Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by dk
Actually I was pointing out the abortion industries and sexual predators have a common interest, to keep the abortion secret. I meant what I said, nothing more.

So? There happens to be some convergence of interest between the two groups. That in no way tars the one group with the acts of the other.

dk: I mean… Abortion providers bound by law to report rape, incest and statutory rape routinely thumb their nose at authorities to protect sexual predators.
Loren:Got any evidence for this wild assertion?

Loren: You mean they are wrong for saying that which doesn't exist doesn't exist?
dk: I mean cancer institutions have crawled into bed with radical factions that have tarnished institutional reputation.
Loren: In other words, because they don't say what you believe they are lying?

Loren: It's a statistical fabrication--they are comparing abortion vs carrying to term (which is known to have a protective effect) when they should be comparing abortion vs never being pregnant. The risk disappears when you do it this way.
dk: To say “the risks disappears when” acknowledges the risk. I’m sure that was not your intent, so in fairness you might wish to restate your case.
Loren: Try again. By having an abortion one merely fails to get the protective effect of having a child. One's risk is *NOT* increased compared to what would have happened if you didn't get pregnant in the first place. Besides, I have a hard time believing that the risk reduction on breast cancer is more than the risk of childbirth.
[list][*]Loren: They are under a legal obligation to report child abuse if they think it happened. Abortion has nothing to do with this.
dk: When rape or incest leads to a pregnancy, then the aborted baby is the only hard evidence linking the sexual predator to the crime.
Loren: So? DNA test it.
[*]Loren: The only thing that makes any sense in your argument is that you are saying they should wreck her life on the off chance it will expose an abuser?
dk: No, sexual predators by definition commit serial crime, where one victim becomes a link in a chain of crimes that leads to the next victim. To identify and stop a sexual predator the chain must be broken. The abortion industry destroys evidence that links the sexual predator to a chain of crimes. This shows a blatant disregard for the welfare of women.
Loren: In other words, you agree with my conclusion--wreck the lives of millions in order to catch some molestors. May I suggest a move to China, 1966--your attitudes would fit there much better than they fit the US.
[*]Loren: What if he kills her to cover it up instead?
dk: Exactly, a sexual predator leaves a chain of victims behind, one victim leading to the next. The only way to stop a sexual predator is to break the chain. It is unconscionable for the abortion industry to protect sexual predators.
Loren: Exactly?! It's better for him to kill the person he was abusing than for her to have an abortion? Just how evil are you?

dk: What questions should the abortion counselor ask an underage prospective abortion client. This isn’t simple a matter.
Loren: I'm neither a doctor nor a psychologist. I can't answer that one.
dk: Neither are most abortion counselors.
Loren: So? The protocol would be established by those who *DO* know. In case you hadn't realized it--much of medicine these days is handled on a system of letting low-level people handle the trivial stuff and passing it up the chain when it's beyond their narrow area. If they get hit with a question they don't know the answer to, they duck and pass it up to their supervisor.
This even happens at the higher levels, it's just not so obvious. I've made the doctor duck once in his area of specialty. He didn't admit it but what certainly happened was he went digging into a book for about 20 minutes. US doctors simply don't have things like drugs/dosages for treating tropical diseases in memory. (There was no question about the diagnosis.)

Loren: I would say the list should include "why are you having an abortion?" and "who is the father?" but that's as far as I can go.
dk: Any pretense of “the patients” best interests requires knowing the context of the relationship that lead to the pregnancy. Don’t you even care if the father is a sexual predator?
Loren: I think you are obsessing on this. Most abortions aren't due to molestation!

dk: Planned Parenthoods roll in the development of sex education, teachers education, locus parentis rights and pedagogue has far broader implications for everyone in society.
Loren: The main reason to deny a teenager an abortion is to punish her. This is not a valid reason.
dk: Says who?… The parents, schools, APA, FBI profilers, NEA, ACS, NIC, ACLU, abortion industry, Planned Parenthood, Sexual Predators…
Loren:So you admit your true motivation is to punish women for having sex you don't approve of?

