was that a number of the ads were actually placed by anti-abortion facilities or “crisis pregnancy centers.” The ads were slick, never really saying whether or not they performed abortions. The goal was to try to get unsuspecting women to come to their facility where they would then try to dissuade them, often using hard-handed and questionable “information” to do so. The abuses are pretty well documented. Indeed, once these “phony abortion clinics” were exposed, the Yellow Page Association was forced to create a new separate category entitled “Abortion Alternatives” for anti-abortion facilities. I am intimately aware of the course of these events because I was on the staff of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers at the time – the organization that spearheaded the effort to make sure women knew exactly who they were calling.
Today, most patients do not go to the Yellow Pages for abortion services. Heck, they don’t go to the Yellow Pages for anything anymore. Instead, they go to Al Gore’s Internet. And now, the problem of sketchy advertising is rearing its ugly head again.
A woman who has decided to have an abortion will probably do a Google Search for “abortion” or “abortion services” or “abortion clinics.” If she were interested in getting the pro-life perspective, she might search for “pro-life” or “anti-abortion information” or words to that effect. But if she wants the abortion, she will do her search, get to that page and immediately sees a number of ads listed in the “sponsored links” section. That means those facilities are actually paying Google to be advertised in those prominent positions. And, lo and behold, included in some of the sponsored links are some anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers! Then, when you click into their ad and get to their website, it’s the same old story. They use phrases like “abortion counseling,” “abortion stories,” and “abortion information.” I searched and searched and found nothing that says “we are anti-abortion.”
Now, I get that the cpcs could argue that they are in fact providing “abortion information” or “counseling.” But I think the more honest approach would be to say you are providing “anti-abortion counseling.” Also, I’m sure the pro-lifers who read my world famous blog will come up with examples of how the advertising for the clinics can be “deceptive.” Indeed, if you DO have examples let us know and we’d be happy to respond.
The point is why do folks play such games with women who are in very emotionally sensitive situations? Why not be totally up front about what you want to offer? Then let the women make up their minds if they want to utilize your services. Meanwhile, I think it would very interesting if someone (perhaps those that manage www.abortion.com) sent an inquiry to the folks at Google and the other search engines asking them to devise something like the Yellow Page folks did years ago so the Internet advertising was just a little more “honest.”
Don’t the women deserve that much?


October 17, 2011 at 6:05 am
Pat, they play that game because the fetus is more important than the woman or the children she is already responsible for. They are completely focused on the rescue of an object they have labeled with the most sterling qualities, even though it has no value whatsoever to anybody but the pregnant woman– and then, when they know the pregnancy will be brought to term with or without the woman’s consent, they walk away.
Why do they behave like taht? Why don’t they raise to adulthood every “unborn human” they want “rescued”?
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 7:01 am
They play that game because the African-American is more important than the European-American they are already responsible for.
Thy play that game because the Jew is more important than the German they are already responsible for.
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 6:55 am
You have to know, Pat, that one way of fighting a war is by using subterfuge. You don’t tell the enemy what you are going to do! That’s stupid! And every woman considering whether or not to pay someone to torture to death someone else is a prolife enemy. That’s not to say we hate her; indeed, as Christians we love our enemy. But we don’t have to tell her, right away, that she is making a big mistake. We often do that gradually, and effectively, and that’s why you hate that particular activity.
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 12:57 pm
I dunno, John. I dont see your buddy Jesus using subterfuge. Sure, if a woman came to him and asked his opinion, he would give it, but I dont think he would be cyber stalking women, trying to trick them into coming to him.
And let me be clear, I do not “hate that particular activity.” I support your right to talk to any woman and to try to talk her out of an abortion. go for it. I just think we should all be up front about what our goal is. Is that too much to ask?
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 4:10 pm
And he doesn’t take care of the kid after it’s been born. Come to think of it, apparently Jesus never did, either. So, yeah, Mr. Dunkle is just like Jesus when it comes to abortion.
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Good point. Jesus would use force but not subterfuge. But I support both. I’ll have to think more about that
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 10:32 am
It appears that our friend. Kate, uses similar tactics of her own as evidenced from the email below which she sent under the pseudonym of christsmothershelpers to a pro-life advocate at the abortion mill she frequents. Perhaps she was not aware that her name would show in the email and she would be known only as christsmothershelpers while she continued her deception.
One can only come to the conclusion that this was not an ‘honest’ and sincere offer of help and Kate merely ‘playing games’ with pro-life advocates and pro-life agencies because when she was confronted with her offer in person she scrunched up her face and appeared to be extremely angry.
So, Pat, this is just another example of your pro-aborts seeing the speck in another’s eye and failing to see the plank in your own. All of you without sin may now cast the first stone.
BTW, a few articles back Kate listed personal information and boasted her life’s list of accomplishments and no where was it listed that she worked in a homeless shelter. Kate you are too modest and extremely articulate I might add.
Here is the email:
—Original Message—–
From: Kathryn Ranieri
To: <name deleted of pro-life advocate known to Kathryn R
Sent: Wed, Aug 3, 2011 6:26 pm
Subject: offers of help
Hello, I read the Berks prolife newsletter online about help needed for moms you've already helped. I've worked in homeless shelters helping women and their children but am in a position to help a bit more. What kind of help do these moms need and how can I help you help them?
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 4:08 pm
see my comment at #6, workerinthevineyard….
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 4:39 pm
In a July 2011 prolifeberks newsletter, there was a notice about donating items. “There will be baby showers for these babies and their moms. If you are interested in donating a new item, please contact mlpohl8@aol.com, sirach1717@aol.com, krkuhns1@verizon.net. The mothers of a few babies previously spared are also in need of support. If you would like to help them, in any way, contact miraclemom1956@aim.com.”
So on a lark I contacted miraclemom with high confidence that I would be contacting Joyce Mazalewski and even higher confidence that any offer I made would be roundly rejected not because they don’t need anything but because it was Kate Ranieri making the offer. What I received in response was a confirmation of my suspicion that miraclemom belonged to Joyce. I also got a snarky comeback in her email followed by several outbursts of sarcastic screaming outside the abortion clinic. Now, mind you, this is the same Joyce who posts in church bulletin of St. Thomas More, Allentown inviting others to join her in “maintaining a peaceful prayerful presence” at the Allentown Women’s Center. This is the same Joyce who tells women that their aborted baby will haunt them at night, that their baby will look like road kill, that abortion causes breast cancer, that ALL women regret their abortion, that men regret lost parenthood, that abortion causes post abortion stress disorder and so many more magical sound bytes.
