January 13, 2012
Abortion.com – Find a Provider for Abortion Care
Posted by Elena Carvin under Abortion, Abortion Blog, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Medical, Abortion Pill, Methotrexate | Tags: Abortion, Abortion Pill, Late Abortion, Medical Abortion |[2,050] Comments
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
July 19, 2011 at 7:02 am
To Deanna in #49 re: faulty analysis: So, how old were you when you found out your parents had thought of aborting you? And how did you find it out?
By the way, some of your response is cut off at the right side of the panel, so all I can see is “because they had a 13…”
LikeLike
July 19, 2011 at 8:51 am
I was in early thirties and I was already a pro-life activist, which is why they told me in the first place.
“because they already had a 13 month old daughter and couldn’t afford another”
If you want to read the whole story you can go to my blog and click on the “about DeAnna” page. It’s all there and our adoption stories are on the “adoption option” page. No need to analyse since it’s there in black and white.
LikeLike
July 19, 2011 at 11:05 am
I’m curious, Deanna, why would your parents tell you that they wanted/tried to abort you? I could never imagine telling my child something like that, even if it were true!!
LikeLike
July 19, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Why would they have told you that?
LikeLike
July 19, 2011 at 12:51 pm
I am actually glad that they did tell me. It made me understand a lot of things about myself. They felt that I needed to know because my story was important because the fact that I was almost a victim of abortion MAY cause someone to listen to me. In a nutshell, me knowing had the potential to save someone else’s life. It gave a certain amount of credibility to my arguments. As, I said I am glad they told me. It was the right thing to do in the situation.
LikeLike
July 19, 2011 at 12:55 pm
And how do you feel about Ted Bundy”s mom never telling him she would rather have aborted him?
LikeLike
July 19, 2011 at 1:24 pm
I don’t feel anything at all about that. Nothing! Nill! Zero! Nada! Because it is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
LikeLike
July 19, 2011 at 3:33 pm
You can’t really explore the trade-off between Bundy being born but not being given a chance to be nurtured and the price three to five dozen young women paid as a result, can you?
LikeLike
July 19, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Yes, I actually do get that connection but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Ted Bundy is one in about a trillion. You can’t reasonably compare him to anyone except other serial killers and until and unless you can produce documented facts that back up your idea that people who were once intended for abortion but we’re spared when their mother changed their mind end up as Ted Bundy’s counterparts then it is nothing but odd speculation on your part.
LikeLike
July 30, 2011 at 9:25 pm
“odd,” yes, that’s the word, “odd.”
LikeLike
July 19, 2011 at 4:26 pm
So, how many lives is it worth killing to insist that the next potential Ted Bundy be born without committing yourself to see that he is raised far better?
With 14,000 gun homicides alone happening in this country every year, you cannot say that Bundy is an anomaly. Don’t dodge the issue. Let’s square away your beliefs with what’s required to make life better for those who are born.
LikeLike
July 19, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Is it just my imagination or have we had this conversation about 20 times already?
LikeLike
July 19, 2011 at 6:57 pm
actually 23
LikeLike
July 19, 2011 at 5:09 pm
It is indeed your imagination. You have never stated how many lives you are willing to put at risk simply to ensure the next fetus makes it into real babyhood. I’ll be happy with a number.
LikeLike
July 19, 2011 at 6:35 pm
All of them! 1.2 million per year in the USA alone. I would put every last one of them at “risk” of having a crummy childhood if it meant saving their lives. I do not believe that death is an appropriate remedy for crummy childhoods or even horrible childhoods. Nor do I believe that killing 1.2 million people per year is an effective remedy for weeding out the Ted Bundy wanna be’s. As a matter of fact death is not an appropriate remedy for anything because at the end your…. well….dead!
LikeLike
July 19, 2011 at 6:59 pm
That would stop any normal person from mentioning Ted Bundy again, but it won’t stop Chuckles.