dk: There are numerous communications published on the web from disgruntled scientists that dare to mention a possible link between breast cancer and abortion.
Loren: Tell a lie enough and some people will believe it.
dk: That’s my point, once the problem exists it must be aired in the context of a problem statement.
Loren:The problem doesn't exist. The PL's will tell any lie they can dream up in order to try to discredit abortion.

dk: Is there anyone that can criticize the abortion industry without becoming a farce, and in your opinion who?..
Loren: Someone who presents solid, unimpeachable data for their position. Given the number of times they have cried wolf the presumption is anything more is as meaningless as the past lies.

dk: So in a world perfect for the abortion industry the Judiciary becomes an abortion licensing agency, and congressional judiciary committees are exiled to off-Broadway theatres.
Loren: The point of judicial review is to make sure she knows what she's doing. The process itself should make this pretty likely! From a practical matter you could get just about the same effect from a class that they have to get a passing grade in.
As for congressional committees: I'm not objecting to everything they do. I'm objecting to testimony before them. It bears far more resemblance to Broadway than lawmaking.

dk:I’m curious what you think the government should do about scientists that criticize the abortion industry.
Loren: Nothing. If they can truly prove a point in the medical journals pay attention. Otherwise, ignore them.

dk:What can we about women that suffer post abortion depression or parents and fathers that speak out against the abortion industry (a) medicate them (b) create bubble zones for anti abortion spaces (c) charge protesters with the Rico Act (d) lobotomize anti abortion leaders (e) take any and all necessary measures.
Loren: And those women wouldn't have experienced post-partum depression?! Hint--it's the same thing!
As for bubble zones--if the conduct of the protestors wasn't out of line they never would have been created in the first place. Alternate approach--change the law to permit the use of force against someone deliberately blocking your way.
RICO: I see nothing wrong here. They got off on a technicality (they weren't doing it for financial gain), but they were guilty. As far as I'm concerned their campaign qualified. When it became apparent that they might be held accountable for their actions note how they started behaving.

dk: This is not a simple issue.
Loren: You keep repeating this mantra but you haven't proven anything. Address the points!!
dk: That’s because you keep repeating pretext as if it were context. For a pregnant women/child to make an informed choice, they need all the information that might affect their decision, and they need the support of their family and friends.
Loren: Informed consent already applies. As for the support of their family/friends--desirable but it's absence shouldn't keep them from having an abortion.

dk:Abortion is an elective surgery so the abortion industry, abortion clinics and abortion doctors naturally have a personal interest.
Loren: If money were their only objective they would quit doing abortion tomorrow. Obstetrics pays better!

dk:In my opinion, a tragic side effect of Griswold and Roe was to isolated pregnant women behind a wall of privacy at the precise moment they are most defenseless.
Loren: You mean protect them from those who are far more interested in hurting them than in helping them?

dk:Its psychological pretext to assert that a women isolated from everyone they love can make a life altering decision free from coercion.
Loren: Nobody's trying to isolate them!

dk:The isolation itself is a form of coercion, and only makes a pregnant women’s circumstance more insecure, intolerable and threatening. The threat is easily directed to justify an abortion, an abortion that opens deep psychological and emotional wounds.
Loren: No. Abortion opens no such wounds. You guys going around making her feel guilty opens the wounds. Remember, I'm married to a doc from China. Remember their one-child policy? While the stories of forced abortions are mostly fiction (it has happened but as illegal actions by local officials, not government policy) there was (their economic boom has gutted the past controls) considerable pressure applied. My wife has seen many a patient that was pressured into an abortion. Deep psychological wounds? No way! She's *VERY* perceptive about people. (Lest you think there is a conflict of interest--she went the traditional route. In that route, doctor and surgeon are two different professions without a lot of training in common. Her surgical knowledge doesn't extend beyond patching up stuff in the ER.)

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by dk
[B]dk: The representative of the abortion industry are the… National Coalition of Abortion Providers, National Organization for Women, National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, National Abortion Federation, National Coalition of Abortion Providers etc…

Some of those groups don't even provide abortion. How can you call them part of the abortion industry?

dk: If preventative contraceptives were reliable there’d be no need for abortion. 90% of abortions are a backstop for failed contraceptives.
Loren: Actually, the number is more like 50%. Look at the data on contraceptive effectiveness--the big gap between consistent and correct use vs observed failure rates. Most failures are due to either forgetting or not knowing what to do.