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 4:41 pm
In a July 2011 prolifeberks newsletter, there was a notice about donating items. “There will be baby showers for these babies and their moms. If you are interested in donating a new item, please contact [and they list several email addresses] The mothers of a few babies previously spared are also in need of support. If you would like to help them, in any way, contact miraclemom1956 [address given].”
So on a lark I contacted miraclemom with high confidence that I would be contacting Joyce Mazalewski and even higher confidence that any offer I made would be roundly rejected not because they don’t need anything but because it was Kate Ranieri making the offer. What I received in response was a confirmation of my suspicion that miraclemom belonged to Joyce. I also got a snarky comeback in her email followed by several outbursts of sarcastic screaming outside the abortion clinic. Now, mind you, this is the same Joyce who posts in church bulletin of St. Thomas More, Allentown inviting others to join her in “maintaining a peaceful prayerful presence” at the Allentown Women’s Center. This is the same Joyce who tells women that their aborted baby will haunt them at night, that their baby will look like road kill, that abortion causes breast cancer, that ALL women regret their abortion, that men regret lost parenthood, that abortion causes post abortion stress disorder and so many more magical sound bytes.
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 4:50 pm
In the September prolifeberks newsletter, excerpted here, bad grammar and all:
WARNING
“We have been aware via a pro-abortion blog that a pro-abortion documentary maker and member of the National Board of the Abortion Care Network, Kathryn Ranieri, is posing as a prolifer….we’ve learned that she is interested in targeting Crisis Pregnancy Centers . . . etc”
Sent in by Joyce Mazalewski
Note: Kate is an Assist. Professor at Muhlenberg College. Pray for her. She obviously is a lost and confused individual. May God show mercy on her and heal her.
So, folks, raise your hands in prayer for the lost and confused. Can I have an AMEN!
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Are you really interested in helping these moms Kate? Was that your intention in sending the email? I would love to give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you knew who you were writing to, why not just sign your name, was it really just a lark? I can see how they don’t trust your intentions, as your past actions really speak quite loudly. What do you expect them to do when you suddenly flip flop? I would be suspicious of your intentions as well. Just pointing out the obvious.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 7:55 am
I don’t see any bad grammar there! Is this another Glass House Kate comment?
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Worker, I’m not sure of the flow here, who was talking to who, etc. so I can’t speak for what Kate was doing, if anything, but I will say that neither side is perfect. Hey, let’s face it, many people look at this as a “war” and they go to any lengths to “win” it (which no one will, by the way).
And, when you put aside all of the zealots on both sides, generally speaking a woman in this country can get an abortion if she wants one and for the most part can access her local abortion clinic without many problems. But, if there are problems outside the clinic history shows that if she really wants the abortion, she will get it come hell or high water, or whatever that phrase is….
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 4:14 pm
You guys are certainly winning — sixty million killed to our six. But you will never win. A Scott Roeder will always arise.
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 2:50 pm
yes, let us speak the truth and tell women the whole truth and nothing but the truth!
The Truth Would Save A Lot of Unborn Babies
Lauren
It was the first week of my junior year in college when took the pregnancy test.
I sat on the floor of my dorm room’s bathroom, completely afraid and lacking any sense of logical direction. All my brain could come up with was my parents are going to kill me; my parents are going to kill me. I had an overwhelming desire to keep my baby. Even though I was in disbelief about its existence, I wanted my baby.
I am not going to mention who I told, because the decision ended with me. In any case, after a battle to save my baby, I cowardly gave in. Planned Parenthood convinced me, with a undetailed transvaginal ultrasound at 5 weeks gestation, that what was inside me was only a white blotch on a screen, just cells or something of the sort. . .not a baby. Not my baby.
And so, I took the pill that ended the “non-existent” baby’s life. I guess Planned Parenthood feels that lying to women about the development of their babies will somehow protect them from the truth of what they did. But the truth would save a lot of unborn babies.
As I lay in my dorm room alone, curled over with cramping, it was no longer possible to deny the existence of what was now leaving me. I tried to go on as if none of it had happened to me. And for all I consciously knew, I was doing a good job of it. But the guilt crept in and manifested itself in all aspects of my life. Subconsciously it was all my brain thought about. My relationship with myself changed, and that trickled down to everything. My grades slipped, I couldn’t concentrate, I was irritable, and didn’t care as much for my relationships with others.
My inner strength was diminished. I felt guilt and a desire to rectify the situation. I became pregnant six months later. Maybe I was careless because I feared I may never be pregnant again and wanted to know if I could. Like so many I thought abortion would make me sterile, and all I wanted for my life was to be a mother. So, six months later and pregnant—all the same “reasons” for it not to be “Okay” were still in place. My schooling, future, family, etc., and to add to that was the first hand knowledge of how the news was received the first time.
My great-grandmother used to say if you allow yourself to do something once it’s a lot easier to allow yourself to do it again. This time I was already numb. I already convinced myself that it was an ordinary gynecological appointment, and denied any attachment to what was inside me, and what I was about to do—again.
I sat in the waiting room of Planned Parenthood with about 50 other people. I never saw so many people at a clinic before. Everyone was with someone but me, but I didn’t think anything of it. Girls were with boyfriends, friends, and mothers; women with their husbands. It seemed like a wait for any doctor’s appointment. Some girls were laughing together, people casually talking amongst themselves. No one was crying, no one looked sad, not one female in the room looked like they were about to take their child’s life. And I truly believe not one of them allowed themselves to think that.
Agencies like Planned Parenthood have made abortion seem like a birth-control option, and women have believed the lies that make them deny the existence of their own babies. The nurse called my name. It was as I walked through the door and heard a girl screaming in agony as her baby was being suctioned from her, that I realized I was in an abortion clinic and all the girls and women in that waiting room were there for one reason only. I, along with other girls, was brought from one room to another, like we were cattle, no emotions being shared. One room to be asked questions, another to change, another to wait.
