The Tiller Verdict - America's laws mean nothing anymore

Yes, it seems as if the descent of our nation into depravity, chaos and self-destruction have jumped into turbocharged overdrive in just the past couple of months.

Thank God I know my Creator, because I am almost certain there are some very trying times ahead…

I swear, I'm beginning to think that Tiller could have pulled out a gun and blown the prosecutor's head off and the most he'd have suffered for it would have been a citation for violating a noise ordinance. That man can literally do anything he wants and get away with it. He admitted on the stand that Neuhaus worked for him, was part of his team — in clear violation of the law — and they let him walk. He could have sat there at the defendant's table doing lines of cocaine and told the judge, "My lawyer said I could," and it would have been, "Oh, well in that case…"

HAHAHAHA

There was never a serious case against Dr. Tiller. This whole thing–starting with the grand juries–has been a big joke on right-to-lifers and a big waste of the State of Kansas' treasury money.

The jury took LESS THAN ONE HOUR to acquit him.

He and Dr. Neuhaus were ASSOCIATED but not AFFILIATED.

Right-to-lifers, go choke on your spite.

Dr. Tiller is a multiple terror survivor who continues to defy his terrorists and their ideological supporters. After they bombed his office, he hung a sign over the wreakage reading "Hell no, we won't go." When Rachelle Shannon shot him five times, he didn't run away; he counterattacked and tried to run her over with his car, while she was still shooting at him! However you may feel about his work, you have to admire his giant steel bawlz.

SoMG - Will you laugh like that in the face of God and be able to tell him tearing children apart limb by limb is funny?

No. You are free to do so know but you've revealed your conscience is seared. Decent people wince to even hear a sanitized verbal description of what this man actually does for a living. And you laugh. You are to be pitied. Tiller is the terrorist - and that can be confirmed on the facial expressions on the children as he mercilessly executes them.

Spite is the wrong word to describe what's in our hearts.

Sounds like Tiller still has charges remaining against him - http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/it%E2%80%99s-not-over-tiller-charged-with-11-counts-by-ksbha/

Steve:

First of all those are not "charges" against him. They are complaints being investigated by a professional board. Totally different. The board cannot put you in jail. Nor subpoena people to testify under oath.

Secondly, the complaint looks very much like more of the same. Ambiguities in the law and Dr. Neuhaus' technical status relative to Dr. Tiller. See my previous post.

Thirdly, Dr. Tiller's gonna retire soon anyway. He's 67. He could make more money faster by writing his memoirs and/or a definitive textbook, and/or by lecturing and going to fund-raising events. That's if he needs money, which seems unlikely! Or, do the semi-retired visiting-professor thing, where the universities house you and feed you and you teach a course or two. Hang out on campus in Hawaii or California or spend a year in NYC. Much less famous and influential people than Dr. Tiller do that sort of thing.

Wanna guess how many abortions his retirement will prevent? How many late-term abortions? How many partial-birth abortions? Here's a hint: you're not allowed to divide by the number. There are not many people doing what Dr. Tiller does–just enough to satisfy the small demand for their services.

By the way, I was not laughing at the abortions (although I have no force-worthy objection to them). I was laughing at the right-to-lifers who have been fooled by the scam. Very different. None of this has had any effect on abortion but it sure has put Phill Klown in a position to rake in the RTL dough. He'll make Randall Terry look small!

Finally let me tell you one thing I learned INSIDE the abortion "industry": the shortage of abortion providers is a myth, promoted by both sides. RTLs like it because they like to think abortion is an unpopular thing in medicine, and feminists like it because it motivates donors. Eighty-seven percent of counties have no abortion provider, they say, but if they all had one most of them would be standing idle most of the time. Not enough patients. There's enough abortion providers to meet the demand for their services, neither more nor less. There are some local shortages but almost all in places where there's a shortage of docs generally, where they offer to pay your student loans for you if you'll go there. As for a national shortage: when was the last time you heard of a woman in North America giving birth against her will because all the abortion docs' schedules were too full to accomodate her? If there were a national shortage, you'd be hearing these stories regularly, by definition–"shortage" means not enough to meet the demand. The demand has lessened as the baby-boom generation which is a wide age-range has aged beyond reckless sex and then beyond fertility, in greater numbers than their children have aged into reproductivity. Less demand means less supply. Besides the aging, easier contraceptives and after-sex contragestives have also lessened demand for abortions.

I'll tell you one thing more, and this is a prediction I would be prepared to bet on: ten years from now the majority of abortions in the USA will be done by certified members of physician-underling professions, trained and supervised by physicians. This will catch on and spread rapidly and widely. Probably soon but certainly sooner or later. It's like medical abortion (which was coming anyway even WITHOUT RU-486), too economical to resist; all the opponents can do is tie up and stall.

You want to know what Kansan RTLs will do after this BoHA thing finishes? They'll mount … ANOTHER grand jury!

Why not? All they need is a certain number of signatures. That's the law.

There's no limit to the amount of money Kansans can waste on Dr. Tiller!

If you think referring to me as a "vile and degenerate person" is an insult coming from you, Steve, think again. The day I get your approval is the day I should willingly check myself into a mental institution. Also, if your aim is any sort of 'legitimacy,' try citing a source other than Operation Resucue for once. Just a thought.

SoMG -

"although I have no force-worthy objection to them"

Come again?? You have no force-worthy objection to what Tiller does?

Are you human? Maybe you have never been briefed on the specifics of what he is doing. To me that would be the only explanation for a comment like yours - that you have no force-worthy objection - because you really don't know what exactly Tiller does.

But you know exactly what he does, and therefore you hold a position that is beastly - the adversary of God is called The Beast - not because he is a hairy monster - but because he is beyond reason and absolutely cruel. Tomorrow I preach on the compassion of Jesus. What a stark contrast to your beastly nature. I can't reason with this beastly nature.

The rest of your comment is interesting and perhaps accurate in places. But don't get too convinced that it'll be as you say in ten years. Obama hasn't been in office 100 days and his popularity is already lower than Bush's was that far into his presidency. Obama is on the fast track to being a one-term president and ensuring that republicans are elected for the next fifty years. If I am wrong, we can expect God to intervene. The Bible forecasts he'll deal with the Beast himself. BTW, isn't Obama's limo nicknamed the beast? Yep. I'm not among those who suggest he's the anti-Christ, I do not think he is. However, he does operate in the spirit of the Beast, as do you.

And now a word to "That Girl" - I'll confess I did struggle to come up with a word or two to describe you and the rest of your ilk who'd lift up Tiller as a Superhero. There really aren't words to describe this level of degenerate humanity. As I said in an earlier comment, decent people wince and stop you if you start to describe what Tiller actually does to 8-9 month old living members of the human family. it's too horrid. My wife the history teacher can't handle holocaust descriptions and pictures - it literally hurts her. But not you, those who commit this beastly level of crimes against humanity are lifted up as heroes.

Here's the deal, your children know this is wrong. And if you truly don't, you've lost the innocence of God. Here's a suggestion for you, pretend for a moment Tiller is pulling living kitties apart limb by limb. Most who consider themselves "pro-choice" would be horrified at that - but swap the kitty out for an 8 month old unborn child and you turn into a Beast.

here's the link on Obama's limo - The Beast

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/06/obama-gets-new-presidential-limo/

Steve, you are out of date by a few years. Since the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban was upheld, standard operating procedure for third-trimester abortions is you kill the fetus first with an intracardiac injection of arythmic agents. By the time you start tearing it up and taking it out, it's dead. I don't have any problem dismembering a DEAD cat; I've dismembered plenty of dead things, mice and rabbits.

Now, thanks to the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, the same change is being applied to NEAR-viability abortions as well–kill before taking anything out. Fortunately the necessity was anticipated: see for instance 1: Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Mar;97(3):471-6.

This link may or may not work:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11239659?

