On a totally unrelated note to what has been mentioned here recently, I have just learned today that apparently the FBI is investigating my neighbor’s in regards to drug trafficing, etc… apparently some big dealers have been supplying them… and apparently some stuff has happened recently. I’m not too sure whether it involves the parents, or the kids there, but either way it’s really pathetic and sad. I kinda know the kids, used to hang out with them, but, they’re somewhat younger then me, and have obviously chosen a different path of life, so while I see them around sometimes, hanging out with them doesn’t really happen. But yeah, there is certainly potential for so much more, and you hate to see someone throw their life away… but uhh.. yeah, FBI. Makes this little piece of MD seem a little more important all of the sudden, eh?
On yet another completely unrelated note, I am either tonight or tomorrow, going to start another site. A site which no one will know is mine. A site on which I can post whatever the heck I want, because no one else will know who I am or what I am talking about. Not that I don’t do that most of the time here anyway, but I have learned that sometimes it is best to restrain, and sometimes I push the limits and whenever I do I worry about it \ud83d\ude09 so.. yeah. New site. You can look for it if you want, but you get no clues.
And now the post we’ve all been waiting for… that was supposed to be up yesterday and wasn’t… and that I am putting up today but almost wasn’t ;)…..
Abortion…<\/b><\/u>
Right or wrong? why or why not? Hmmm… quite the debate. It’s a touchy subject, generally, but that’s ok, because I don’t mind offending people.
It all depends on how you define life, really. Consider this. If any speck of cell division at all were found on another planet, there would be huge announcements of how they found life on another world. If EXACTLY what is in a mother at conception was found on another planet, it would be life. However, abortionists would have you believe that it is NOT life. It’s just you know… some tissues. Most abortionists would point to the time when one is able to live on one’s own as the time that one is alive. Using this logic, one can say that at any time in one’s life when they are incapable of living on their own, they are not alive. How about people hooked up to respirators, or other medical equipment, which keeps them “alive”. They are not capable of living without the assistance of those machines, just as a child is not capable of living without the mother. And think about this, even after birth, a child cannot live on it’s own. Perhaps we shouldn’t consider someone “alive” until they are fully capable of supporting their own selves, in which case, personally, I have not yet reached the state of life yet.
So I think it is safe to say the only sane defintion of life we can give is that, for humans, it begins at conception.
That means that there is another life to take into consideration. For further evidence of this, they can now operate on the child while it is still in the womb. It is very much alive at that point.
Now, onto another point, only semi-related…. here is something I found on another website in regards to Planned Parenthood, and Margaret Sanger, it’s founder:
“I\u2019ve heard that Planned Parenthood is pro-family, pro-life, and pro-child.
Their paid TV commercials say that, but their own official documents, their leaders, and their actions say quite the opposite. In 1976, the Planned Parenthood\u2019s Five Year Plan (see reference above) laid out in detail what their goals were. We quote:
– Objective #2: “Reaffirming and protecting the legitimacy of induced abortion as a necessary back-up to contraceptive failure, and extending safe, dignified services to women who seek them.”
– Purpose: “To provide leadership in making . . . abortion and sterilization available and fully accessible to all.”
“The various activities that we undertake are not \u2018separate\u2019 and certainly not competing. Rather, they are all complementary parts of a single national strategy” (page 5).
“Services to be made available at all clinics include . . . abortion services (or local referral)” (emphasis in original, page 6).
– Program Emphasis #2: “Keeping abortions legal and accessible to all persons” (page 9).
Is their emphasis still on abortion?
Since the Five Year Plan above, the Planned Parenthood agenda is even more openly and militantly pro-abortion as outlined in their newest action agenda. For example, in Goal #3, they state that Planned Parent-hood will ” increase the number of Planned Parenthood affiliates providing early ambulatory abortion services.” Planned Parenthood of America, Til Victory is Won, 1982, 1984, p. 16
“To increase the availability and accessibility of high quality and affordable reproductive health care services [abortion]” PPFA Five Year Plan 1986-1990, preamble
“Until we reach the millennium . . . Planned Parent-hood will continue to provide not only sex education and contraception, but also abortion.” A. Moran, Exec. V.P., Planned Parenthood of New York City, New York Times, Dec. 27, 1982
[Planned Parenthood] is not just a social or medical service agency. It is part of a cause, a movement. One of the principles of Planned Parenthood is that reproductive freedom is indivisible. You either have it or not. Everybody has it or none has it.” Don Weintraub, V.P. for Int\u2019l Affairs, PPFA, Madison, Mar. 12, 1985
Family Planning Associations should not use the absence of law or the existence of an unfavorable law as an excuse for inaction. Action outside the law, and even in violation of it, is part of the process of stimulating change . . . of fertility regulation services or specific methods.” Art. 106, p. 28, Int. P.P. Fed., Nov. 1983 Planned Parenthood has promoted a pro-abortion “comic book,” geared for teenagers, entitled Abortion Eve. On the back cover is a caricature of the “Assumption of the Blessed Virgin” depicting a pregnant Mary with the idiot face of Mad magazine\u2019s Alfred E. Neumann. The caption says, “What, me worry?”