I was sitting in the hospital robe next to a girl who was about my age. She told me she had two kids at home and this was her second abortion. They brought me into the room to have the “procedure.” I don’t think they even closed the door. I remember every detail of the experience.
Afterwards, they wheeled me into a room with a line of girls eating saltines and drinking ginger ale. No one spoke or looked at each other.
The room was silent making the screams from down the hall even louder.
The next girl to be wheeled in was the one laughing with her friends in the waiting room. I knew the screams that I had just heard from down the hall were hers. Her face was red and her eyes swollen. She was crying and sobbing uncontrollably. I felt the loss of her innocence as I watched the brightness of her teenage carefree smile from the waiting room was extinguished, and in its place a grieving mother who will forever mourn the loss of her child.
All of us who have sat in those chairs, eating saltines and drinking ginger ale, know that denial and lies never cover over reality and truth. I feel like I carry a scarlet letter.
I have sought forgiveness (God forgives, but I don’t know if it possible to forgive myself), and in my life God has shown me the way to redemption: It is in protecting women and their unborn. I am blessed to have a son, and when I look at him, hold him, hug him, I am so thankful for the mercy of God. I am silent no more for the children I lost and the ones I hope to help save as their mothers gain strength and truth from my story, and the stories of all who are silent no more.
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Lauren’s experience wasn’t the experience various adult friends of mine have had at abortion clinics. One of them reported that she was the only adult in the waiting room. The rest were children.
That Lauren sought to assuage her guilt at having had an abortion by getting pregnant again indicates that she hadn’t worked through her issues properly. In fact, it suggests that she is predisposed to be the victim in an abusive relationship, compelled to re-enact scenarios that produce guilt that she subconsciously deserves. This does not bode well for her child’s upbringing in a home where he might be learning that it is natural for men to abuse women and it is natural for women to expose themselves to abuse. If such is the case, he will repeat the cycle she has taught him.
Her description of the atmosphere in the waiting room hints at the piece being a PR effort; she exercises too much the eye of the flight attendant checking out the supercargo (to mix metaphors).
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 8:13 am
“The next girl to be wheeled in was the one laughing with her friends in the waiting room.She was crying and sobbing uncontrollably. I felt the loss of her innocence as I watched the brightness of her teenage carefree smile from the waiting room was extinguished, and in its place a grieving mother who will forever mourn the loss of her child.
“I MUST add to this that SHE lost her “teenage innocence” the very day she chose to have sex that was unprotected!!
” I watched the brightness of her teenage carefree smile from the waiting room was extinguished, and in its place a grieving mother who will forever mourn the loss of her child.”
You are NOT in that young woman’s “shoes” the tears could just as likely be 1. cramping from the proc. that she has never felt before! 2.Tears…once the proc. is over the woman has such a feeling of relief…they have kept these feelings inside then when it is over..they aren’t sure how to show this relief!!!
Remember ..the anti’s are the ones that have given us the “scarlet letter”!! We are so afraid to tell someone that we don’t know… what a relief is/was to get rid of the pregnancy…. if the woman does read the propaganda that is put out by your side…the things that you print can effect her!! She may feel that she is NOT normal because she doesn’t feel shame..she feels relief!! Perhaps she will look back on this NOT due to shame…but because it is an important time in her life..I have always looked back to the abortion I had…41 yrs ago a turning point in my life…one that I made count!! I felt it was important …but I have NEVER felt shame!!!
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 3:12 pm
I don’t agree with false advertising, when people lure other with false pretense is just wrong. But I don’t believe that women that go into those CPC are victims, they can easily walk out of those places the same way they walked in.The truth is that women who are seeking abortion are not really sure of their decision and anything that is said to them will leave them shaken up and questioning their so called “rightful decision”.
Killing another human being is not something that goes without judgement and self judgement is the worst kind even if you think it is your right to do so.
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Actually, I have no problem with Kate offering her services to a so-called “crisis pregnancy center.” Once she’s inside, what’s she going to do? Cackle hysterically and whip out a curette? Shoot Liquid Vise into the locks? Sell condoms? Learn where the counseling room is so she can stand outside it with a megaphone screaming, “Abort your precious!!!”?
I have more of a problem with that outfit in Texas that scammed all the providers (Pat related the story elsewhere) into providing details about the difficulties they had in providing abortions.
A fetus is NOT a human being, Melissa G.; it is a humanoid being which requires love and care to become human. It will become human only if you pledge to nurture it; you cannot impose that duty on another. Check out Ted Bundy.
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Chuckles is NOT a human being, Melissa G.; he is a humanoid being which requires love and care to become human. He will become human only if you pledge to nurture him; you cannot impose that duty on another. Check out Ted Bundy.
LikeLike
October 20, 2011 at 9:14 am
Love and Care has nothing to do with the fact that humans are humans.
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 5:38 am
Dear Spender,Thank you so much for this wonderful gtreuse. I am moved. I am certain other cancer survivors would congratulate me for having such a thoughtful friend. Thank you recognizing that breast cancer awareness is not over by October 1. It is a illness that affects one’s spouses, friends, aunts, mothers, nieces, co-workers, among othersDaisy
LikeLike
October 17, 2011 at 7:18 pm
kate Says:
October 17, 2011 at 4:41 pm
So on a lark I contacted miraclemom with high confidence that I would be contacting Joyce Mazalewski and even higher confidence that any offer I made would be roundly rejected not because they don’t need anything but because it was Kate Ranieri making the offer. What I received in response was a confirmation of my suspicion that miraclemom belonged to Joyce. I also got a snarky comeback in her email followed by several outbursts of sarcastic screaming outside the abortion clinic.
* * * * * * *
High confidence it was me you were contacting? I don’t believe that for a minute. You were definitely ‘posing’ in a most reprehensible manner calling yourself christsmothershelper! Both the offer of help was a lie as was the proclamation that you worked in a homeless shelter. Shame on you!!
(BTW, so as not to make you feel rejected, currently we could use a baby walker as well as a pack and play.)
What follows is what Kate describes as my ‘snarky’ email response. I’ll let the readers judge for themselves . . . .