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 5:14 am
So, you are willing to have even your own children killed by a man whose birth you insisted upon, even though you were not willing to raise him? Even if that man happened to be their brother?
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 5:22 am
By the way, there are about 3.5 million, not 1.2 million, children born every year in the US the last time I checked. And you’re willing to see any number of them die at the hands of someone whose birth you insisted on. Sounds like the Anti-Christ to me!
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 9:20 am
The 1.2 million is the number of babies in the US killed by abortion per year. I said I would put every one of them at risk of crummy childhoods in order to save their lives because death solves nothing.
Don’t put words in my mouth,it’s annoying.
Your question above about my children is so far fetched that it is honestly hard to wrap my head around how to answer it. But, if my choices were to (A) kill them before they were born on the extremely minute chance that someone may try to kill them later or (B) let them live and take my chances with the extremely tiny almost non-existent chance that they may be someone a serial killer goes after. That is a no brainer answer. Of course I would take B. If a person is logical they would be forced to take option B. In option A they definitely die. In option B there is such a small chance that it is almost impossible to calculate. Think about it!
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 8:23 am
The ProLifers are not concerned about the millions of living children that need care, or the millions of dying children around the world.
They only care about children that do not exist.
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 9:53 am
July,
You are wrong about both points you made. 1st, the “children” do exist in the womb. They are not imaginary they are simply in a small form. To say they do not exist is frankly ridiculous. 2nd, you said that pro-lifers do not take care of born children. Here is a portion of an article I wrote to answer that exact same accusation:
“Most pro-life Christians go to churches that have programs, some of them massive para church organizations, that feed, clothe and house needy children. These pro-lifers financially support these programs through their churches. So, they do take care of the children. Programs such as Feed the Children, The 700 club, James Robinson, Warm Blankets International, Rainbow Kids, etc. (I could go on and on for pages listing them) are all Christian based, and they are doing EXACTLY what the author said that we do not do. Many, if not most adoption agencies are Christian based, and they are placing children from all over the world into loving adoptive homes. I have personally adopted 4 children, one special needs child with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, another special needs child with parental mental health issues, and one teen. I have supported Orphan relief efforts as well as inner city efforts. I am a certified foster parent. There are many many more who do much more than I do, some giving up lucrative careers to help these children. Furthermore, we start unwed mothers homes and crisis pregnancy centers that furnish baby furniture, car seats, maternity clothes, infant clothes and any other supplies needed in order to help with practical needs. We have food programs, housing programs and medical programs.” I personally know pro-life people who went to Haiti after the earthquake and others who went to Japan after their earthquake to help “born people”. I know a pro-life man who has started over 50 orphanages around Asia, Africa and Indonesia. Each orphanage is run by pro-lifers, staffed by them, and financed by them.
This list could go on with things like running orphanages in other countries, starting and running NGO’s, opening soup kitchens, etc. but I think you can understand from what is written here that you are wrong about that. Now I admit that more could be done but to say we do nothing is not a true statement.
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 3:20 pm
DeAnna,
Try Again,
you did not answer her question.
Can you?
Do you understand it?
Perhaps you should summarize the question first so we know you understand it?
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 4:28 pm
I most definitely did answer it clearly.Go read it again.
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Guss, July’s question is poorly phrased. It gives Deanna the opportunity to point out, correctly, that so-called “pro-lifers” DO help children, but it also allows her to avoid how LITTLE they actually help.
Craig Seaton in his book, “Activism and Altruism”, showed that a survey revealed they are not significantly more involved than anybody else at being altruistic (adopting, etc.). Seaton of course depended on his own notions of altruism, such as thinking that nuns were ipso facto more altruistic (certainly not the majority of the ones who taught me for ten years!), so his own research is a little cheesy. Not much, but certainly a notable amount.
Deanna also uses her own commendable involvement as a false synechdoche– the part standing for the whole. If she were to better prove so-called “pro-life” involvement, she would have a great track record of getting them to pledge to adopt a child every year for a decade or put 8% of their annual gross income for a decade into someone else’s child’s college fund– and not a relative’s, or fellow churchgoer’s or friend’s child.