Of course there will always be a few erroneously-born-alive non-abortuses. What should we do with them? Here's my idea: apply all life-saving and life-sustaining measures without regard to cost. Then, send a bill for those services, with a generous markup, to a big right-to-life organization, the Vatican or NRLC or the RNC or whatever, with a true warning that if the bill is not paid promptly we will feed the NEXT erroneously-born-alive non-abortus to a snake. Or put it in a microwave.

Singing Zombie - I'm not out of date, it's widely known that Tiller will even kill living children the old fashioned way - strangle the stubborn ones or blunt force trauma to the head.

Feed a living child to a serpent? Were you looking for a reaction out of me or just showing us the true nature of your dark heart?

To the rest of you - Would you all be surprised to know that "The Singing Zombie" and "SoMG" are the same person? It's true.

207.237.1.119

That's the IP and maybe there is an IT savvy "pro-life terrorist" reading this blog who can tell us more.

Typically I delete the dark/demonic comments I get, and the selfish/immature ones and the swearing rants. But there is a point to be served by posting a dark one. That point is these folks may seem reasonable but that's just a false front for the true Beastly nature I've spoken of above. A comment like this makes it painfully obvious whose side the devil is on in this abortion debate.

Of course, the Dakota Women are so impressed by SoMG they just devoted a post to the comments this devil previously left here. To them, SoMG (aka the Singing Zombie) is "such a smart person." In terms of a total ignorance of the spiritual realities behind abortion that's quite the dumb comment, but intelligence and maturity are usually lacking over there. The only "smart" you'll find over there are smart-aleck, self-centered, selfish and mean-spirited second graders. Back when my daughter was "their age" she'd tell me about these mean girls on the playground. You know the type. One always hopes they grow up to be decent people and I guess some probably do. The ones who don't end up militantly pro-abortion like we see at Dakota Women. They are the ones so callous to the hurting all they can say is "suck it."

The odd thing about people like Singing Zombie is that they really do believe the hype. Despite seemingly high intelligence, they don't rank very high in the area of common sense and philosophical thought. Global thinkers are generally better able to function philosophically. By that, I mean those people who see the "big picture" reality of what we're facing here in America recognize that two generations from now we will be dealing with euthanasia issues and the type of abortion on demand that China has — gender-choice abortions, etc. The larger issues are still there despite all Zombie's rhetoric and no solutions to them are coming from the far left. Only more platitudes about feminism, women's rights, and the idea that Right to Lifers are brain dead, foolish, or misled. Definitely ignorant and unintelligent. I beg to differ. Although many pro-lifers are religious, not all of us are. If you intend to lock us into categories like "religious fanatic" or "intolerant nuisance" you will find yourselves out-argued by intelligent human rights activists before long. Take a listen to the right people for a change, Zombie. Doctors who are experts in prenatal care know more about fetal development and pain than abortionists or abortion rights advocates. Try listening to what they say instead.

Some people feel THIS way about the killing of a preborn child who would have been fully able to live if allowed to be born at seven months gestation by c-section:

<>

Admittedly, it is a sick creature who would say such a thing is not immoral. Yes, Singing Z, I'm saying you are sick if you really believe this is okay to do. But in all likelihood and by all standards of decency and via all polls that have been conducted since the beginning of the abortion argument in America, MOST people do NOT believe late term abortion should be allowed for the sake of convenience. Tiller has been known to use biased doctors for second opinions so that he can perform abortions if a woman is nervous about labor or anxious in any way. Since this industry is providing his livelihood, I don't think this practice should go unchecked, do you? He gets paid when they abort, not when they don't.

I don't know why ANYONE would perform a late term abortion without the life of the mother being in danger or the risk of giving birth to a severely deformed child being a subsequent reality. Tiller does not mind aborting perfectly formed fetuses. Now, without even going into the reasons why a woman would seek out such a procedure on the basis of convenience, the doctor himself should know better than to tamper with the right of a child to live — we're talking about a child who would survive preterm labor, a third trimester baby. The Hyppocratic oath requires Tiller to preserve life, not take it for money. If Singing Z and others cannot see that, they need to check their hearts to make sure they are still beating. It's a deadly practice which, like partial birth abortion, I believe will soon be banned. What is most shocking to me is that no one is raising an alarm about this man beyond the usual pro-life blog entry. Where are all the citizens of Kansas? Why are they not standing firmly against such practices? Why isn't our pro-life community storming Washington so that our new president recognizes the importance of this matter? While we hit snooze, Tiller continues to murder children… for money.

For some reason, it deleted my quote… Here it is again…

Steve, you are out of date by a few years. Since the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban was upheld, standard operating procedure for third-trimester abortions is you kill the fetus first with an intracardiac injection of arythmic agents. By the time you start tearing it up and taking it out, it's dead. I don't have any problem dismembering a DEAD cat; I've dismembered plenty of dead things, mice and rabbits.

The Hippocratic Oath also requires docs to train the sons of other docs for free, and, to refrain from doing surgery (to leave surgery to specialists, which meant, barbers).

Is that the best you can do? We all know what is meant by the Hippocratic Oath these days. Physicians generally regard it as a directive to do no harm.

I've researched abortion from all angles. There isn't much I haven't already considered.
Singing Z, do you believe it is appropriate to inject a fully-formed, non-disabled (although unlike many people, I believe in equal rights for disabled people), "viable if born" child with an intracardiac injection of arrhythmic agents? Tiller believes that if a woman desires it, he can find a way to circumvent the requirements for "life of the mother" or health by finding a pro-abort doctor to give the second opinion. If abortion is a good thing or even a bad but sometimes necessary and compassionate thing, then you will have to explain to me why Tiller aborts healthy fetuses who, if arrhythmic agents were not injected, would be born perfectly formed and in good health. We may disagree on many things regarding abortion, but I'm sure you must recognize that my disdain for George Tiller is fully warranted.

Megan, you wrote: "We may disagree on many things regarding abortion, but I'm sure you must recognize that my disdain for George Tiller is fully warranted."

Nope. I don't. It's not warranted.

You brag about researching abortion. How many professional research papers on abortion have you co-authored? How many abortions have you actually watched, or done? I have forgotten more about abortion than you will ever know unless you become a professional.

Now I've been searching for more than twelve years for anyone with an OBJECTIVE AND WELL-INFORMED bad opinion of Dr. Tiller. I've been searching IN THE GYN COMMUNITY. So far EVERY SINGLE person I have interviewed who has a bad opinion of Dr. Tiller has been a right-to-lifer. Some try to sort of keep their heads down about it but if you press them sooner or later it comes out–the person with the bad opinion of Dr. Tiller doesn't think late-term abortions, or, usually, abortions at all, should be done. It's always about abortion, never about Dr. Tiller. Among pro-choicers, I do not know ANY primary-care docs who would hesitate to send a patient to him, once they (the doc and patient) had decided a late-term abortion was the right thing to do. Everyone knows he's the best in the Western Hemisphere at what he does. Everyone knows he doesn't break the rules (although he correctly accords only minimal obedience to the letter of stupid right-to-life laws designed to clog the machinery).

You know what else? In my experience, the closer people get to Dr. Tiller, the higher their opinions of him tend to be.

Find me one WELL-INFORMED, QUALIFIED-TO-JUDGE person who has something against Dr. Tiller OTHER than the fact that he does late-term abortions. Someone who says he's dishonest, or careless, or dangerous to patients, or a molester, or a tax cheat, or unclean, or rude, or unprofessional in any way. As I say, I've been looking for twelve years. The worst I've ever heard is that he's a demanding boss. Find me a procedure-oriented doc who isn't a demanding boss! If I knew a surgeon who wasn't a demanding boss, I'd never use that surgeon!

Oh yeah, you wrote: "Singing Z, do you believe it is appropriate to inject a fully-formed, non-disabled (although unlike many people, I believe in equal rights for disabled people), "viable if born" child with an intracardiac injection of arrhythmic agents? "

If something is inside my body, I'm entitled to have it killed no matter what it is. If all the human beings on Planet Earth–innocent and guilty, unborn and already-born, great and small, young and old, rich and poor, smart and stupid–were assembled somewhere inside my body, along with Baby Jesus, Almighty God, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then I'd be entitled to holocaust 'em. That's part of the meaning of the word "my" in the phrase "my body".