* * * * * * *
Thanks for your kind and heartfelt offer to assist these moms who chose life and were brave enough to walk out of abortion mills yet find themselves in crisis situations. Our goal and our desire is to help them overcome any and all obstacles facing them whether it be spiritual, emotional, physical or financial that they may face in parenting. Since this encompasses much more than I could possibly relate in an email, I would definitely welcome chatting with you and/or meeting with you to discuss all that we do and have done to date for these moms. Naturally, any and all help is available.
Thank you again and God bless you for reaching out to help the moms. If we all work together, we can accomplish our mutual goals and help make a difference in a young family’s life. “Whatever you do for the least of these, you do unto me.”
You can contact me at home. I believe you already have the #. I wasn’t aware that you had worked in homeless shelters. There’s so much I don’t know about you Reverend.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 6:17 am
First, worker, who is the “we” in this collective? Do you have a name for your organization? By the way, what is a pack and play and a baby walker?
Next, it’s your choice to believe me or not. But I did volunteer at Hesed House in Aurora IL as a group from St. Patrick’s Church in St. Charles, IL. I worked the 3 am to 7 am breakfast shift. While she is retired and living in St. Charles, Sr. Dorothy (Dot) could verify my work. I also was heavily involved in our funeral lunch programs and was president of the women’s club. I liked the social aspects of helping and the comraderie (not the religious stuff).
Last, the snarky in your response was evident only to those who have observed you in action: a) the saccharin sweet tone followed by the b) mc nuggest of nastiness calling me Reverend (which is false). In reality, I had a moment, when I wrote the email, of wanting to set aside our differences and help but it’s a no-win situation between you and I. I can see that now.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 6:57 am
Kate, if that is really true and you wanted to set aside our differences then why the pseudonym? Why not just ask me over the fence one day if there was anything you could do to help out?
I would love to set aside our differences and accept your offer to help. A pack and play is somewhat of a portable playpen that you can pack up and take with you and a walker is a play seat on wheels that you can sit the baby in when they are learning to walk to help them get around. The moms can always use wipes and diapers or gift cards at dept. stores or for gas. Thanks.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 10:23 am
Thanks for the update on baby stuff.
Again, who is the “we” in this collective? Do you have a name for your organization?
Again, In reality, I had a moment, when I wrote the email, of wanting to set aside our differences and help ****but it’s a no-win situation between you and I. I can see that now***
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 2:38 pm
We – the moms and us gals at the killing mill that help them. No organization for you to join sorry Kate. Again, thanks for your offer to help. Target probably carries both of those items.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 6:18 pm
No organization? Do you “gals” plan, coordinate, communicate, integrate and adminster your activities? Does your non-organization have a mission and clients? That’s called an organization.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 9:45 am
Is Sr. Dorothy a Catholic nun? How would she feel about the turn of events in your life since your time serving the poor? Would she be proud of your current work in the abortion industry? What religious stuff didn’t you like? Catholics can not pick and choose what they like or do not like about being faithful. Either you are a catholic or not? You most definitely can not call yourself a catholic and support the killing of children in the womb. That is what we call a grave evil and a mortal sin. Even Catholic Charities would agree with that!
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 10:21 am
Actually she was quite liberal for a nun. Also, I don’t call myself a catholic so don’t you worry your little noggin’ about such foolishness.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 11:34 am
Lots of Catholics don’t call themselves Catholic, Kate. You one a them?
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 11:29 am
“between you and I” — now that’s a mistake in grammar. Glass House Kate shattered again.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 6:33 am
In Pennsylvania, there is a state program called Real Alternatives PA, administered locally by Catholic Charities. In their FAQs, they claim “it is neither compassionate nor caring counseling to attempt client education using graphic descriptions, images, or videos of aborted fetuses.” Yet their Catholic disciples, those who advertise for and associate with Catholic Charities outside abortion clinics, use these images with gusto.
They also claim that they disapprove of materials “that are political, judgmental, or reflect activist sentiments, in tone or content. ” Yet their Catholic disciples, those who advertise for and associate with Catholic Charities outside abortion clinics, use highly judgmental materials and demonstrate an activist tone and content in both behavior and in their materials.
And, last, Real Alternatives responds to conflicting scientific information by stating they must “always remain ethical and honest in their dealings with their clients, and are trained and educated to recognize that providing dishonest information is not only unethical and wrong.” But then they add “some studies have shown that abortion contributes to an increased risk of developing breast cancer.” Of course they offer no reputable sources for this risk. And again, their Catholic disciples, those who advertise for and associate with Catholic Charities outside abortion clinics, promote this alleged risk despite scientific and medical claims to the contrary.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 8:03 am
I never heard of Real Alternatives. They sound like a soft “Catholics for Choice” group. I’ve heard of Catholic Charities but they’ve been suspect before. You have to be careful around the various “Catholic” pro-life groups. If they stopped to think, they’d realize that none have done more than they to ensure that legal child killing stays legal. So, they don’t stop to think.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 7:28 am
What is more honest than showing a woman what is going to be done to her baby? You can’t sugar coat that image! This whole blog is about telling women the truth. Abortion is a dirty and ugly word, not to mention what it actually looks like. Roe v Wade is archaic law. We know the truth about what happens in the womb…pre Roe v Wade they had no ultrasound…we know without a doubt that it is LIFE in the womb..a beating heart! It isn’t a potential life it is LIFE. Women deserve to be told the truth…Lauren (in my post above) proved that.
Women also deserve to know the risks of abortion and it has been proven that abortion DOES increase the risk of breast cancer. It has been proven over and over again. Those who promote abortion wish this wasn’t so and therefore deny it as a fact.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 9:53 am
you honestly dont think they do ? as soon as you walk into a planned parenthood there is a wall of pamphlets gleaming with precautions and dangers, and yeah okay there might be a striking possibility, but would have rather kept those two kids and continued your life alone with two kids, i dont think so, because you would not pursue your dreams, i know many a mother who did not supersede their wishes because of a baby.
and i really think your nurture makes the human not the act of inception that kid has to be loved, cared for and most of all born. but you know better than me and you said it your self ” just cells or something of the sort. . .not a baby. Not my baby.”