The truth is that Deanna’s energy and commitment is simply nowhere near par for the so-called “pro-life” course. But in terms of answering the question the way July stated it, it has at least an appearance of being a good answer. Just the appearance.
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 5:40 pm
You sound like Charlie Brown’s schoolteacher. Wok wok wok. I hear sounds but cannot make them be of any sense. I said clearly more than one time that we can do more. There are even a couple of articles about that on my blog. But that does not negate what does get done. Who is this
Craig Seaton guy and why am I supposed to take his word for anything?
How do you know how many people I have persuaded to adopt? Hmmm? Maybe just maybe I have been active in that as well….but you will never know so stick with your assumptions. They seem to entertain you.
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 6:43 pm
Why would anyone bother going to your blog and read your endless biased misinformation campaign??
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 6:07 am
If you’d gotten as few as half a dozen to adopt, you would have told us. If you’d recruited a hundred, we’d be reading about it in the papers. But you havent’ had much success with them, have you? You can’t blame yourself for such poor results. They can’t change their minds just for you. Or for real babies.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 8:58 am
Actually no, I wouldn’t tell you because you would just turn it on me like you have everything else. I would be labeled as ad do gooder bragger who boasts. blah blah blah blah. The other things I told you about were in direct result of an accusation/question mostly by you and I was labeled. So, no, you won’t be getting any more personal info from me.You have enough to use to analyze me with for years as it stands.
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 11:09 am
To Deanna in #6: You are not answering the question. The question is, “How many children are you willing to put at risk of murder in order to “rescue” a fetus?” There are some 40,000 people killed every year by other people who were cute little babies who have grown up to use firearms inappropriately; there are tens of thousands of others killed by other means by other formerly cute little babies. In every case something went wrong, often terribly wrong and often for a long, long time.
So, let’s skip the grubby childhoods, and let’s skip your marvelous stance in behalf of fetuses. The question is, how many human lives are you willing for the next “rescued” fetus to kill, despite its having been “rescued” personally by you? (Or some other so-called “pro-lifer”?
The reference to your daughter was just the personal end of the spectrum. Are you willing to “rescue” the fetus that would grow up to stalk and kill her? At the other end of the spectrum would be, say, my daughter. Are you willing to sacrifice my daughter’s life to some drunk college kid with visions of omnipotence? Or would you settle for half a dozen people you don’t know. How many lives are you willing to gamble for forfeit for the fetus you won’t care for, but which you will rescue?
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 6:48 pm
You are writing to air between two ears. She does not understand the concept.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 6:03 am
Aborticentrism is the focus on abortion so great as to exclude real care for human life. Maybve she’s the poster child?
LikeLike
July 20, 2011 at 7:19 pm
One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. There is absolutely no way of knowing which “fetus” will grow up to be Ted Bundy and which one will grow up to find the cure for cancer. It’s a crap shoot. To say that all babies in poverty, unwanted initially, or born into abusive homes will grow up to be criminals is simply wrong statistically and offensive to those who grew up that way but are normal productive members of society. In your mindset you just kill off all the so called “unwanted”ones to prevent society’s misfits. Sorry but it doesn’t work that way. There are criminals, yes murderers even, from affluent families where the baby was very “wanted” and there are many happy productive people who were initially “unwanted.” Your argument simply does not hold up under logic. Also the term “wanted” is a misnomer. The question is not one of being wanted but instead WHO wants it? The mother may not but there are plenty of families out there that do.
There are many more couples seeking to adopt babies than there are babies available for adoption. Each year approximately 40,000 babies are placed for adoption in the United States and 129,000 children in foster care are eligible for adoption, versus approximately 600,000 couples actively seeking to adopt children. And if there were more available babies (saved from abortion) the astronomical fees would go down and there would probably be that many more wanting to adopt. So there are no true unwanted children especially not babies saved from abortion.