Is the DNA of that unborn child inside your body your DNA? Does it match your DNA, or is it unique? If that isn't your, then it isn't your life to end.

Zombie - I think you are full of crap - you have no platform and you are online making yourself into something you hope people pay attention too - I pity you.

And, I have little patience for any more empty praising of Tiller. I know many many docs and I can't think of one who respects him as one who is staying true to the do no harm high calling.

Bob Ellis, I don't care about its DNA. If it's inside my body I'm entitled to have it killed no matter what it is. Even if its DNA codes for the nine thousand names of God.

Steve, my praise of Dr. Tiller is not "empty". I have actually taken the trouble to learn about him.

"Do no harm" means no harm to YOUR patients. You the abortion doc have ONE patient, not two. The fetus is not your patient, but a beneficiary of your patient's chief complaint (undesired pregnancy). Unluckily dependent on something which your patient is unwilling to give. It sucks to need something you're not entitled to, whether it's drugs you can't afford, an organ no one will donate, or life-support inside someone who is not willing to carry you.

If you interpret "do no harm" as meaning, do no harm to ANYONE, then you have no business being a right-to-lifer, because forcing pregnant women to grow their unwelcome pregnancies and give birth against their wills to babies they don't want, harms them. Ask anyone who's been through the experience. Fortunately, such people are difficult to find in USA. Visit the Philippines to see real right-to-lifism in action.

Singing Zombie, these late term abortions are women who let the baby gestate until it could be born alive, THEN they elect to kill it. If it was about getting rid of an unwanted intruder, didn't they have the option of either having it killed earlier, when it was too small and fragile to survive on the outside, or just having labor induced and evicting the unwanted intruder?

Why does this "right" to expel the "intruder" include a right to wait until it could live outside you, then kill it for spite before it sees the light of day?

Zombie, why do YOU have a right to your body that extends to a right to totally destroy somebody else's body? If, as you claim, the right to bodily integrity is absolute, then the FETUS has just as much right to "hijack" the woman's body in order to maintain its bodily integrity as the woman has to kill the fetus in order to maintain her bodily integrity. In fact, if bodily autonomy is so absolute that it extends as far as a right to totally destroy the other person, the FETUS ought to come out ahead on the following grounds:

1. The fetus is making a temporary trespass on the woman's body, whereas the woman is seeking to make a permanent trespass on the fetus' body.

2. The fetus is making a limited trespass on the woman's body, merely "borrowing" it in a way it was designed to be "borrowed", making only a limited and mostly reversible demand, whereas the woman is seeking to utterly destroy the fetus, thus making a permanent and irreversible demand.

3. The woman, by engaging in intercourse, was knowingly risking the creation of the fetus; the fetus has no act of volition that caused the perceived trespass.

4. The fetus has a prior claim, in that it came into existence and staked its "claim" on the woman's body, before the woman knew of its existence and came to the decision that it was unwelcome.

5. The fetus is allowing the woman multiple other options during the period of trespass. She can sing, dance, make love, go to work, travel, etc. — exercise nearly the full extent of her normal activities, whereas the woman is allowing the fetus no other options but is cutting off ALL possibility of future choice.

Again, if as you say "bodily autonomy" is absolute to the point where the mother has the right to KILL the fetus, then the fetus has the lesser right to a temporary imposition, since its demand is more limited and reasonable.

I see that my objections to late term abortion on moral and ethical grounds have fallen on deaf ears. When one is only relying on whether a doctor has reportedly been grumpy or irritable toward his staff and patients as an indicator of his effectiveness as a physician and not whether he's performed a murderous act, I see no further reason for discussion.

Sorry. Not grumpy or irritable. Demanding.

I have no words for what people like Singing Z believe. The ironic thing is that they claim to be the compassionate ones and call those who believe in the value of life hard-hearted. Only in America!

Okay, I found some words.

Christina is right. I don't generally insult people and I even worried all day about how I phrased "disdain for Tiller" in my comment here. I should have said I have disdain for his actions. But when someone's thinking is this sick, I don't mind stating it. Z, if your mother had aborted you in the seventh month, you would not be here to make these comments, smell flowers, run, work, feel, make love to your wife/husband (don't know your gender), and otherwise enjoy life. Would you have wanted that for yourself? Do you not see that we ALL were once dependent on the kindness of our mothers in this respect?

It concerns me that people like Singing Z are so willing to grant autonomy over a woman's body when their very lives depended on someone else not doing that. The logic is all wrong. And that's why I made my first point. I find it odd that people who appear to be so intelligent neglect such a vital and significant truth about abortion. I have not watched an abortion firsthand, but I've been inside an abortion clinic and watched someone go in with a baby growing inside and come out without one, pale and shaken. I've counseled countless women who were told that according to the statistics they'd have no regrets but only relief after the abortion. That wasn't true. Now they're facing lifelong depression and guilt and hours upon hours of counseling.

Listen, Z, you need to do deep research. Go seek out the medical journals whose articles predicted, then observed, the link between abortion (or miscarriage) and breast cancer. Then read carefully through the rhetoric of the recent articles that refuted these facts. You'll find there was no research to refute the link. They studied the previous research instead of doing their own. They found it flawed, but there have been medical researchers since who have refuted the flaws they found. You won't find their reports in mainstream media. Planned Parenthood has stifled them. And have you seen Planned Parenthood's tax returns? I have. You can look them up online. I've downloaded them in PDF form. They are a multi-multi-million dollar corporation — and this is only the national office, there are hundreds of local offices raising money, too. I looked up National Right to Life's budget on their tax forms. Seven million. And their staff salaries were MUCH lower.

Another thing you may not know about, Singing Z, is that there are advocacy organizations out there trying to use values clarification techniques to make people who are pro-life change their minds. Here's an excerpt from one:

This toolkit is a resource for trainers, program managers and technical advisors who organize or
facilitate training events and advocacy workshops in the field of sexual and reproductive health and,
specifically, for increased access to safe abortion care. It is designed to provide experienced facilitators
with the background information, materials, instructions and tips necessary to effectively facilitate
abortion values clarification and attitude transformation (VCAT) interventions. There are also activities
and materials to conduct a workshop to help experienced trainers increase their skills in facilitating
abortion VCAT training events.

Let me ask you this. If abortion is perfectly fine to do at all stages of gestation without guilt, simply because we all have a right to autonomy over our own bodies, why would anyone need their values clarified or their attitudes transformed in order to believe in it? And did you, my fellow believers in the value of human life, know this is happening? We sat by as a nation and watched Nazi propaganda infiltrate Europe. We did nothing until our own nation was attacked. As a Jew, this concerns me a lot. Now we have a ferocious opponent of life beating its way forward, taking no prisoners but instead willing to take any and all steps necessary to promote death for unborn babies. From dumping money into government via lobbyists to values clarification methods, to changing the lingo so it doesn't sound like such a heinous process, to refusing to show women at their first appointments just what developmental stage their fetus is in and what will take place during the abortion, to out and out lying to the American public and the world about the whole business.

You are in the minority when it comes to late term abortion, Z. Almost everyone in Congress voted in favor of banning partial birth abortion. And every American who is given accurate information about what Tiller is willing to do — and overlook — would agree with me, not you, about his actions. I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Bring him to my house and let me shoot some video of him with my family, explaining what he does and why. I welcome that. If you are interested, you are also welcome to come over, Z. We'll hash all this out together. When I put your comments on air, America will see what this fight is really all about.

Trying to convince Zombie (aka SoMG) of the evils of Tiller is very much like trying to convince a skinhead that Hitler is bad and black people are good. We are dealing, not with reasonable mindsets, but with Beastly mindsets - cruel and unreachable through reason - these are sub-human, crimes-against-humanity mindsets. Zombie isn't informed or rational, but rather bound by demonic strongholds fixed in the mind. These strongholds don't come down via rationale talk and reason. So we can pray for Zombie with the authority we have in Jesus and use the blog here to demolish the arguments set up against the knowledge of God.