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 9:48 am
http://www.imagesofabortion.com/exposed/pages/start/home.aspx
this is the “truth” of what you stand for. I don’t know anyone who, after viewing these images can say, a woman has a right to do this to another human being. Especially her own flesh and blood!
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 12:33 pm
the fact is, Nowisalie, that many many women are required in some states to look at pictures of fetal development and they still go ahead with their abortions. I have sat with women who have looked at the ultrasound of a 22 week fetus, then they went ahead with the abortion.
I appreciate everyone on your side who wants women to know “the truth”, which of course is often a moving target depending on the source, but give women a little more credit. They are not stupid. With the exceptions of those who just dont want to know all the details, most women know exactly what an abortion is and they still go ahead with it.
As for abortion and breast cancer, please show me one OBJECTIVE organization that has concluded with certainty that the two are related. And does a miscarriage cause breast cancer as well?
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 1:44 pm
“most women know exactly what an abortion is and they still go ahead with it” — you’re right, Pat. Those are the evil ones. But there are a lot of stupid ones out there too.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 9:51 am
Why is my comment awaiting moderation? This is the web site I want you all to look at. Images of abortion dot com / exposed / pages / start / home dot aspx just take out all the spaces.
this is the “truth” of what you stand for. I don’t know anyone who, after viewing these images can say, a woman has a right to do this to another human being. Especially her own flesh and blood!
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Sorry for that moderation thing. I dunno why but sometimes wordpress.com asks me to “approve” a comment but I dont get to that email fast enough. But, as everyone knows, I never like to censor unless it becomes extremely personal or someone just tries to “overtake” this blog.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 9:54 am
yeah they do Now is alie it makes sense for you to not ruin your life and yet you put this judgement on to the rest of the masses?
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 2:06 pm
If you got them done with Harley medical group then you wont get any help from them.I also have PIP imtnlaps.They lied to me at first saying I didnt have them, but then I found out I did.Best thing is to stay calm for now. Just wait until we hear more in the news about what will be done. The medical boards are still in talks with the EU about what should be done.The NHS is going to be allowing woman to get implant removal done free of charge. They say that there will be huge pressure on private clinics to do the same.If you really cant wait then get a scan done to check for ruptures or weakening of the implant.Im going to wait til I hear more anyway.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 10:44 am
I find it amazing that people argue about a link between abortion and breast cancer, especially in light of the evidence from recognized authorities such as Johns Hopkins, the Mayo Clinic and other institutions devoted to cancer research.
A few retrospective (case-control) studies reported in the mid-1990s suggested that induced abortion (the deliberate ending of a pregnancy) was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. However, these studies had important design limitations that could have affected the results. A key limitation was their reliance on self-reporting of medical history information by the study participants, which can introduce bias. Prospective studies, which are more rigorous in design and unaffected by such bias, have consistently shown no association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk.
The National Center for Biotechnology Information stated in an article published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, “Our results do not support the hypothesis that induced abortion or miscarriage increase the breast cancer risk of young women” (2003).
The American Cancer Society concluded with the following “After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer.”
National Cancer Institute concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.
Archives of Internal Medicine concluded that “breast cancer risk not affected by abortion” (2007).
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 11:57 am
you can’t even put abortion and miscarriage on the same level in these studies. duh!
Miscarriage is not a risk in the breast cancer link. It happens NATURALLY and that is the big difference here.
and your studies were done in 2007…we have come along way since then baby!
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 11:45 am
“I find it amazing”…I know when you start off like this we are in for some serious copy and pasting! so right back at you!
The National Cancer Institute gained a reputation for putting politics over science when it did everything possible to deny dissenting opinion during a meeting to establish whether or not a link exists between abortion and breast cancer.
Now, the main NCI atcivist who got the agency to deny the abortion-breast cancer link has co-authored a study admitting the abortion-breast cancer link is true, calling it a “known risk factor.”
Scientists and educators about the abortion-breast cancer link point to a new study that shows a top NCI official may be re-thinking the refusal to acknowledge the link.
The study, conducted by Jessica Dolle, appears in the April, 2009 issue of the prestigious cancer epidemiology journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.
The Dolle study, conducted with the prestigious Janet Daling group of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle — one of the first to receive recognition for highlighting the abortion-breast cancer link — concerns the link between oral contraceptives and breast cancer.
The study examined women for triple-negative breast cancer, a subset of breast cancer cases with a particularly aggressive and treatment-resistant cancer type.
The data yielded a strong association between TNBC and oral contraceptives and found a 320% risk increase for breast cancer over those who never used contraception.
When it comes to the abortion link, the study did not produce any new results but it cited the Daling studies from 1994 and 1996 that showed between a 20 and 50 percent increased breast cancer risk for women having abortions compare to those who carried their pregnancies to term.
As Dr. Joel Brind, a prominent breast cancer researcher, says, “what was striking was the way in which the finding of a significant ABC link was characterized.”
“Specifically, abortion appears in the data table which lists the associations found for ‘known and suspected risk factors,’” he explains. “In the text, the effect of the significant risk factors, including induced abortion, were described as ‘consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women.’”
“Hence, this paper provides clear support for the existence of the abortion-breast cancer link,” Brind said.
Brind says the kicker is that one of the coauthors of this new study is Louise A. Brinton of the NCI.
While the NCI maintains no abortion-breast cancer link exists, Brinton is the co-author of a study that is cited in this new research.
“Importantly, Brinton was the chief organizer for the 2003 NCI (U.S. National Cancer Institute) ‘workshop’ on ‘early reproductive events and breast cancer,’ a panel which reported that the lack of an ABC link had been ‘established,’” Brind says.
“In other words, since 2003, the NCI has firmly maintained the position that there is no ABC link; that the studies which had reported such a link were deemed unreliable. However, two of these prior studies were the very studies by the Daling group (of which one Brinton also was a co-author),” he continues.
“Now, in 2009, Brinton is on record reiterating findings of the ABC link and reporting them as ‘consistent’ with earlier studies that found induced abortion to be a risk factor,” Brind says. “Can it not therefore be argued that the NCI is backing off its denial of the ABC link? This is big news, to be sure, but no one has challenged the NCI with it, yet.”
Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, a women’s group that educates about the abortion link, calls the admission a scandal.