Sources: U.S. Department of Health And Human Services CDC. 2002. Adoption Experiences of Women and Men and Demand for Children to Adopt by Women 18–44 Years of Age in the United States, 2002. Vital And Health Statistics 23. No. 27. cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_027.pdf
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. 2008. The AFCARS Report: Preliminary FY 2006 Estimates as of January 2008. acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report14.htm
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 6:01 am
It is precisely because you don’t know which fetus is going to become the next killer that you should worry about your daughter’s safety. You don’t seem to be able to grasp that losing a child is a terribly traumatic experience. I’m rather surprised that there has not yet been in your life the loss of anybody for whom you would give anything to get back. Are you really so focused on the fetus that you have nobody near and dear to you whom you would do anything to protect?
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 7:19 am
“You don’t seem to be able to grasp that losing a child is a terribly traumatic experience.”
Look, Chuckles and all you other killers’ helpers — sometimes it is and sometimes it ain’t. But what you don’t seem able to grasp is that if you’re pregnant, you’re already with child!
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 9:01 am
I have lost but I wouldn’t kill 1.2 million people year on the idea that in some way by doing that I could prevent that loss. Loss happens,killing babies doesn’t cure that.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 9:46 am
I don’t want personal information from you, Deanna; all I want is a number: How many people are you willing to risk for an untimely death (murder, car crash, MERSA contagion, Interneet stalking) in order to make just one woman like Eleanor Cowell have the baby you want to see born?
You might have experienced deep personal loss, but you don’t come across as one who cares about protecting the living.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 10:08 am
I’ve already answered that question.
Unborn babies ARE LIVING!
Herein lies the problem. You see an unborn baby as a nothing. It’s not even alive to you. It’s expendable. A ‘humanoid” as you put it.
This is where your thinking is flawed. An unborn baby is just that…an UNBORN baby. But still a baby. It has arms, legs, a head, a beating heart, a brain, ……and it is fully human. It is simply in there growing. But because you can’t see it it has no value to you. Bring it out into the light, change nothing about it except the fact that it now breathes air rather than amniotic fluid and all of a sudden it has value to you. It really is a now you see it, now you don’t thing. It’s human if you can see it but if you can’t it’s worthless to you.
This is what you need to understand so that you will stop asking me the same ridiculous questions over and over. YOU are the one with wrong thinking. Your logic is seriously flawed. I am not the one with flawed thinking. I know it is worth the same inside and outside the womb. Here is something that you need to understand. No matter what you say, how much you analyze, how many serial killers names you throw into the mix, how much you calculate how I’m not living up to your standard of pro-life. (as if you have the right to have a standard about that seeing as how you argue to kill babies) YOU WILL NEVER convince me that I am wrong about abortion nor will you convince me that I am not doing my part. So you are wasting your efforts by arguing that same line over and over. It’s getting you no where.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 10:27 am
Deanna, you are behaving like a woman who has a lot of children simply because she loves being pregnant, without any thought of how they are going to fare in the world. And when one of them gets arrested for some godawful mayhem, she says, “He was always a good boy.”
Your anger at me masks the fact that you don’t want to think about the possible consequences of your situation: A. You want fetuses carried to term because you are so taken by them. B) Unless they are raised well, they will indeed harm other people in any of a thousand way. C) You cannot strike a balance between your need to be happy and the needs of the rest of Americans to be able to enjoy a life free of fear of their fellow men.
You really can’t think about that lack of proportion, can you? It would be one thing if you were raising every child you wanted born, but to compel their birth even at the risk to your own daughter (never mind millions of others) is extremely scary.
I’ll have to put you down as willing to have 203 people killed by a child whose birth you compelled but whose nurture you ignored. Lee Otis admitted to that number of victims, so it’s plausible.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 11:11 am
I’m not angry. Not in the least!
A. You want fetuses carried to term because you are so taken by them.
No, I want them carried to term because it is morally wrong to kill another human being.
B) Unless they are raised well, they will indeed harm other people in any of a thousand way.