This I-can-do-what-I-want-with-what-is-mine ethic means that if Zombie is so unfortunate and unlucky on a bitter cold sub zero South Dakota night to end up on MY property and I let Zombie inside MY house… Zombie is dependent on me, right? Zombie will die outside, I can kill Zombie if I want, right?? Zombie, do you support my right to kill you if you are within what is mine and unfortunately find yourself in the place of being fully dependent on me?

Most Americans would say I have no right to kill you unless you constitute a real and substantial threat to me or my family. In fact, I would probably go to jail, justifiably so, if I even shut the door to you in those life-threatening conditions and let you to try to survive on your own (which in those conditions you wouldn't here, not for even 30 minutes.) My point is, your ethic is shallow, inconsistent, sub-human and depraved - indeed demonic and fully the anti-thesis of the message of Jesus. I told you before, no one would want to live in the hyper-extreme narcissistic world you describe.

And think about this, your I-can-do-what-I-want-with-what-is-mine ethic means it's okay for Taliban men to rape their unlucky and unfortunate wives whenever they desire. Sucks to be those women doesn't it? Zombie, do you support the right of Afghani men to do as they please with what is theirs and what is fully dependent on them for survival, including women?

Or, it sure sucks to be a slave and be someone else's property. Do you agree, Zombie, that if I was a slave owner I have the right to do whatever I want with what is mine? Are you out there fighting against PETA so large-scale farmers can continue to treat their animals however they please? Didn't think so.

Answer these questions directly and I'll let you post here again. But at the top of your reply, first tell us what SoMG stands for and why you chose "Singing Zombie" as identities. Things you've said so far convince me you have no life and that saying preposterous things on pro-life blogs feeds an attention need in you. Most of me wants to say, Pity, sucks to be you. But then again as I pray for you God is showing me your value in his eyes and the dream he had for your life long before you were born. And so I pray he will open the eyes of your heart and his love and warmth will fill you and you will be free to be what he destined you to be.

Christina Dunigan, the pregnant woman's right to body-ownership supercedes the fetus' right, and not the other way around, because the fetus is inside the woman's body, but the woman is not inside the fetus' body. DOIOIOIOIOI!

If someone were inside the fetus' body, then the fetus would be entitled to kill that someone.

Your "realchoice" web site still sucks. Anecdotes prove nothing. I could post anecdotes of people being killed by dental procedures, or, of people dropping dead during Christian prayer. Should we therefore ban dentistry and Christianity??? You need NUMBERS, dear child, numbers. Of course you don't POST numbers, because all the numbers are against you.

Megan, I'm proud to say that I came by my in-utero life support honestly, without anyone being forced or tricked into carrying me. I was a planned, wanted pregnancy. There was never any question of aborting me.

There is no link between abortion and subsequent breast cancer. Some small studies say there is a weak link, because of statistical noise. Other small studies say there is a weak NEGATIVE link–that abortion (weakly) PREVENTS breast cancer. Again, statistical noise. The big studies say no link either way. And I don't need to do any more research. I have researched this question quite thoroughly.

Afghan men (there is no such word as "Afghani") should be entitled to do what they wish with THEIR bodies, but not with the women's bodies.

Steve, you wrote: "do you support my right to kill you if you are within what is mine and unfortunately find yourself in the place of being fully dependent on me?"

If I am within your BODY, then yes, I do support your right to kill me. If I am just on your property, then no, you should first give me a chance to leave. Property-ownership is different (weaker) than body-ownership. You don't suffer pain or risk of injury or death from my being on your property.

SoMG stands for Spirit of Martin Gardner. Singing Zombie is because I just finished a gig playing a singing zombie (ORPHEUS AND EURIDICE, by Gluck, who was Mozart's favorite composer) and am about to do another one (Gounod's FAUST). I like to play underworld spirits and demons as flesh-eating zombies.

Zombie - are you self-aware enough to smell your arrogance? It's wearisome really. Afghani is absolutely a word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghani

When I read what you write I hear a resounding gong sound - the angry sound of one completely lacking in love, except for self.

Does Gardner speak to you?

He does need to do more research, Steve. Read this, Zombie:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7BLUl7HxqmYJ:www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf+journal+of+american+physicians+and+surgeons+abortion+breast+cancer+link&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmsctech/1045/1045we15.htm

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:DhYIGRhITt0J:www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf+journal+of+american+physicians+and+surgeons+abortion+breast+cancer+link&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Zombie, in our country, viability is the law of the land. If a child is viable outside the womb, he or she has a protected right to life. Have you read FOCA? The Freedom of Choice Amendment that all the choicers want passed? You can access it here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:4:./temp/~c109LmHifO::

FOCA also states that viability defines life.

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not–

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose–

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman;

That's why Tiller has to come up with a second opinion as to why a woman would require a late term abortion, one past the date of viability. Otherwise, he could butcher babies to his heart's content until their due dates.

If you are merely reporting to us your own personal philosophy, you're entitled to your opinion. Free speech is allowed in our country. But you are incorrect if you are claiming that United States law allows for a woman at all stages of pregnancy to determine whether a child using her body as a "host" may be killed. At the point of viability, that child has a right to live. That would be about 22 weeks, so killer Tiller is breaking the law if he does not have confirmation from a reputable doctor that the woman's life or health is at stake. You will have to research whether or not "depression" has been used by Tiller to determine life and death health issues. I was told Tiller has abused the law by offering abortion of viable, healthy babies to women who were not gravely ill. If I am wrong about that, please take a moment to share your documentation with us. I'd like to know firmly whether he has done that or not. Newspaper articles from Kansas have said he has, but I'm sure since you have forgotten more about abortion than I will ever know, you can tell us with certainty.

Are you an opera singer, Zombie? We love opera. Our children perform in operas here locally. So far they've done Tosca, Pearl Fishers, Marriage of Figaro, Un Ballo In Masquera, and Les Contes d'Hoffman.

Just trying to find some common ground… : )

Megan, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is a well-known fake journal / propaganda rag published by right-to-lifers. It is not an academic journal and no serious academic even reads its table of contents. If you knew anything about abortion, you wouldn't need to be told this.

I am an opera chorister with soloistic ambitions.

Zombie - So, let me make sure we understand your rules. Anything pro-life is biased. Anything pro-abortion is scientific. Like for example, the Guttmacher Institute stats and studies… that would all be unbiased and scientific in your view, correct?

Baloney. And don't tell me GI is now officially unaffiliated with Planned Parenthood. You are nuts and hugely blinded by bias.

I talked to some doc friends who have no real zeal for the abortion issue either way and they think Tiller is a whack. The people you cite who celebrate him are only the bias pro-aborts.

My reasonable ambition is to sing Dr. Bartolo in THE MARRIAGE OF FIGARO. My unrealistic ambition is to sing Alberich, the title character of THE RING OF THE NIBELUNG. I want to make faces and scream, and make the audience fear that I will jump off the stage and attack them.

No, Steve, what I said about the Journal of APS is well-known. Calling it "biased" is too kind to it. A journal with a bias is still a journal. JAPS is not a journal at all, but a propaganda front which RTLs use in an effort to appear respectable.

If you are an academic epidemiologist applying for a position, and you have published papers in JAPS, you would be well-advised to CONCEAL those papers from the hiring committee! No fooling.

To have a number of women sit in my office and tell me stories of how abortion hurt them speaks volumes over what some ideologically-driven academian spews in a mainstream journal. But you are correct, to be accepted in most sectors of the mainstream scientific world today you have to sell your soul and be willing to abort the pursuit of wherever the facts would take you and embrace instead the faith-dogma, creeds and scriptures (bias journals) of the godless left. If you are unwilling to do this you are an apostate to be scorned and belittled. Seems all kind of counter-scientific doesn't it, I mean, not tolerating the pursuit of all evidences, suppressing data while allowing outdated presuppositions to influence conclusions. So much for open mindedness. But welcome to the world of the godless left!