It is the policy of Planned Parenthood to insure that women have the right to seek and obtain safe legal abortions. Planned Parenthood has the responsibility to provide access to high-quality abortion services. . . . Federation Policies, PPFA, Jan. 1986
Faye Wattleton, Pres. of P.P., said, “I make it very clear. If you\u2019re not clear where you stand on the abortion issue, if you\u2019re worried that birth control for teenagers encourages promiscuity . . . this [P.P] is not the kind of outfit you\u2019re comfortable with.” “The Faye Wattleton Comeback,” P. Span, Wash. Post, Oct. 14, 1987
Planned Parenthood has aggressively defended abortion rights in the courts in recent years, thus dropping any earlier pretense of neutrality. The most famous case was Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, a 1990 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.
What does Planned Parenthood think of Right to Life?
They have an opinion.
“In every generation there exists a group of people so filled with bigotry and self-righteousness that they will resort to any means \u2014 even violence \u2014 to impose their views on society. Today, such fanatics dominate a movement ironically called \u2018the Right-to-Life,\u2019 a movement which threatens the most basic of all human rights.” Planned Parenthood Pamphlet, the Justice Fund, 810 7th Ave., New York, NY, 10019
But Margaret Sanger, its founder, opposed abortion.
Not so! Not only did she favor abortion, but she proposed forced sterilization for those whom she considered unfit to reproduce. She worked hard for a “race of thoroughbreds” until Hitler\u2019s similar “Master Race” made that goal unpopular. She was a true eugenicist. For example, her April 1933 Birth Control Review, devoted an entire edition to eugenic sterilization.
Who did she consider unfit?
Black people, Jews, Southern European immigrants (especially Italians), but also others of “low I.Q.” These “feebleminded” people were a “menace to the race.” E. Drogin, Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society, CUL Publishers, 1980, Section 1, p. 18-24
This is hard to believe!
Margaret Sanger, the famous founder of Planned Parenthood, was supportive. She wanted “more children from the fit, less from the unfit.” Birth Control Review, vol. 3, no. 5, May 1919, p. 2
This wasn\u2019t only related to contraceptive planning. A seditor, she printed grossly eugenic material, approving of Hitler\u2019s sterilization program (see Into the Darkness, Nazi Germany Today, by L. Stoddard, p. 196). She believed that “Negroes and Southern Europeans were mentally inferior to native born Americans.” She found these people, Hebrews, and others “feebleminded,” “human weeds,” and called them a “menace to the race.” In 1933, her Birth Control Review devoted an entire edition to eugenic sterilization. Sanger\u2019s famous “Plan for Peace” was almost the same as Hitler\u2019s, even going beyond it to suggest, in essence, concentration camps.
“When the world realized the logical consequences of Hitler\u2019s hereditarian-eugenic, totalitarian type of government, Margaret Sanger\u2019s birth-control movement had to take a quick step away from its overt eugenic language.” E. Drogin, Margaret Sanger, Father of Modern Society, CUL Publications, 1979, p. 28
Tell me more.
Let us quote from her “Plan for Peace.” This was little more than peaceful genocide. She wanted the United States:
– “To keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as the feebleminded as determined by Stanford-Binet I.Q. tests.
– “To apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
– “To insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feeble-minded parents by pensioning all persons with transmissible diseases who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
– “To give dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.
– “To apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for a period of their entire lives. [Practically speaking, a concentration camp.]
– “[To] take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.” (Again, concentration camps.) M. Sanger, “Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, vol. 16, no. 4, April 1932
But I\u2019ve read that she was a social crusader for good.
Hardly. She said, “The most merciful thing a large family can do for one of its infant members is to kill it.” 6 Sanger, Woman and the New Race
She herself was highly promiscuous and had many lovers. She favored “free love” for women without any sexual limits but without the burden of children. She saw “the marriage bed [as] the most degenerating influence in the social order.” 7 Kennedy, David M. Birth Control in America: The Career of Margaret Sanger, London: Yale University Press, 1970.
But Planned Parenthood wants to reduce teen pregnancies, doesn\u2019t it?
Let\u2019s be specific. Planned Parenthood wants to reduce teen births. It is not trying to reduce teen sex activity; in fact its sex education programs do exactly the opposite.”
Interesting stuff, wouldn’t you say? Now, another popular argument of abortionists, is how “safe” abortions are. Abortions are safer then giving birth they say. While abortion is a “safe” procedure in comparison to many procedures, I am sorry, but no, it is not safer then giving birth. Also, abortionists like to talk about how many women died from backalley, illegal abortions. they quote the figures “1 million illegal abortions and 5,000-10,000 women died from them.”
Now, here’s the problem with that. How many illegal abortions were there? 1 million? and how did you come up with that conclusion? Is that because 92% of statistics are made up on the spot? Think about this people. NO ONE KNOWS how many illegal abortions there were. Why? Because they were ILLEGAL. They were not reported. The only times they WERE reported was in the case of death.
So… 1972. 5,000-10,000 women dead from illegal abortions? Let’s look into that.