Dr Rick: Conversely, if the goal of the pro-life movement was really to decrease the number of abortions, then groups such as the National Right to Life Committee would not oppose contraceptive services.
dk: The pro-life movement needs to concentrate on sexual fidelity, dignity of life, family bonds, moral rectitude, and the hard truth.
Loren: As usual you are dodging the issue. Furthermore, you are simply providing more proof that you don't care about the fetus, you care about punishing the woman. *NONE* of the things you list are relevant to abortion!

Dr Rick: There are numerous web sites that claim Elvis is alive, and humans descended from extra-terrestrial reptiles. Very few pro-lifers can avoid making a farce of themselves because most hypocritically oppose measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
dk: The phrase “unwanted pregnancy” disparages human life, and that’s where the abortion industry begins with a culture of death.
Loren: Are you studying to be a politician? You simply avoid any uncomfortable reality.

dk: Sure doesn’t look like no evidence to me…”The federal government today published its biennial Report on Carcinogens, adding steroidal estrogens used in estrogen replacement therapy and oral contraceptives to its official list of "known" human carcinogens.” -
Loren: Estrogen has long been suspected of being somewhat carcinogenic. Anything which promotes the growth of rapid-growing tissue should be assumed a low-level carcinogen. It still has nothing to do with abortion.

dk:
Criteria Met to Establish Causal Relationship

I looked over the site--and I note no comparison between breast cancer rates for those who have had an abortion and no children vs those who simply have never had children. This is the null hypothesis that they should be comparing to. Without that the research should be circular-filed.
I also note that the data is all over the place. I have a hard time drawing statistical signifigance from the data presented. A lot more than 5% of the data points lie below zero.

dk: A 14 year old girl taken to an out of state abortion clinic by her 30 year old statutory rapist, sounds pretty covert to me! And the statutory rapist is clearly in control, and the abortion clinic covers up the rapist's lie, then claim to hear no evil, see no evil and do no evil.
Loren: You seem to think this is a common occurence. What happens when the clinic notes that she's below the age of consent and starts asking questions?

dk

dk: The representative of the abortion industry are the… National Coalition of Abortion Providers, National Organization for Women, National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, National Abortion Federation, National Coalition of Abortion Providers etc…
Loren: Some of those groups don't even provide abortion. How can you call them part of the abortion industry?
dk: You must be talking about WOW and they speak for the abortion industry. Now legal defense represents the abortion industry.

dk: If preventative contraceptives were reliable there’d be no need for abortion. 90% of abortions are a backstop for failed contraceptives.
Loren: Actually, the number is more like 50%. Look at the data on contraceptive effectiveness--the big gap between consistent and correct use vs observed failure rates. Most failures are due to either forgetting or not knowing what to do.
dk: I don’t understand the consternation with birth control, I simply note it as unreliable.

Dr Rick: Conversely, if the goal of the pro-life movement was really to decrease the number of abortions, then groups such as the National Right to Life Committee would not oppose contraceptive services.
dk: The pro-life movement needs to concentrate on sexual fidelity, dignity of life, family bonds, moral rectitude, and the hard truth.
Loren: As usual you are dodging the issue. Furthermore, you are simply providing more proof that you don't care about the fetus, you care about punishing the woman. *NONE* of the things you list are relevant to abortion!
dk: No, but I think you misunderstand the basis of my response, and since preventative contraception has already proven unreliable at best Rick if - then - proposition fails.

Dr Rick: There are numerous web sites that claim Elvis is alive, and humans descended from extra-terrestrial reptiles. Very few pro-lifers can avoid making a farce of themselves because most hypocritically oppose measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
dk: The phrase “unwanted pregnancy” disparages human life, and that’s where the abortion industry begins with a culture of death.
Loren: Are you studying to be a politician? You simply avoid any uncomfortable reality.
dk: I don’t follow… 30 years after Roe and 40 years after the Pill there are more unwanted children than before. Obviously the premise, “every child a wanted child” has proven fallacious. I’m simply pointing out that “unwanted pregnancies” don’t necessarily lead to unwanted children, just as family planning doesn’t necessarily benefit children.