Children can see the dark truth about abortion without any coaching, can't they? Doesn't take a Ph.D to realize dismembering something that is living is horribly horribly wrong. In fact, it shows the Bible to be true… God has hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to little children. That's a quote from Matthew 11, in case you didn't know. (I'm probably correct in assuming you consider yourself learned but remain Biblically illiterate.)

If you are such an abortion expect - plop your resume and real name down here. Until then, you remain in my view all I have surmised of you and stated in my previous comments above.

A comment I put up earlier didn't survive for who knows why. It went something like this…

Zombie - So let me get this straight, something that you admit is wrong if you commit it outside your body suddenly becomes right if it's committed inside your body. Hmm. That is inconsistent and illogical to the core.

There was more but that's all I remember. But here's a new thought as I'm just now noticing this comment you made…

"I want to make faces and scream, and make the audience fear that I will jump off the stage and attack them."

We could easily gloss over this as being no different from someone, for example, who makes horror films for a living. But I smell a dark pathology here - I hear a wounded lost ad angry soul. No one in a healthy place enjoys making someone else feel bad. This is a psychosis but probably more likely evidence of some amount of demonic possession.

You didn't answer my earlier question… does Martin talk to you?

Steve, you wrote: "To have a number of women sit in my office and tell me stories of how abortion hurt them speaks volumes over what some ideologically-driven academian spews in a mainstream journal."

That's because you are stupid, or at least, badly undereducated. If you weren't, you would understand that individual stories from individual women don't mean anything without numbers. HOW MANY women suffer after abortion? Plus, you have to compare their suffering with the suffering of women who have been forced to grow their pregnancies against their will and give birth to babies they didn't want, cos that's what would happen if you had your way.

You wrote: "to be accepted in most sectors of the mainstream scientific world today you have to sell your soul and be willing to abort the pursuit of wherever the facts would take you and embrace instead the faith-dogma, creeds and scriptures (bias journals) of the godless left."

That, of course, is not true–neither the business of aborting the pursuit of facts nor the political bias. In science, the greatest glories are reserved for those who OVERTURN (or deepen beyond recognition) the conventional wisdoms. And lots of scientists are politically Right, although many of them abandoned McCain/Palin. Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s the GOP was the party of the quantitatively-evaluated professions–engineering, hard sciences, medicine, finance, sports. Seems like a very long time ago!

But even if it WERE true, how would you know about it???

You wrote: "If you are such an abortion expect - plop your resume and real name down here."

Why? Do you know someone who needs an abortion?

You wrote: "Until then, you remain in my view all I have surmised of you and stated in my previous comments above."

Yeah, like I care what you think. (*Sarcasm*)

You wrote: "something that you admit is wrong if you commit it outside your body suddenly becomes right if it's committed inside your body. Hmm. That is inconsistent and illogical to the core."

Switching a chainsaw on is ok if the whole chainsaw is outside someone's body, but if part of the blade is inside someone's body, then switching it on is WRONG! Is that inconsistent and illogical to the core?

Killing someone by withholding something which is outside your body (food) is wrong, but killing the same person by withholding something which is inside your body (transfusable blood if the person needs it) is your free prerogative! Is that inconsistent and illogical to the core?

If I were to crawl into your body during the night, you'd discover a right to kill me, or at least, to expel me even if doing so meant I would die, early the next morning.

You wrote: "Doesn't take a Ph.D to realize dismembering something that is living is horribly horribly wrong."

Some people earn their livings by dismembering living things. We call those people surgeons.

You wrote: "I'm probably correct in assuming you consider yourself learned but remain Biblically illiterate."

Well, you're half-right. I will admit though that I don't know the Bible as well as you probably do. Most of my well-memorized bits of knowledge of the Bible come from singing religious music and from reading PG Wodehouse. I've only read the Bible cover to cover once or twice, and I was half-asleep in parts both times.

To answer your other question, no I have not been in contact with Martin Gardner since I was a little kid. But I am in touch with Michael Patrick Hearn, who did the intro and notes to THE ANNOTATED WIZARD OF OZ. I invoke MG because he was an outstanding debunker of pseudoscience.

Are you an academic epidemiologist, Z? What do epidemiologists have to do with abortion? I'm confused. From all I can gather about JAPS, it is put out by a coalition of physicians and surgeons whose voices were not being heard. Just because you are a lone voice crying out in the wilderness does not mean the information you are presenting is inaccurate. Why are you not willing to talk about the alleged recall bias in the earlier studies and the evidence that refutes the recall bias that those involved in the 2004 examination of those studies ignored? Do you consider Dr. Joel Brind, professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology at City University of New York a reliable source? You are grandstanding without substantiating your arguments.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmsctech/1045/1045we15.htm

These are my sources. What are yours?

1. MacMahon B, Cole P, Lin TM, Lowe CR, Mirra AP, Ravnihar B, Salber EJ, Valaoras VG, Yuasa S. Age at first birth and breast cancer risk. Bull Wld Hlth Org 1970;43:209-21

2. Vessey MP, McPherson K, Yeates D, Doll R. Oral contraceptive use and abortion before first term pregnancy in relation to breast cancer risk. Br J Cancer 1982;45:327-31

3. Goldacre MJ, Kurina LM, Seagroatt V, Yeates. Abortion and breast cancer: a case-control record linkage study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:336-7

4. Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G. Collaborative Group of Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries. Lancet 2004;363:1007-16

5. Brewster DH, Stockton DL, Dobbie R, et al. Risk of breast cancer after miscarriage or induced abortion: a Scottish record linkage case-control study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2005;59:283-287

6. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olsen JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T, Helweg-Larsen K, Andersen PK. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336:81-5

7. Erlandsson G, Montgomery SM, Cnattingius S, Ekbom A. Abortions and breast cancer: record-based case-control study. Int J Cancer 2003;103:676-9

8. Brind J. Methodological concerns re: abortion and breast cancer in Scotland. J Epidemiol Community Health 2005 "e-letter": http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/59/4/283£297

9. Rookus MA, van Leeuwen FE. Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:1759-64

10. Laing AE, Demenais FM, Williams R, Kissling G, Chen VW, Bonney GE. Breast cancer risk factors in African-American women: the Howard University tumor registry experience. J Natl Med Assoc 1993;85:931-9

11. Lindefors-Harris B-M, Eklund G, Adami H-O, Meirik O. Response bias in a case-control study: analysis utilizing comparative data concerning legal abortions from two independent Swedish studies. Am J Epidemiol 1991;134:1003-8

12. Meirik O, Adami H-O, Eklund G. Letter re: Relation between induced abortion and breast cancer. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52:209-12

13. Brind J, Chinchilli VM, Severs WB, Summy-Long J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996;50:481-496

14. Segi M, Fukushima I, Fujisaku S, Kurihara M, Saito S, Asano K, Kamoi M. An epidemiological study on cancer in Japan. GANN 1957;48(Suppl):1-63

15. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Andersen A-MN, Westergaard T, Andersen PK. Preterm delivery and risk of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1999;80:609-13

16. Rooney B, Calhoun B. Induced abortion and risk of later premature births J Am Physicians Surg 2003;8:46-9

17. Russo J, et al. Developmental, cellular, and molecular basis of human breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2000;27:17-37

18. Banks E, Beral V, Bull D, Reeves G. Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women Study. Lancet 2003;362:419-27

19. Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, et al. Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncol 2005;6:552-3

20. Ravdin PM, Cronin DA, Howlader N, et al. The decrease in breast cancer incidence in 2003 in the United States. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1670-74

21. The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion, Evidence-based clinical guideline No. 7. September, 2004 http://www.rcog.org.uk/resources/Public/pdf/abortion—summary.pdf, chapter 2.2, para 16.7

22. RCOG Clinical Governance Advice No. 6. http://www.rcog.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=478

I'll just point out here that location inside the woman's body is just one of three factors which justify abortion on demand.