Who is to say what “being raised well” even means? Does it mean wealth, a two parent home, perfect health, no neglect, no abuse? What does that mean? No one has the right to say that someone should be dead in order to spare them from life’s difficulties. Also, at any given time there are 600,000 american couples trying to adopt. All of those horrible (in your mind) would be serial killers that you want to kill would be adopted by loving families given the chance.
C) You cannot strike a balance between your need to be happy and the needs of the rest of Americans to be able to enjoy a life free of fear of their fellow men.
A life of being happy does not require another to die. Happiness can be found in all sorts of situations. killing babies will not guarantee your happiness or anyone’s for that matter.
I know you are not a fan of the bible but consider this…..the scripture says that we reap what we sows.
“Stop being deceived; God is not to be ridiculed. A person harvests whatever he plants: Galatians 6:7
What if the opposite of what you think happens and sowing death( abortion) reaps death (cancer, automobile accidents, serial killers, etc)? What if we as a nation are simply reaping what we have sown? It’s something to think about.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Deanna in #10, A) You ARE taken by fetuses. You imagine them as real babies, and you are highly distressed at the thought of seeing something you imagine as the Gerber Baby as butchered little baby bits. You do not see them as your responsibility (even granting that there have been six you did see as your responsibility, but that’s not how you’re looking at 1.2 million. You can’t limit yourself to the moral wrongness of death; you have got to include the moral rightness of caring FOR life, not merely caring ABOUTit. You lack a sense of conflict about Ted Bundy’s birth (35-61 victims) and Henry Lee Lucas (320-600!). You argue vehemently that they shouldn’t have been aborted (and I would stand with their mothers on that choice), but you dodge their need for nurture toward a happy life (the exercise of vital talents in a setting affording them scope). You are like the woman who believes in having kids because she’s pregnant. That’s not responsible, sorry.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Forgive me, d, but i breathe a sigh of relief when I see that this amalgam of nonsense is directed your way, not mine.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 6:41 pm
“You imagine them as real babies, and you are highly distressed at the thought of seeing something you imagine as the Gerber Baby as butchered little baby bits”
It’s not my imagination. They are the same. An unborn baby is the same as a born baby. only smaller.
“You do not see them as your responsibility (even granting that there have been six you did see as your responsibility, but that’s not how you’re looking at 1.2 million”.
I don’t see them I my personal responsibility. i am one person.I can only do so much. But, I most definitely see them as being the responsibility of Christians. The Bible mandates that we care for them. And as I have said repeatedly, more could be done. But the fact that some are not obeying the bible is not an indication that these children should be killed.
“You can’t limit yourself to the moral wrongness of death; you have got to include the moral rightness of caring FOR life, not merely caring ABOUTit”
Agreed! I do care for life! I am doing all that I can do regardless of what you think. Should all believers be caring for life instead of about it? Yes. But the fact that some do not does not mean it is morally ok to kill babies.
The Ted Bundy thing is so far fetched that I have no answer really. No one knew or knows who will be a serial killer or deranged or a genius or a future president. There is absolutely no way to predict this. You cannot base a prediction what a person will be based upon their upbringing. It is impossible. Some people with bad upbringings turn out to be model citizens and some with so great upbringings turn out to be psycho. No one knows which will produce what. So to argue that all babies potentially born into “bad” circumstances should be aborted is ridiculous.
“You are like the woman who believe in having kids because she is pregnant”.
You’re right about that one. If she is pregnant she HAS a kid. That’s not the question. the question is , “Is she going to kill it, parent it, or place it for adoption”
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Deanna in #10: B): It’s very telling that you equate “being raised well” with material indicators: visible nuclear family, wealth, no visible signs of abuse or neglect. You’re probably too young to remember the Ford Pinto, but it looked like a well-made car– produced in a brand new plant, nice paint, new tires, smelled new– but it was known for bursting into flames. Just as a car that is made well has certain attributes– low maintenance, comfort, good handling– a child that is raised well doesn’t have to have what you point out. It instead shows by its behavior. Warner Smith’s seminal work in Maui identified five traits which helped children overcome their familial and environmental handicaps, and Claudia Black and Sharon Wegscheider identified the traits that children can develop to become good (and happy) people. It’s sad that you won’t let women decide for themselves if they can raise another child, when you won’t take it on yourself, but expect 600,000 people to adopt whatever pops out in the delivery room.