dk: Sure doesn’t look like no evidence to me…”The federal government today published its biennial Report on Carcinogens, adding steroidal estrogens used in estrogen replacement therapy and oral contraceptives to its official list of "known" human carcinogens.” -
Loren: Estrogen has long been suspected of being somewhat carcinogenic. Anything which promotes the growth of rapid-growing tissue should be assumed a low-level carcinogen. It still has nothing to do with abortion.
dk: Ok.
Loren: dk:
Criteria Met to Establish Causal Relationship
I looked over the site--and I note no comparison between breast cancer rates for those who have had an abortion and no children vs those who simply have never had children. This is the null hypothesis that they should be comparing to. Without that the research should be circular-filed.
I also note that the data is all over the place. I have a hard time drawing statistical significance from the data presented. A lot more than 5% of the data points lie below zero.
dk: The problem is unbiased data, or a lack of prospective data.

dk: A 14 year old girl taken to an out of state abortion clinic by her 30 year old statutory rapist, sounds pretty covert to me! And the statutory rapist is clearly in control, and the abortion clinic covers up the rapist's lie, then claim to hear no evil, see no evil and do no evil.
Loren: You seem to think this is a common occurrence. What happens when the clinic notes that she's below the age of consent and starts asking questions?
dk: It’s a degenerative situation, the girl is as likely, as not, to lie if only from Stockholm syndrome. Without knowledge of the girl’s personal it’s virtually impossible to sort out fact and fiction. The abortion provider certainly doesn’t want to get involved in an out of state prosecution of a statutory rapist because they left holding a dead fetus that’s the only hard evidence of the crime. It’s a mess, one thing leading to another that quickly spins out of control. The % of young girls that report they have suffered a sexual assault indicates its not uncommon.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by dk
Loren: Some of those groups don't even provide abortion. How can you call them part of the abortion industry?
dk: You must be talking about WOW and they speak for the abortion industry. Now legal defense represents the abortion industry.
Loren: So, they argue for it's legality. They don't financially benefit from doing so, however, so how can you call them part of the industry?

dk: If preventative contraceptives were reliable there’d be no need for abortion. 90% of abortions are a backstop for failed contraceptives.
Loren: Actually, the number is more like 50%. Look at the data on contraceptive effectiveness--the big gap between consistent and correct use vs observed failure rates. Most failures are due to either forgetting or not knowing what to do.
dk: I don’t understand the consternation with birth control, I simply note it as unreliable.
Loren: I note that most of the unreliability stems from lack of education. Teach them how to use it correctly and the failure rate goes way down. Note Europe: Some countries over there have teen pregnancy rates 1/10th of ours--despite far more liberal attitudes towards sex.

Dr Rick: Conversely, if the goal of the pro-life movement was really to decrease the number of abortions, then groups such as the National Right to Life Committee would not oppose contraceptive services.
dk: The pro-life movement needs to concentrate on sexual fidelity, dignity of life, family bonds, moral rectitude, and the hard truth.
Loren: As usual you are dodging the issue. Furthermore, you are simply providing more proof that you don't care about the fetus, you care about punishing the woman. *NONE* of the things you list are relevant to abortion!
dk: No, but I think you misunderstand the basis of my response, and since preventative contraception has already proven unreliable at best Rick if - then - proposition fails.
Loren: The only connection I see is that they are both things you believe in. Quit dodging!

Dr Rick: There are numerous web sites that claim Elvis is alive, and humans descended from extra-terrestrial reptiles. Very few pro-lifers can avoid making a farce of themselves because most hypocritically oppose measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
dk: The phrase “unwanted pregnancy” disparages human life, and that’s where the abortion industry begins with a culture of death.
Loren: Are you studying to be a politician? You simply avoid any uncomfortable reality.
dk: I don’t follow… 30 years after Roe and 40 years after the Pill there are more unwanted children than before. Obviously the premise, “every child a wanted child” has proven fallacious. I’m simply pointing out that “unwanted pregnancies” don’t necessarily lead to unwanted children, just as family planning doesn’t necessarily benefit children.
Loren: Where are you getting your data? Unwanted pregnancy rates have been dropping for many years.