“Less than two months since the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force issued new guidelines recommending against routine mammograms for women in their forties, a second breast cancer scandal involving a U.S. government panel of experts has come to light which has implications for healthcare reform,” she told LifeNews.com.
“Although the study was published nine months ago, the NCI, the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer fundraising businesses have made no efforts to reduce breast cancer rates by issuing nationwide warnings to women,” she added.
She says Dolle’s team reported in Table 1 a statistically significant 40% risk increase for women who have had abortions and listed it among “known and suspected risk factors.”
“Obviously, more women will die of breast cancer if the NCI fails in its duty to warn about the risks of OCs and abortion and if government funds are used to pay for both as a part of any healthcare bill,” Malec said.
Last year, studies from Turkey and China also reported statistically significant risk increases for women who had abortions.
Related web sites:
Brind analysis of new study
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer –
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Hey, Nowislie…I know you’re anxious to prove your point but let’s ALL try to keep our arguments to a study or two at a time. Indeed, I’ll be honest, when I see a very long post, I ignore it. Be like the Dunkle-nator – short and sweet…
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 1:52 pm
But Pat, I’d be lost without them. They prove that not all pro-lifers are dummies. On your side you’re the only one who proves that.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 3:57 pm
You need to start reading other sources besides Brind, Malec etc.
It is true that in 2003 the NCI convened a workshop with over 100 of the world’s leading experts “who study pregnancy and breast cancer” and Dr. Brinton was one of those experts. It is also correct that, according to NCI, “They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.” But what is not true is that Dr. Louise Brinton has “changed” her position on the link between abortion and breast cancer, at least publicly, because there is no new information on this link. Again, the study results released last year, on which Dr. Brinton was a researcher, do not include any new information on the overall risk of breast cancer among women who have had abortions. While the National Cancer Institute (NCI) is releasing a “no comment” statement in response to the barrage of poorly reported stories on anti-choice news sites, Dr. Brinton’s co-researcher and co-author, Kathi Malone, is clear about what this and all peer-reviewed studies show thus far on the link between abortion and breast cancer:
“The weight of scientific evidence to date strongly indicates that abortion doesn’t increase the risk of breast cancer.”
While older studies have shown a modest increase in risk between abortion and breast cancer, the National Cancer Institute has discounted those studies on their web site for many years and, after a review of the information on their website this week, they are standing by these conclusions- because why? Because there is no new information to be released regarding the risk of breast cancer from a previous abortion.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 6:24 pm
I thought you said my sources were outdated and yet you cite a 1997 study. Odd.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 11:52 am
I believe a microbiologist over your biased opinion any day Kate!~ If you care so much about women why do you refuse to even entertain the science of proof that is shown in these studies? Women deserve better! Women deserve the TRUTH!~
A microbiologist says there are so many published studies confirming the link between induced abortion and breast cancer that he plans to publish one every day on his blog until he’s mentioned them all. It will take Dr. Gerard Nadal so many weeks to cover them all, the blogging will continue until early next year.
Nadal, who has a has a PhD in Molecular Microbiology from St John’s University in New York, has spent 16 years teaching science, most recently at Manhattan College.
He will report on one abortion-breast cancer study daily until he has exhausted all of the abortion-breast cancer studies and he anticipates he may be reporting on these studies as late as January or February of 2011.
“Today begins the inexorable presentation of the scientific literature on the abortion/breast cancer link,” Nadal writes. “Women’s lives depend on us getting the truth out to them. In short order we’ll generate plenty of pros armed with the simple truth of science!”
His first article reviews a 1997 epidemiological study by Julie Palmer, Lynn Rosenberg and their colleagues, “Induced and spontaneous abortion in relation to breast cancer,” published in the journal, Cancer Causes and Control.
Palmer and Rosenberg are not unbiased researchers, which makes their findings even more relevant for women. Instead, they are abortion advocates who have testified as expert witnesses on behalf of abortion businesses in lawsuits challenging the states of Alaska and Florida because of their parental notice or consent laws.
Their study, supported by U.S. National Cancer Institute grants, examined 1,835 women ages 25-64 years with pathologically confirmed, invasive breast cancer and 4,289 women aged 25-64 admitted for nonmalignant or malignant conditions.
Nadal says the study found women who had never had children and who had one case of an induced abortion raised their abortion breast cancer risk by 40 percent.
“So in plain English, women who had one induced abortion, regardless of ever having had a child, had a 40% increased risk of developing breast cancer over women the same age, with the same parity status who never had abortions, and the authors are 95% certain that there is no other explanation,” he said.
Nadal says the study further showed that for women who had a child previously, “there is a 30% increased risk of cancer” and it “may well be explained by additional stimulation of the lobules by estrogen in the aborted pregnancy, without the benefit of lactogen at the end.”
Nadal says observers of the debate about the abortion and breast cancer link should pay attention to another part of the study where the authors attempt to undermine their own results in an effort to downplay the abortion-breast cancer link.
The authors claim their own study suffers from a form of recall bias — despite their assertion that they were 95% certain that the results could not be due to chance. The authors believe women with breast cancer are less likely to hide their abortion from the health questioners compiling the data than women without breast cancer.
“They offer no proof of this phenomenon other than the same assertions made by other breast cancer researchers with similar data. In other words, the phenomenon is a baseless assertion reverberating in the pro-abortion echo chamber,” Nadal writes.
“Are we really to believe that breast cancer brings women closer to telling the truth of their previous abortions? Why the acuity of memory in a breast cancer patient vs. the control patients? The abortion question was just one in a long, detailed history taken during the study,” Nadal continues. “There is no rational basis for believing that women with breast cancer are more apt to recall and report an abortion than any other women.”
Despite that, the authors conclude in their study: “The small elevations in risk observed in the present study and in previous studies are compatible with what would be expected if there were differential underreporting by cases and controls.”
Nadal says that doesn’t pass the scientific straight face test.
“If I had pulled that crap during my dissertation defense, my committee would have laughed me out of the room,” he said.
However, as Nadal blogs about the abortion-breast cancer studies, he says this is a recurring theme.