The other two are, living by means of her life support functions on oxygen she breathes and on food she finds, eats, and digests, and, subjecting her to major medical/surgical trauma.

Megan, you wrote: "From all I can gather about JAPS, it is put out by a coalition of physicians and surgeons whose voices were not being heard."

No, it is put out by right-to-lifers whose voices have been heard, and whose arguments have been carefully and objectively considered and rejected.

You wrote: "Just because you are a lone voice crying out in the wilderness does not mean the information you are presenting is inaccurate."

It doesn't mean that it's accurate, either. Google: Peter Duesberg.

Here's an interesting exercise for you: see if you can find any pro-choice papers, or papers whose conclusions support a pro-choice position, in JAPS. Or, reports of numbers which would be useful to the pro-choice side in a debate. Surely, if it's an objective journal, there should be some, right?

You wrote: "Why are you not willing to talk about the alleged recall bias in the earlier studies and the evidence that refutes the recall bias that those involved in the 2004 examination of those studies ignored?"

Because I don't know what you're talking about. Give details and I'll talk about it (if I don't get bored or called away).

You wrote: "Do you consider Dr. Joel Brind, professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology at City University of New York a reliable source?"

Sorry, cannot answer this, I have to go to the emergency room. I laughed so hard I tore open my previously-repaired inguinal hernia. Ouch!

Seriously, there's at least a dissertation, maybe a book, waiting to be written on the subject of scientists who make tenure, realize their careers have peaked, and become cult-denialists. Again, google Peter Duesberg. Also Lorraine Day, although she was a clinical doctor (orthopedics) not a scientist. But she was a top-level achiever in her field. Another one is washed-up Intelligent-Designer Michael Behe. What's interesting is that both high-ups like Duesberg and Day and low-middle-level scientists like Behe and Brind do it. Another is Kary Mullis but he pretty much just jumped on Duesberg's band-wagon.

PZ Myers may be doing something similar but at least his cult is not a denialist cult.

OK, here's something revealing about JAP&S.

Here's a press release from their web site. Nothing to do with abortion; it's promoting the preservative-mercury-in-vaccines-causing-autism bugaboo.

http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nr-03-02-2006.php

I read: "The cumulative amount of mercury being given to children in this number of vaccines would be an amount 187 times the EPA daily exposure limit."

Sounds vewy vewy scawy, right? but the EPA daily exposure limit is the maximum amount you can be exposed to EVERY DAY FOR YOUR ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL CAREER without having to worry. That's why it's called the DAILY exposure limit. Even multiplied by 187 times, it's not dangerous if it only happens once, or if it's spread across a single-digit number of injections. Vaccination is occasional, not daily, exposure. What's the OCCASIONAL exposure limit? They don't say anything about that, do they. It's a trick, designed to bamboozle naive readers, with enough knowledge to read but not enough to understand. Like you!

Again, your logic is flawed. Chain saws? I won't even take on a blow by blow, piece by piece debate, but what we are saying about late term abortions is accurate. You still have not addressed the article I sent you by Joel Brind from the UK Parliament site. If you are closed-minded, I understand that. But if you are open-minded as we all should be when seeking to understand truth, you should agree to read what I sent you thoroughly and come back and talk to us about the recall bias problem.

Suppose for a moment that the men who are at the top of their medical and academic careers are totally wrong in much the same way that high level politicians were wrong about slavery and later in the 1960s about civil rights and before that, in the 1910s about giving women the right to vote. Every one of those high level academics was dead wrong on these issues. What if the JAPS physicians and Surgeons who are writing these articles are the very progressives you laud — the scientists who are more free thinking than the norm, the ones who have stepped outside the box and bothered to study new evidence and uncover coverups funded by Planned Parenthood. You know that tax return I viewed? It contained donations to Alan Guttmacher Institute. Now explain to me how the Institute could be unbiased while funded by Planned Parenthood?

You asked why there are no pro-choice articles in the journal. Probably because it exists to present an opposing view! If the women's suffrage movement put out a mag, it would not include articles in support of the denial of suffrage.

All I'm asking you to do is check the articles I sent you and stop assuming they are inaccurate. Also, check the articles you are reading in those reputable journals for bias toward abortion. Have you ever studied propaganda techniques? Check out a few books on that, too, and you'll see loads of them used in the pro-choice articles. RTLers use a few of them, too. But you have basic human rights issues that lend themselves toward the support of life that choicers have to overcome so you'll see MUCH more jargon and propaganda in their articles.

Megan

Hee hee! Megan's list of sources includes the Melbye study, the biggest of all studies of the question by a wide margin–and which shows that there is NO link between abortion and subsequent breast cancer.

Megan, next time try reading the articles before you cite them as sources.

Megan, you wrote: "Suppose for a moment that the men who are at the top of their medical and academic careers are totally wrong in much the same way that high level politicians were wrong about slavery and later in the 1960s about civil rights and before that, in the 1910s about giving women the right to vote."

Giving women the right to vote was a matter of morality. Whether or not abortion causes subsequent breast cancer is a matter of objective fact.

You wrote: "You asked why there are no pro-choice articles in the journal. Probably because it exists to present an opposing view! If the women's suffrage movement put out a mag, it would not include articles in support of the denial of suffrage."

So you admit that JAP&S is a right-to-life mag? Not an objective journal?

And yes, when it comes to Joel Brind's "work", I am closed-minded. I became that way by studying his papers.

Zombie -

You said: "Giving women the right to vote was a matter of morality"

Isn't abortion a matter of morality as well?

And whose "morality" gave women a right to vote? Try to follow me… I guess if a majority of people somewhere decided because women are physically weaker they should not get the same say as men, the majority's morality would then make that right, right?

If it's scientifically provable women are "less" than men in physical strength, and it is, and a majority determined physical strength is the standard for voting, the moral thing would be that they can't vote.

Obviously I agree with nothing I just said. My point is someone's morality is being allowed to determine what is right and wrong. And unless there is some absolute underneigh all this somewhere, everything is relative and what is right for me will be wrong for you. Society doesn't survive that unstable foundation. So, what people think of as right and wrong is irrelevant to what is truly right and wrong.

Apply this to abortion and you lose your right to kill what is in your body. If what is "right" for you doesn't square with what is absolutely "right" (moral) then what you do is wrong. Abe Lincoln said, no one has the right to do that which is morally wrong.

Megan - I appreciate you taking the time to list out these sources. It may be that Zombie found one on your list that shouldn't be on the list, but you've denomstrated there is a lot of evidence of the link between breast cancer and abortion.

I'm good friends with South Dakota's last abortion doctor (now pro-life). Here's the kind of thing she shares with me… women who have had abortions are at risk for higher rates of premature and extremely premature births. http://jpands.org/vol13no4/rooney.pdf.

Now, if these pro-aborts like Zombie really cared about the well-being of women, they'd be honest and tell women 1) abortion is a major medical procedure and tell them that 2) there are studies that show up to 30% of women say their abortion hurt them (depression, suicide ideation, etc) and they would tell them how 3) there are studies that show links to breast cancer and they would tell them 4) there are studies that show women are at risk for higher rates of premature births.

They are even free to say they don't agree with those studies but any legitimate doctor would lay out the full range of possibilities and let the patient make decisions accordingly. Good doctors encourage second opinions even if it opens the door to a different opinion than their own - they first and foremost have what is best for the patient in mind. As is today, ANY study that does not promote abortion as a good thing is immediately discredited and suppressed - the whole story of abortion is hidden from women seeking abortion and the story is hidden from them by people who profit from these women having abortions. They have a huge financial interest in making sure women aren't deterred for having abortions.

One of the reasons I reject the notion that abortuaries are anything remotely close to legitimate health care providers is because they insist on playing russian roulette with a major medical procedure effecting women. By that I mean they pass a gun (which they say is unloaded) around a circle of women hoping to make a "problem" go away and they do not tell the women that there may actually be one bullet in the revolver after all. Five women may do fine with their abortion, but to hell with the one. The FDA would never let any drug hit the shelves if one out of six people experienced major side effects, would they?