Loren: dk:
Criteria Met to Establish Causal Relationship
I looked over the site--and I note no comparison between breast cancer rates for those who have had an abortion and no children vs those who simply have never had children. This is the null hypothesis that they should be comparing to. Without that the research should be circular-filed.
I also note that the data is all over the place. I have a hard time drawing statistical significance from the data presented. A lot more than 5% of the data points lie below zero.
dk: The problem is unbiased data, or a lack of prospective data.
Loren:

dk: A 14 year old girl taken to an out of state abortion clinic by her 30 year old statutory rapist, sounds pretty covert to me! And the statutory rapist is clearly in control, and the abortion clinic covers up the rapist's lie, then claim to hear no evil, see no evil and do no evil.
Loren: You seem to think this is a common occurrence. What happens when the clinic notes that she's below the age of consent and starts asking questions?
dk: It’s a degenerative situation, the girl is as likely, as not, to lie if only from Stockholm syndrome. Without knowledge of the girl’s personal it’s virtually impossible to sort out fact and fiction. The abortion provider certainly doesn’t want to get involved in an out of state prosecution of a statutory rapist because they left holding a dead fetus that’s the only hard evidence of the crime. It’s a mess, one thing leading to another that quickly spins out of control. The % of young girls that report they have suffered a sexual assault indicates its not uncommon.
Loren: I'm not denying there is a fair amount of abuse. I'm asking what percent of abortions are to cover up such abuse? Furthermore, your arguments make no sense. They would turn over the tissue to the state's crime lab, it's not their problem.

dk

dk: I don’t think the conflict is about money but a cultural war with an ideological pedigree that stems from Simone de Beauvoir, Margaret Mead, and Margaret Sanger. Breast Cancer was politicized by the feminist movement in the 1970s.
dk: You assume its education, and Ireland with a 99% literacy rate stigmatizes birth control and bans abortion, yet has had a remarkably stable population and birth rate for the last 150 years.. You assume its education, and I understand, but I don’t think education or European nations prove squat. The US is a diverse land of immigrants that flow from around the world.

dk: No, but I think you misunderstand the basis of my response, and since preventative contraception has already proven unreliable at best Rick if - then - proposition fails.
Loren: The only connection I see is that they are both things you believe in. Quit dodging!
dk: Now you’ve lost me…Whatever mental and paranormal powers Rick might possess his judgment reflects his moral values (pro abortion), just as my judgment of the abortion industry reflects a pro-life mentality. On the other hand everyone is against breast cancer. My only issue on this thread is… that breast cancer has been politicized by the abortion issue, and demonstrates what happens when politics and science collide.

dk: I don’t follow… 30 years after Roe and 40 years after the Pill there are more unwanted children than before. Obviously the premise, “every child a wanted child” has proven fallacious. I’m simply pointing out that “unwanted pregnancies” don’t necessarily lead to unwanted children, just as family planning doesn’t necessarily benefit children.
Loren: Where are you getting your data? Unwanted pregnancy rates have been dropping for many years.
dk: I just got done bemoaning unwanted pregnancy as a disparaging term. Rather than unwanted pregnancy, a better term is unplanned. For example what appears to be an unwanted pregnancy this morning, ;tomorrow may become a bundle of joy. I said unwanted children because the number of abused, neglected and abandoned children provides a verifiable and meaningful indicator, in my opinion. I quite frankly don’t understand why pro-choice people use such unnecessary derogatory language to describe pregnant women or unborn babies, I liken it to Civil Rights Leader chanting, “Equal opportunity for niggers”. Maybe you can explain it to me?
(snip)
dk: Its very tragic, but nobody knows because the abortion industry to their shame fights tooth and nail in court to hide sexual abuse.

Dr Rick

The oral contraceptive pill has a lower failure rate than almost all antibiotics, anti-hypertensives, anti-psychotics, and almost every surgery. In fact, you would be hard-presed to find any therapy that is more "reliable."

Furthermore, the potential failure of contraceptives is an arguement for the option of abortion; only twisted reasoning could somehow link it with a pro-life/it causes breast cancer argument. Finally, contraceptives do decrease the chance of unwanted pregnancies translates into fewer abortions and teen pregnancies as population studies in Europe have shown.

You are arguing for sexual repression through limiting women's rights; nothing here even vaguely speaks to concerns about the fetus or human life.