“But, as we shall see over and over on a daily basis for months to come, this is what happens when ideology (and not physiology) becomes the prism through which data are filtered,” he says.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Nowisalie: Have you ever had an abortion? If not, have you ever considered one?
LikeLike
October 19, 2011 at 8:17 pm
no and no
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Nowisalie wrote: “Women deserve better! Women deserve the TRUTH!~ ”
So why repeat the untruths from questionable sources?
LikeLike
October 19, 2011 at 8:18 pm
yesh…it’s like knocking your head against a brick wall. Kate, maybe one day the truth will set you free.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 3:49 pm
There’s only one thing wrong with this picture about all those studies about the link between abortion and breast cancer. The vast majority of their conclusions are dead wrong because they conducted unsound analyses based on incomplete data and drew conclusions that meshed with their own pro-life views. Critics say that epidemiology (in which Rosenberg and Palmer work), 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.
In fact if you read the actual articles, and not allow someone like Joel Brind, interpret for you, the results will be quite different from what is reported on prolife sites.
For example, whereas Brind reported Rosenberg, et al, (1994)to have results that showed a 50% increase in risk, the actual article’s conclusion stated the results are inconsistent. And in 1996, Rosenberg, et al, wrote that the data support the hypothesis that there may be a small increase in the risk of breast cancer related to a history of induced abortion among young women of reproductive age. However, the data from this study and others do not permit a causal interpretation at this time; neither do the collective results of the studies suggest that there is a subgroup of women in whom the relative risk associated with induced abortion is unusually high.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Kate, Pat et al.,
As long as they keep you focused on abortion, they distract attention from their dysfunctional approach to human life.
On the last topic, I drew on a real-life experience of a woman calling her three-year-old a “shithead” and asked voice what the problem was in that scenario. voice has not been heard from since. When someone who called herself Nancy claimed to have adopted four children and spent her days volunteering in a hospital’s children’s ward, I asked her how she managed financially. Nancy disappeared. When a clinic worker named Sue got asked about why her cpc didn’t offer contraceptive advice, she disappeared. When I ask Mr. Dunkle why he hasn’t read up on feral children, he dismisses me with ad hominem attacks and returns to the timeworn themes of torture, killing, etc.
Ask them what they would do to prevent the next Ted Bundy, and they reply only in the context of murder and death: “So you think he should have been ABORTED?” Ask them if they will let you have their family pet, and they refuse, but they will make you have a baby without a thought as to its welfare. What does it tell us when a person values a dog’s life over a baby’s life?
As aborticentrism points out, the so-called “pro-life” movement is a dysfunctional self-help program, in which members clutch at shoddy science and focus on abortion to make themselves feel better, all at the expense of children.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 5:05 pm
“When I ask Mr. Dunkle why he hasn’t read up on feral children, he dismisses me with ad hominem attacks and returns to the timeworn themes of torture, killing, etc.”
I resent this. I told Chuckles that the only feral child I knew was he himself. Is that ad hom!
For some reason Chuck is desperate to get me to stop talking about torture, killing, Are we supposed to be talking about feral children on this blog or about torturing and killing all children? In other words is this blog all about Chuckles, or is it about Chuck and me and others.
LikeLike
October 19, 2011 at 11:04 am
The point, Mr. Dunkle, is that you CAN’T get beyond your fixation. The likely reason you can’t is that by learning something about the needs of real children you risk making a connection between the importance of caring for them and the absolute inability people have to care for a fetus someone else is carrying.
If you make that connection, then you have to face the obligation you have toward every child you wanted born– and you face the prospect of going to your god’s hell if you shirk that obligation.
Therefore, as one suffering from aborticentrism, you cannot afford to risk learning about what happens to children who are not cared for by the people who wanted them to come into existence.
Now, go into your usual dance of avoidance.
LikeLike
October 19, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Huih?
LikeLike
October 19, 2011 at 6:39 pm
I mean, huh?
LikeLike
October 20, 2011 at 11:09 am
Pretending that you’re stupid won’t save your soul. If I were you, I’d find a Jesuit to cover my butt on this.
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 9:00 pm
It strikes me as a bit of a puzzle that so many deeply entrenched prolifers stand by questionable scientific and medical studies if it relates to abortion and gynecology. But move into another realm, say internal medicine or dermatology, urology or opthamalogy, do prolifers continue to rely on non-mainstream evidence to tell them what to say and how to believe? Or do they rely on their physicians and current best practices established by the very scientific rigors that they dispute?
LikeLike
October 19, 2011 at 6:49 am
It strikes me as a bit of a puzzle that Kate finds it odd that we pro-lifers would rather do our own research than let the killers and their helpers do it for us. Does that strike anyone else as a bit of a puzzle?
LikeLike
October 19, 2011 at 10:35 am
What strikes me is that we can play the game of “dueling studies”, as we have been doing for decades, and the numbers of abortions have remained basically the same with a slight decrease here and there. It often feels that we are engaged in an academic pissing match and the women, the real women, dont give a darn. They will do what they think is best for themselves…..
LikeLike
October 19, 2011 at 11:02 am
AMEN.
LikeLike
October 19, 2011 at 11:16 am
That’s for sure, and if we could get the law changed, 99% would think it best to stay out of jail.
LikeLike
October 19, 2011 at 12:59 pm
yeah they wouldn’t care, aspirin, and a number of other things can affect the child, so with that wouldn’t women just do it themselves, how – means goal gap, relates, if you take away the means to get to the goal people turn to deviance. hence it doesn’t do anything but affect women’s health.
LikeLike
October 19, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Andy, didn’t I send you back to school?
LikeLike
February 8, 2014 at 9:35 pm
در 4:20 pmelaheh میگوید:salam miatashkm bedunam ke agar khanevadeyi barkhordeshun ba bachehashun gheire manteghie va dar kol kheili baham dg msohkel daran ba anjame in testha mishe moshkel ro hal kard?
LikeLike
October 19, 2011 at 7:20 pm
So should we stop studying this? Ignore women, the evidence?
LikeLike
October 19, 2011 at 8:15 pm
It’s called a properly formed conscience that tells us that a little life is worth fighting for. I thank God everyday for the gift of faith that he has given to me. I pray someday you will understand that. You don’t need to be a scientist or even a person with a college degree to know that everyone has a right to life, from the womb to the tomb.