It's total and wreckless heart-level blindness for Zombie to say things like a pregnant women only constitute one patient, not two. If that were the case, OB-GYN's wouldn't think twice about how they treat pregnant women for other things - as is, consideration is given to the second patient's well-being. And it's standard medical practice to recognize two patients. It's a stupid comment made by a stupid man.

Megan if you haven't yet read the SD Task Force Report on Abortion, it's available via a link on the right hand side of this blog. It shows how in 1973 the courts gave us abortion on demand with no knowledge of the effects it would have on women. Today we know that the six presuppositions that underneath the Roe decision are also false and flawwed. Thanks to advancements in fetology and molecular biology - advancements in technology (sonograms) we now know abortion kills a separate and distinct living human being. And we know that abortion hurts women, not all women, but a substantial number of women (some studies show 30% are affected negatively). There is no upside to abortion except it's brings billions of dollars to those who profit from it. Zombie won't care about this evidence. He is fixed on his right to kill what is in his body.

Zombie - any response to my earlier charges that you lack love? Do you really not see how laying ones life down for another is a far higher good than the narcissism you advocate in terms of what is only good for you?

Well, you just cut off your own nose to spite your face. You say that I am only reading pro-life items, then when you see that I am also reading those that support choice, you laugh at me. I don't understand your logic at all. And, by the way, those sources were the ones Brind used in his supposedly completely biased article — the one the UK Parliament published — so your suggestion that he is a pro-life wacko is also incorrect. He analyzed that article, too, and laid it out beside the other research to come to the conclusion that there is, indeed, still a 2.5% higher risk of breast cancer. Why not tell women that?!?!? Let them make informed decisions! If abortion is so safe, there should be no problem showing them these articles and allowing them to make their decisions based on ALL the research, not the carefully crafted rhetoric you find at Planned Parenthood.

And this:

Megan, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is a well-known fake journal / propaganda rag published by right-to-lifers. It is not an academic journal and no serious academic even reads its table of contents. If you knew anything about abortion, you wouldn't need to be told this.

How does knowledge about a medical journal's reputation negate my knowledge about abortion? I never claimed to be a doctor. My master's is in Theology. I'm a freelance writer and mother of four. What I know about abortion is what everyone knows. It stops a beating heart, pain can be felt somewhere around 12-14 weeks, and viability is at around 22 weeks, after which abortion is illegal in our country with few exceptions. You, on the other hand, don't seem to have read FOCA or any of the research that you say is flawed. You admitted to me that you know nothing about the alleged recall bias that the 2004 study accused earlier studies of having when it comes to the increased breast cancer link. So you have not addressed the whole Denmark study and the acceptance of abortion in that country and the good records they have kept reduced recall bias and also showed an increased risk.

You are pro-abortion, but never did you indicate that you are pro-women. I am skeptical at best of any MAN who comes onto a blog and shoots off his mouth about an issue that will never affect him in any way except, if he's a physician, possibly financially.

Plus, you use propaganda techniques in your posts. Saying abortion is a safe, harmless procedure (tell that to the women with perforated uteruses and who are sterile now) and calling childbirth a "medical and surgical trauma."

I have laid out articles for you to read — they cover both sides of the issue. I never said they didn't. I would like you to go to the Parliament website, read the data you find there, and THEN come back and explain to us how abortion is pro-woman. I don't think you should so quickly dismiss anecdotal evidence either. If even one person dies from a botched abortion and even one baby is born alive, then suffocated, legal action should be taken — because this is America, not the former Soviet Union or some small country run by a dictator. We are guaranteed certain freedoms and laws are being violated. Laws regarding the regulation of abortion clinics like those in Hialeah, Florida, which are finally, FINALLY being addressed and laws regarding statutory rape — and rape in general — at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country. You may dislike the laws, but you have no right to impose your personal views on the rest of the nation any more than I do. So suggesting that a woman has rights over her body that our country, and even pro-choice legislators, have said she doesn't (Read FOCA)is lunacy. It isn't true. The sky is not green, grass is not purple, and you are not right.

I'll share an additional thought because I know Zombie will come back and again discredit the testimony of hurting women and pro-life professionals/medical journals.

Let's say these are not credible studies and sources (which is fully untrue as Megan has made very clear)…

And let's then imagine that a school bus full of children heads out one night on a trip somewhere. Along the way, the frantic town drunk steps out into the roadway and stops the bus and tells the driver the bridge is out over the river. There is a likelihood the warning is a mere hallucination from a madman.

But considering what is at stake and the enormous moral obligation and responsibility on that driver to safely transport the children, regardless of the low credibility of the "source" of information, would not the driver, at minimum, call the company dispatcher and proceed only with caution? Perhaps even parents would be notified that there is a report out there that the route home is not safe.  Most likely if the company indeed cared about those involved, they would instruct the driver to take the alternative route which is equally available to him/her at this point in the journey. If the warning from the drunken madman was true, on whose shoulders would the guilt lie if all those children were killed and their mothers devastated? Correct answer: the bus company.

To proceed in the name of medicine with procedures that kill one/wound one is criminal negligence. Anyone in medical practice who commits such criminal negligence would have their medical license revoked immediately. Every abortionist out there should be immediately stripped of their license to practice medicine because they knowingly do harm to their patients under their care by deliberately taking undue risk with people's lives because of their ideological blindness.

That's so true, Steve. The articles I was trying to get him to read were about ideological blindness! The idea that politics trumps medicine is what the author was trying to get across. That's why I hunted down Planned Parenthood's tax records to see who they are funding. I want to know the truth. If the truth is that abortion is always entirely safe, I want to know why women are complaining of infertility at alarming rates. And why Planned Parenthood denies the link to infertility. The numbers are being squelched. Not only that, because of the delicacy of the situation regarding abortion and its secrecy (due to moral implications that our Zombie denies exists) the numbers are not always going to be reliable. Should women not then err on the side of caution, rather than going ahead with an abortion? Morality aside, any medical procedure carries certain risks. According to Planned Parenthood, that means any procedure BUT abortion, evidently. It just simply isn't true. It is not a harmless procedure. There will be cramping, prolonged bleeding, possible emotional trauma, potential infertility — a mechanism that has been understudied and researched so there's your russian roulette — and what's worse, women are getting repeat abortions. This procedure, albeit not without side effects and those possibly long-term, has become so commmonplace that women are using it as a form of backup birth control. I realize that's okay with Zombie, but it's not okay with most of America. Desensitizing women to what lies within their womb in early pregnancy does not change the facts. Calling it fetal tissue rather than an unborn child early in his/her gestational period doesn't make it less of a child. The reasoning that Tiller uses to better sleep at night does not negate the facts. Purposefully turning a blind eye to the dark side of abortion by pretending it isn't dark is no less heinous than those who watched African Americans being lynched and those who ran the ovens at Auschwitz. As a Jew, I am affronted at Zombie's callous regard for unborn humans. It reminds me of Hitler and is a couple steps shy of Margaret Sanger's Eugenics program.

Oh, Megan, you asked about my sources. I assume you mean, sources for the fact that abortion does not cause breast cancer. For starters, the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the Office of the Surgeon General.

Zombie - those are NOT sources. We had this in SD last fall… the State Medical Association came out against Initiated Measure 11 - and it turns out the actual members of the medical association had no knowledge that few ideologically driven docs in the association were wise and cunning enough to get themselves on the board so they could issue decrees on stuff like this on behalf of all the docs.

In other words, mainstream organizations, all of whom trusted in the research that was refuted by the articles I sent you. You left out the Susan Komen Foundation.

That's not all I asked you to do… Think independently, trace your sources to their origins, make sure there have been no propaganda techniques used to quell the opposition's progress. You won't find that to be true. There is a massive push toward global acceptance of "reproductive rights," leaving the rights of innocent children still in utero completely erased. I know your view is "It sucks to be you, little fetus!" Mine is thinly veiled disgust at an increasingly self-centered, narcissistic society which places ease and convenience above hard effort and high morals.