According to a chart used on the floor by the Senate in 81, there was a sharp drop in deaths from illegal abortions in the late 40’s. This is due largely to the introduction of Penicillin, it helped to control infections a lot better. Now, the number of deaths in the 50’s was about 250\/year, and by 1966, it was down to 120 deaths due to illegal abortions. The drop there is due to new antibiotics, better surgery, and intensive care units being established in hospitals. 1967-1970, abortion became legal in 16 states. Mostly limited, but in NY and CA abortions were done on demand. There is no sharp drop in the number of deaths from abortions on the chart.
Here we are, back to 1972. How many women died from abortions that year? 39 deaths due to illegal abortions, with what’s this? an addition 25 deaths due to LEGAL abortions. And there is no drop in deaths come 1973. The death-rate from abortions stayed pretty much the same.
And the 1 million illegal abortions that took place in 1972? Unlikely, as 750,000 was the total number reported in 1973. Wow, lot less people decided they wanted to have an abortion once it was legal, huh?
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who once ran the largest abortion facility in the Western world, but is now pro-life, said: “it was always \u20185,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.\u2019 I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, [italics added] and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the \u2018morality\u2019 of our revolution, it was a useful [Nathanson\u2019s italics] figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.”
So, how about the death rates from legal abortions, and from beyond 1972? Here they are:
1958-62 – 5
1963-67 – 4
1968-69 – 4
1970 – 36
1971 – 54
1972 – 25
1973 – 25
1974 – 26
1975 – 29
1976 – 11
1977 – 21
1978 – 9
1979 – 18
1980 – 9
1981 – 7
1982-84 – 34
1985-87 – 26
It is important to note that the goverment stopped collecting these statistics in 1987 because they were not being reported accurately. Other causes of death besides abortion were given on the death certificates. Since the statistics were no longer accurate, if they were completely accurate to begin with, they stopped keeping them. The numbers,therefore, were higher then what you see.
This really is not any less deaths from legal abortions then what we had from illegal abortions. How can this be? Backalley abortions with coathangers are pretty dangerous, right? In all actuality, except in maybe a few extreme cases, coathanger abortions are a complete myth, at least in America. Illegal abortions were conducted by doctors, just as they are today. Except back then the would-be mother came in the back door, in secret, now she comes in the front door. The same procedure is done. The risk is the same. If abortion is made illegal, those are still the SAME types of abortion that will occur.
And this is copied from a website, as to how safe abortions are compared to giving birth:
“Pro-abortion people commonly say that it is. “Maternal mortality” is listed as deaths of women per 100,000 pregnancies. This figure has been commonly listed as eleven, compared to deaths from induced abortion, which are listed as one or two. Therefore, they say abortion is seven times safer. Not so! Maternal mortality, in recent years, has dropped to seven, not eleven.
But more important is the fact that, included in maternal mortality, are all deaths from induced abortions and ectopic pregnancies. Included also in maternal mortality are all women who die while pregnant from almost any cause that is in any way related to pregnancy. Different states require longer or shorter lengths of post-partum time, but, typically, maternal mortality also includes any related death within one year after delivery.
Maternal mortality also includes deaths from caesarean section. To compare comparable risks, one would have to compare the risk of being pregnant in the first three months with the risk of having an abortion within the first three months. When compared in this fashion, abortion is many times more dangerous. Actually, it is probable that induced abortion is more dangerous than carrying a baby to term. Maternal Mortality Surveillance \u201979-\u201986, Center for Disease Control, M&M Weekly report July \u201991, Vol. 40, No. SS-1″
And my LAST point here… let’s look at Poland, where up until recently, abortion was illegal. Compare 1990’s statistics with 1994’s (1994 was the second year abortion was illegal).
In 1990:
Total abortions: 59,417
Women’s Deaths connected with pregnancy: 90
Miscarriages: 59,454
Cases of Infanticide: 31
Births: 546,000
In 1994:
Total Abortions: 782
Women’s deaths connected with pregnancy: 57
Miscarriages: 49,970
Cases of infanticide: 17
Births: 482,000
Not the statistics you expected? hmmm…. interesting….
Planned Parenthood didn’t think so either. In fact, that is exactly the opposite of what they predicted would happen. But guess what? They were wrong.
I think that I can let these facts speak for themselves at this point. I think it’s obvious that all this information came from different sources, and most of it was reworded into my own words.
Your comments are welcome. And until next time, I challenge you, don’t accept what you are told. Go out and research this information. The truth is out there (stupid x-files… that sounds so cheesy now ;))…
Godspeed.
oh, and this song relates to the topic.
Zao – A Tool To Scream<\/b>
“Goodybe, they breathe but cannot scream.
They have no tools to build voices.
They wait in fetal position.
Martyrs on altars of mistakes.
The martyr.
They have not the tools to scream.
They are just the ones upon altars of mistake.
There is no safe place.
The martyr.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On a totally unrelated note to what has been mentioned here recently, I have just learned today that apparently the FBI is investigating my neighbor’s in regards to drug trafficing, etc… apparently some big dealers have been supplying them… and apparently some stuff has happened recently. I’m not too sure whether it involves the parents, … Continue reading <\/span>