LikeLike
October 20, 2011 at 5:06 am
A bit of moral superiority (“properly formed conscience”) you have there.
LikeLike
October 20, 2011 at 6:06 am
So, nowisalie, why doesn’t your “properly formed conscience” tell you to adopt and adopt and adopt to keep fighting for those “little lives”? One of the characteristics of aborticentrics is their bizarre focus on the fetus to the exclusion of care for real children. Are you like them?
LikeLike
October 20, 2011 at 6:43 am
Wow, I thought I had a properly formed conscience but I guess not. I am active on the boards of charitable organizations, I have been active in the schools for years, I’ve been a mentor, I organized food drives, I could go on and on. But because I support a woman’s right to an abortion, I have no proper conscience?????
LikeLike
October 20, 2011 at 8:20 am
Well, Pat, you know those Germans did a lot of good things too.
LikeLike
October 20, 2011 at 6:44 am
Just for the record, a few days ago I asked Nowaslie if she had had an abortion or ever considered one? Did I miss the answer?
LikeLike
October 20, 2011 at 7:36 am
She answered you. No and No.
LikeLike
October 21, 2011 at 9:25 am
Thanks, Anonymous, i didn’t see that….
LikeLike
October 20, 2011 at 9:51 am
Pat do you agree that the world would be a better place if we did not need abortions?
LikeLike
October 20, 2011 at 9:52 am
Not Pat, but it’s ludicrous to suggest such an idea.
LikeLike
October 20, 2011 at 11:15 am
Karine, the world is never a better or worse place; it is only our perception of the world that makes it appear so.
This is why aborticentrism has such a passionate population: They want the world to APPEAR to be a better place. Before abortion was recognized as a woman’s right, Kathleen never ever demonstrated against it, nor did any of the others. It was only when they could not avoid the fact of abortion, when it became publicly acknowledged that they felt it necessary to hide it again.
The best way to get rid of the so-called “pro-life” movement is to teach half a million people how to do abortions. It would short-circuit the movement.
LikeLike
October 20, 2011 at 1:29 pm
I am sorry but I am lost…
LikeLike
October 20, 2011 at 1:49 pm
read up on aborticentrism to understand where self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” are coming from. You’ll understand better why they focus on the fetus rather than battle for children. To them, appearance is far, far more important than substance.
LikeLike
October 20, 2011 at 2:06 pm
You just think you’re lost, Kari. Go there and you’ll know what lost means.
LikeLike
October 20, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Go where?
LikeLike
October 21, 2011 at 5:18 am
Read in context, please — go to Chuck’s aborticentrism blog he advertises above. (Even “spell check” gags on that word.)
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 5:43 pm
I had an appointment with this detnsit at 1:30 I checked in 10 min early. I sat down and waited and waited. about 45 min later i got fed up and left. They never got in touch with me too make another appointment.. Screw ThemVA:F [1.9.7_1111]
LikeLike
October 20, 2011 at 8:41 pm
It’s already happening —teaching allied professionals to do early abortions safely in controlled environments in U. S. and elsewhere. At don’t forget the real possibility that one of you out there in the blogosphere has a physician who you chose to trust and who, unbeknownst to you, provides abortion care.
Lest we forget the Jane Group–highly successful lay abortionists. Marvelous group of women, skillful, compassionate and brave. It wouldn’t take much to get them reorganized and practicing again.
But the larger issue, one to which Pat alluded, is that despite morality warnings from the grim reapers outside abortion clinics and despite alleged claims of universal regret and sorrow, women continue to have abortions and continue to thrive.
LikeLike
October 21, 2011 at 5:20 am
Very few thrive in this day and age. Look at you!
LikeLike
October 21, 2011 at 9:28 am
Good question, Karine. I think the world would be a “better place” if every pregnancy was a wanted pregnancy, i.e., every woman brought a baby into the world on her own terms and timetable. Sure, there are a number of unwanted pregnancies that turn out fine, but I still think it’s better when that baby is really “wanted.” What do ya think?
LikeLike
October 21, 2011 at 9:30 am
Whether or not the world is a “better” place is just a matter of perception? Is that what you’re saying, Charles?? Dont you think the world today is much better than the world of the 1300’s?
LikeLike
October 21, 2011 at 10:54 am
Pat, to quote one parody of a scientific paper: Life, like AIDS, is sexually transmitted and results in mortality in 100% of the cases. To quote the comment of a French priest when asked what his experience in the Resistance was teaching him about mankind, “We are all children.” (He died in the Camargue.
We have traded the superstitions of the 1300’s for the superstitions of the “free market,” “intellligent design” and the two wings of the Party of Property. Equipped with far more knowledge of the real world than the most erudite of that age ever had, we make our choices based on our social circle’s opinion and our first impressions. We do not live long enough to know what things were like as little as 100 years ago; hence, we choose largely on the basis that things will always stay the same, more or less. Our technological advances have been wondrous in the short term, but in the long term they succeed only in keeping an implacable Nature at bay: She will have her way, and we have not yet learned to live within Her rules, as anybody who knows about MDR TB can testify.
In our short lifetime we strive to make sense of the whole thing. When necessary we will construct a fantasy to make our life more bearable, as with the abused woman who stays with the abuser, saying “But he loves me!”
And some of us, to achieve a simulacrum of potency in a life which denies us the capabilities and masteries we desire, will construct a whole realm in which we are the masters. Hence, the so-called “pro-life” movement, which exercises such passion for fetuses and almost none for children.
Thus, the absence or presence of abortion does not make the world objectively better, but only subjectively better. We feel the world is better based on its presence or absence making us feel better.
LikeLike
October 21, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Chuck, Pat,
well with a subjective fix, is there a certain reason people have this logic, is it perhaps the fact that now people tend to read the first thing and know something, instead of having to be face to face, actuating a problem people can sit at there computer, find something out in an instant and never reach a human interaction.
i say this because pro lifers don’t understand what someones situation is like, they cannot see the subjectivity in the matter ( this is your mistake i think chuck) that they reference in their own mind the objectivity of a dead fetus, murder and their own opposition, not the influence of societal pressure and socioeconomic conditions.
LikeLike