As for the 600,000, why not tell them there are 25,000 unadopted babies waiting for them in New York State? I think they are more particular than you realize about what sort of baby they are willing to adopt .
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Deanna in 10: C: For you to live, something else must die. Life feeds upon itself. I am enjoying gas at $3.65 a gallon because 1 million Iraqis have died. I eat jumbo shrimp which would better feed the coastal Indians who catch and ship them to the US. Jeffery Dahmer’s mother spiritually killed him in order to sustain her own then-morbid existence. And millions of women know that their pregnancy, if continued, will be more damaging than an abortion. Three hundred and twenty women would live today if Henry Lee Lucas had died. My best friend’s brother would still be alive today if the motorist who hit him had died.
You simply are unable to realize that either someone must nurture the baby or something bad will happen– and you refuse to acknowledge that one abortion just might save from a dozen to 300 lives… To think somebody else will adopt those 25,000 babies in New York is irresponsible; why would you contribute to the problem rather than help resolve it?
You look like you’re driven by a sense of esthetics rather than ethics: You want things to appear nice, like the Ford Pinto.
LikeLike
July 22, 2011 at 6:15 am
Big mistake on my part, Deanna– I should not have written “you are like the woman who believes in having kids because she’s pregnant.” I should have written,
“You are like the woman who has kids because she likes being pregnant. That’s irresponsible..” A w2orld of difference in the phrasing.
Your dismissal of what badly nurtured children can and will do to others indicates that it is far more important to you that win your chosen battle than to consider the right of other people to live without fear and to live with the comfort of respect for and from their fellow man. the fact that your passion for the fetus extends only to its physical integrity rather than the rest of its existence and potential shows deaders how compulsive an aborticentric can be.
LikeLike
July 22, 2011 at 9:12 am
errata: “deaders” should be “readers.” The “guest”, “login”, “:login”, “login” buttons soemtimes override the bottom lines of what I type, and I can’t read what I type. I don’t know if other people have this problem.
LikeLike
July 22, 2011 at 7:16 am
“Your dismissal of what badly nurtured children can and will do to others indicates………”
I don’t think that anyone can say what happens to “badly nurtured children” as a rule. Some horribly abused children grow up to be great people. Others do not. Have you read the book, “A Boy Called It”? This is the true story of a boy who was horribly abused as a child but grew up to be normal and even wrote a series of books about this life in order to help others going through the same thing. A wonderfully inspiring book. Humans have an innate ability to overcome the odds. Most people who come from “badly nurtured backgrounds” do just fine. On the other hand some people from seemingly normal households go nuts and do all sorts of crazy (Caylee Anthony, OJ Simpson,Joran Van der Sloot, etc. ). So who is to say which it will be? It’s not possible. You simply cannot put a formula on it.
But thank you for actually talking to me and having a conversation rather than calling me names and attacking my character as others have done. I appreciate that.
LikeLike
July 22, 2011 at 9:09 am
The author of “A Boy Called It” is indeed a survivor. HOWEVER, the losers don’t write the books– and they are 67% of the kids in the place where he came from. For every one like him, there are two that might turn out to be the next Gary Gilmore or J.D. Autry.
Where does your restricted focus come from? Why are you not able to see the whole picture, to grant that for every success that warms your heart there are two who are likely to destroy other people– like your own children– through their criminality, ignorance, impulsivity, greed or desire for revenge because they never had the chance to learn that the world can be a good place? Why do you assume that nobody is going to suffer at the hands of the child you walk away from?