It doesn't take extraordinary abilities to fault your arguments.

The only collision has been between the pro-life's desire to repress women and the lack of data that shows any merit to your argument. The only politicization of breast cancer by the abortion issue has been wrought by the pro-life movement and its deceptive tactics and lies.

You're a littkle confused; it's the church and clergy that has fought so hard to hide sexual abuse, which of course has nothing to do with breast cancer's relation to abortion, either.

Loren Pechtel

dk: You assume its education, and Ireland with a 99% literacy rate stigmatizes birth control and bans abortion, yet has had a remarkably stable population and birth rate for the last 150 years.. You assume its education, and I understand, but I don’t think education or European nations prove squat. The US is a diverse land of immigrants that flow from around the world.
Loren: So? Abortion is banned--but England is nearby and the people aren't in poverty. The result is predictable--they simply go to England for abortions.
As for stigmatizing birth control--it's quite obvious that people use it, whatever the official position is.
As for your dismissing the comparison: Europe has about the same amount of teen sex that we do. The most enlightened places have about 1/10th the pregnancy rate, though. That says what can be accomplished with education. So what if our population is diverse? What the @$#% differerence does that make?

dk: No, but I think you misunderstand the basis of my response, and since preventative contraception has already proven unreliable at best Rick if - then - proposition fails.
Loren: The only connection I see is that they are both things you believe in. Quit dodging!
dk: Now you’ve lost me…Whatever mental and paranormal powers Rick might possess his judgment reflects his moral values (pro abortion), just as my judgment of the abortion industry reflects a pro-life mentality.
Loren: You listed a bunch of things that have no business in the abortion debate. Basically you're saying that opposing abortion is good because it's a position held by those who you feel hold other good positions. I forget what this fallacy is called but it's one of the standard logical fallacies.

dk: On the other hand everyone is against breast cancer. My only issue on this thread is… that breast cancer has been politicized by the abortion issue, and demonstrates what happens when politics and science collide.
Loren: You are assuming the connection is there despite the very shaky evidence.

Loren: Where are you getting your data? Unwanted pregnancy rates have been dropping for many years.
dk: I just got done bemoaning unwanted pregnancy as a disparaging term. Rather than unwanted pregnancy, a better term is unplanned. For example what appears to be an unwanted pregnancy this morning, ;tomorrow may become a bundle of joy.
Loren: I'll agree that there are some cases like this. Having a baby doesn't magically make you want one, though.

dk: I said unwanted children because the number of abused, neglected and abandoned children provides a verifiable and meaningful indicator, in my opinion.
Loren: Yeah--a good indication of what happens when you make abortion hard to get.

dk: I quite frankly don’t understand why pro-choice people use such unnecessary derogatory language to describe pregnant women or unborn babies, I liken it to Civil Rights Leader chanting, “Equal opportunity for niggers”. Maybe you can explain it to me?
Loren: What derogatory language?

dk: Its very tragic, but nobody knows because the abortion industry to their shame fights tooth and nail in court to hide sexual abuse.
Loren: It's amazing how many PL's are serial killers. We don't know how many because they do a very good job of covering it up.

dk

Loren: Actually I was pointing out the abortion industries and sexual predators have a common interest, to keep the abortion secret. I meant what I said, nothing more.
dk: So? There happens to be some convergence of interest between the two groups. That in no way tars the one group with the acts of the other.
dk: I don’t follow… The Law requires health care workers to report incidence of abuse. The abortion industry refuses to report abuse. Do you think the abortion industry is above the law?

Here’s an excerpt…

dk

Loren: You mean they are wrong for saying that which doesn't exist doesn't exist?
dk: I mean cancer institutions have crawled into bed with radical factions that have tarnished institutional reputation.
Loren:

• In other words, because they don't say what you believe they are lying?
• Try again. By having an abortion one merely fails to get the protective effect of having a child. One's risk is *NOT* increased compared to what would have happened if you didn't get pregnant in the first place. Besides, I have a hard time believing that the risk reduction on breast cancer is more than the risk of childbirth.