In the case of George Tiller, I would like to know more about those women he claims "need" abortions because their lives or health is at stake. Who decides? Who chooses who decides? The woman seeking an abortion? Who represents her child in such a case? If it is true that he's allowing women to abort in the third trimester when their babies are viable and there is NO substantiated reason other than fear or sadness, thus necessitating (in his mind) the use of ultra pro-choice physicians to give the second opinion, I would like to know why I am being considered a right-wing nutcase for shouting foul.

You still have not commented on why organizations are putting on conferences on values clarification to gain ground in the abortion debate. Why put out training manuals to teach pro-choicers how to go out and make choicers out of right to lifers if it's such a cut and dried situation and I'm such an idiot for believing in the value of unborn life? Why are they secretive about it?

Why are abortion clinics so secretive about the stages of development in utero? Because they know if women saw what was really going on inside them, they would not get an abortion. If it's a glob of tissue that does NOT suck its globby thumb, hiccup, and do cute somersaults at 10 weeks, why not just show the woman on ultrasound what it is she's destroying? Why do they resist showing women their unborn children or allowing them to listen to the baby's heartbeat and make an educated decision.

The real tragedy in our country is that women are being exploited instead of assisted when they find themselves in a crisis pregnancy situation. They need aid, support, rides to the doctor, vitamins, healthy food, diapers, baby clothes, blankets, a crib, and more. Why are choicers so adamantly opposed to HELPING a woman bring life into the world and instead so insistent about their right to govern their wombs with an iron fist?

This is anecdotal, true, but last week the young niece of a friend was forced to get an abortion by her parents. At the last minute, she jumped off the table, saying, "I can't do it! I can't!" Her parents brought her home but made an appointment to come back the next Wednesday (three days ago) for an abortion with anesthesia. Where were/are this young teen's rights?

Megan, what, don't you support parental-consent requirements?

I do. If my twelve-year-old daughter comes home pregnant and says she wants to grow the pregnancy and be a mom (just the sort of looney idea she'd get, too), she should damm well need my permission. Which she would not get. If necessary I'd strap her down and do her abortion my own self. Or spike her orange juice with methotrexate.

So, Megan, you don't believe what the AMA says about medicine, what the ACOG says about gyn, what the ACS says about cancer, or what the US Surgeon General's Office says about medicine. So what DO you believe? Do you believe what the American Heart Association says about cardiology? How about what the American Lung Association says about smoking? Or are all these organizations part of a big pro-abort conspiracy to conceal the truth?

You wrote: "numbers are not always going to be reliable. Should women not then err on the side of caution, rather than going ahead with an abortion?"

Not if the alternative is enduring labor and delivery, which is much more dangerous. She should err on the side of caution and GET the abortion.

You wrote: "Morality aside, any medical procedure carries certain risks. According to Planned Parenthood, that means any procedure BUT abortion, evidently."

You say PP denies that there are risks associated with abortions? OK. Find me ONE current or recent document published by PP IN ANY MEDIUM which denies that there are risks to abortion, and I will donate ten thousand dollars to the National Right to Life Committee. No fooling. Just ONE current or recent document. You can't, because there isn't one.

Zombie (aka SoMG)

If the tobacco companies had infiltrated the American Lung Association with ideologues as Planned Parenthood/NARAL, etc have infiltrated these medical associations then yes they would cease to be objective. I equate Planned Parenthood to the tobacco companies and allow them no voice at the table in discussing whether abortion is right or wrong. And they are as tied into these medical groups as Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd were financially tied into Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and AIG.

Can you show us one place Planned Parenthood details to those they sell abortions to the full range of known risks and side effects of abortion mentioning that there are studies that link abortion to breast cancer, depression, suicide ideation, and higher rates of premature births?? Didn't think so because they don't give women an honest briefing.

It's unreal to me that you are for forced coerced abortion and okay with sexual assault and physical abuse of your own daughter. I've spoken with gals whose parents forced them to abort and it leaves deep wounds, severs relationships, and fuels a downward spiral of other negative behavior and outcomes. Your daughter would be far better off if you "punished her with a baby." My expertise is the spiritual dynamics behind what you are advocating here and I can tell you would be doing the work of demons. I'm sure that excites you even more.

Steve, you wrote: "If the tobacco companies had infiltrated the American Lung Association with ideologues as Planned Parenthood/NARAL, etc have infiltrated these medical associations then yes they would cease to be objective."

I see, so the AMA, the ACS, the ACOG, and the Office of the Surgeon General (GWBush's Surgeon General) have been infiltrated by PP and NARAL and are therefore lying to the American people. Is PP sending spies, who collect salaries both from the professional organization and, secretly, from PP as well? Or is it a more loosely-knit conspiracy? Do tell. Why haven't I read anything about this? Let me guess–the liberal media is covering it up, right? Only Steve knows the truth.

You wrote: "I equate Planned Parenthood to the tobacco companies and allow them no voice at the table in discussing whether abortion is right or wrong. "

But right now we are discussing whether abortion is SAFE OR DANGEROUS, not whether it is right or wrong.

You wrote: "Can you show us one place Planned Parenthood details to those they sell abortions to the full range of known risks and side effects of abortion…."

Yes. It's called the Informed-Consent Form.

You wrote: "… mentioning that there are studies that link abortion to breast cancer,…"

Even MENTIONING breast cancer to a patient who is considering abortion, would be malpractice. The word "cancer" arouses irrational fears. The doctor is responsible for not arousing these fears when they are not appropriate.

It is not the doc's job to tell the patient about ALL the studies (that would take years), only the overall findings of all the studies taken together. Whatever you study, there will always be some studies that give the wrong answer, because of statistical noise. The doc's job is to digest the studies, to get the overall picture, and give THAT info to the patients. There are studies which seem to show that eating in Chinese restaurants increases your risk of going deaf. Of course, it doesn't really, but there are studies which, because of statistical noise (coincidence), say it does. Should we be warning restaurant-goers about those studies?

You wrote: "… depression, suicide ideation,…"

Childbirth also causes depression and suicide ideation. Google: Post-partum depression.

You wrote: "… and higher rates of premature births?"

Nope. That's a myth.

You wrote: " Didn't think so because they don't give women an honest briefing. "

If you can catch PP failing to give someone an honest briefing, you can get them convicted of malpractice. You can't because they DO give honest briefings. What they don't give are the BIASED, FAKE briefings you would like them to give.

Z, I asked you to think independently, trace your sources to their origins, and make sure there have been no propaganda techniques used to quell the opposition's progress. You have not yet done this. Please answer my questions instead of commenting on my answers.

Why put out training manuals to teach pro-choicers how to go out and make choicers out of right to lifers? Why are they secretive about their "training" and brainwashing techniques?

Why are abortion clinics so secretive about the stages of development in utero? Why are you against informed choice but in favor of parental consent? And don't you know that parental consent means consent to abort, not consent to keep the baby? Do we need to define these terms for you?

Do you have children? Have you talked to them about birth control? Do you believe women who get repeat abortions should be reprimanded like they are in France? Why are you not concerned about the pain that will be inflicted on a viable baby when Tiller aborts him/her? Do you find it ethical to abort a baby that can feel pain? Why is it ethical?

Some people are really concrete in their thinking. You seem to be one of them. I find yours a very one-dimensional point of view. That's why the diversity of humanity is so important, so vital to decision-making. If you refuse to listen to me — a philosophical, global thinker — and choose only to listen to those who think concretely like yourself, you are missing the nuances of this debate. There should be wide consensus when it comes to life and death issues. You should listen to everyone, not just those who agree with you.

Oh my goodness, you are extremely naive, Z. Not only have Planned Parenthood clinics broken the law, they have been caught on video doing it. Go to youtube and search for Lila Rose.

They also very regularly neglect to offer informed consent. These laws may have been changed with Sebelius's recent gift to American women. I think she just last week signed a directive that required informed consent. If that is the case, I find it hard to believe that clinics were already offering it. Why would she establish something that was already taking place.