LikeLike
July 22, 2011 at 9:34 am
Where do your stats come from? The stats I have seen simply do not back up your claims.
This format on this page is being weird. Everything is all crammed up together.
LikeLike
July 23, 2011 at 6:38 am
Deanna, you need more than statistics. “A million dead civilians in Iraq” can be argued up and down, from 200,000 to 1.2 million, but the argument doesn’t mean anything until one has seen the distraught woman in front of the rubble of her home damning the US and praying that God punish us as the rescue workers carry off the bodies of her dead family. (It was in Fahrenheit 9/11.)
Similarly, I can produce all sorts of back up stats for my claims, but they will be mere numbers unless we know what we’re talking about.
The original Warner Smith study is of course quite academic, but it will give you insight as to how sociological research is conducted, how variables are identified and tested. It will also name the five factors that give children an advantage:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1989.tb01636.x/abstract
The Werner Smith study was pretty much the wellspring for the Lutheran Church’s “asset resources” program, which is pretty big around here. Contrary to popular belief, children’s lives can change when the assets they don’t know they have (and those they do) are identified as such and strengthened. It’s no longer a matter of being a passive token on God’s game board, but re-directing one’s future (with the help of society):
http://resilnet.uiuc.edu/library/benard95.html
What makes a person into a serial killer? If you look at the characteristics, you can begin to guess at how they, rather than asset resources, came to dominate in the person:
http://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Serial-Killers.html
Take a day to familiarize yourself with the basics of child abuse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse
and how they affect children throughout their life:
http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/
and because you most likely are unfamiliar with case histories, here’s a review of Truddi Chase’s book, “When Rabbit Howls”:
familial dysfunction in facilitating child abuse:
http://www.astraeasweb.net/plural/rabbithowls.html
If you walk into a public school classroom, it is quite likely that one-quarter of the children will be from a family with an active alchoholic. What does this mean?
http://www.alcoholandfamilies.org.uk/documents/7/effects_children_and_families/effects_family_life.htm
LikeLike
July 24, 2011 at 5:17 am
You got this boy going, d. I calculate he spends six hours a day trying to refute your irrefutable arguments.
LikeLike
July 24, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Thankfully most women are smart enough to vote for the protection of their civil liberties.
They are not like the women that have been brainwashed to be subjugated to the misogyny of Millennia of Christianity.
LikeLike
July 24, 2011 at 3:15 pm
i absolutely applaud that thanks Elena for giving some spice to the blog oh and the date on the home page is wrong! just saying.
LikeLike
July 24, 2011 at 6:30 pm
You haven’t been to the Bible belt recently, have you, Elena?
LikeLike
July 25, 2011 at 6:28 pm
She hasn’t been to the dictionary, either.
LikeLike
July 26, 2011 at 8:34 am
Well stated Elena,
Thanks for your inspirational comment!
LikeLike
July 30, 2011 at 7:43 am
Thank you everyone that supports the rights for women to choose their own self determination.
Just this section alone with over 1600 5 star Average Rating and almost 1,300 comments proves that America will support a Woman’s right to control her own body.
LikeLike
July 30, 2011 at 11:30 am
Yeah, but 1,000 of those comments are from Dunkle!!
LikeLike
August 1, 2011 at 5:58 am
Dunkle is devolving into one big Hemorrhoid.
LikeLike
August 2, 2011 at 5:29 am
If I am the irritation, you must be the ass.
LikeLike
August 28, 2011 at 8:18 am
If John is irritated, a pain in the arse, just use more lubricant…
LikeLike
August 5, 2011 at 8:02 am
Deanna, I ask this here to seperate it from the other threads. You may have answered this elsewhere but I have not seen it and I have asked several times:
What form of birth control to you support?? I.e., if a woman wants to start on birth control, what should she get that would make you comfortable? Thanks
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 9:33 am
This is a great Abortion Blog.
I am glad Abortion is legal.
I love reading how the Pro Lifer rhetoric gets smashed!
LikeLike