dk: In fairness, a narrow focus on abortion ignores the tumultuous 1960-70s, sexual revolution, that shredded many (most) political, institutional and cultural norms like papier-mâché dolls. Since abortion was legalized in 1972 the rate of invasive breast cancer in the US has increased 50% to affect 1 in 9 American women. A women’s risk for Breast Cancer isn’t uniform or additive but weighted by calculations evaluated across 5 year intervals based upon the population within an age segment. Europe has also experienced a rise in Breast Cancer with new reproductive technologies, of which abortion is but one. The Feminist Movement spearheaded the advance of women into the sciences especially in the areas of reproductive health, law and health care. It is with incontinence I report that women suffer disproportionately from the sexual revolution new reproductive technologies made possible, and the evidence is unbearable and undeniable.

The Feminist Movement of the 1960-70s took a special interest in reproductive norms, healthcare and reproductive technology for ideological reason. Birth control pills and abortion were laden with feminist values by feminist leaders as a matter of fundamental necessity in the struggle women’s equality. In 1949
All feminist politics, values and philosophy aside (which may be impossible), generally speaking, reproductive technologies have perpetrated grave injustices upon women. Breast Cancer, stds eating women’s insides out, Dalkon Shields, horrible side affects from massive doses of hormones, domestic violence, welfare dependency, teen pregnancy, depression and sexual abuse have been justified under the principle of necessity by NAZI feminists. In the world envision (ordered) by radical feminist philosophers reproductive technologies become the sacred cow from which a new Women-hood has spawned. In a bizarre twist of fate, to free themselves from sexual and reproductive bondage women exchange the burden of motherhood for the yoke of disease. Any critical observation that comments upon the disease women suffer becomes a threat drowned out by the epiphany “I am women hear me roar”. That’s what has happened Loren, that’s what gives resonance to terms like Political Correctness and NAZI Feminists. That’s what happens when science and politics collide. The abuses inflicted upon women by an unbalanced leadership have taken the epoch quality of a Greek Tragedy. Across the social spectrum our secular institutions go into apoplectic shock when anyone dares criticizes the abortion industry. Right thinking people in a feminist order are especially offended by allegations about the abortion industry’s link to breast cancer and rape. The sardonic irony makes me sick to my stomach. Women suffer medical, judicial, psychological, emotional, sexual and physical abuse at their own hands because feminist values, principles and suffrage require it.

dk

dk: 1) There’s no basis for a comparison, 2) Ireland is an exception to the rule 3) Old Europe, with the exception of Britain, can’t raise enough children to protect their borders, maintain infrastructure or operate industry. When the baby boomers retire Old Europe faces a virtual population implosion.

Loren: You listed a bunch of things that have no business in the abortion debate. Basically you're saying that opposing abortion is good because it's a position held by those who you feel hold other good positions. I forget what this fallacy is called but it's one of the standard logical fallacies.
dk: This isn’t an abortion debate, it is a debate about the link between abortion and breast cancer.

dk: On the other hand everyone is against breast cancer. My only issue on this thread is… that breast cancer has been politicized by the abortion issue, and demonstrates what happens when politics and science collide.
Loren: You are assuming the connection is there despite the very shaky evidence.
dk: I haven’t ventured an opinion one way or the other, I don’t have one. I simply maintain the politics run rough shod over the science.

Loren: Where are you getting your data? Unwanted pregnancy rates have been dropping for many years.
dk: I just got done bemoaning unwanted pregnancy as a disparaging term. Rather than unwanted pregnancy, a better term is unplanned. For example what appears to be an unwanted pregnancy this morning, ;tomorrow may become a bundle of joy.
Loren: I'll agree that there are some cases like this. Having a baby doesn't magically make you want one, though.
dk: Hey, we agree on something, every day’ starts anew. Any mother with a teenager that says she never had a bad day with the kid is a saint, a liar or has a full time nanny. I can’t imagine most women want to be pregnant, but pregnancy doesn’t define motherhood or womanhood.

dk: I said unwanted children because the number of abused, neglected and abandoned children provides a verifiable and meaningful indicator, in my opinion.
Loren: Yeah--a good indication of what happens when you make abortion hard to get.
dk: There are more unwanted children in the US today than when abortion was illegal in 1970. Heck, today 1 in 20 kids doesn’t even live with a biological parent.