HOME | DD
catz537 — Illegal Abortion Stamp
#abortion #fetus #illegal #prochoice #stamp #stillhappens #twoliveslost
Published: 2015-03-14 05:38:57 +0000 UTC; Views: 2287; Favourites: 25; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
The stamp pretty much sums it up. No matter how much pro-lifers piss and moan about abortion, or whether or not it is legal, there will always be people who practice it.And in places where abortion is illegal, pregnant people do not have access to professional medical care and cannot get the abortion safely. As a result, many of them die along with the fetus. It's not very pro-life to want two lives to be lost instead of one. Pro-lifers, keep your opinions on abortion out of the legal system.
This is the definition of an unsafe abortion (here, I'm using the words "unsafe" and "illegal" synonymously because they usually are in regards to abortion):
1. An unsafe abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by people lacking the necessary skills, or in an environment lacking minimal medical standards, or both.
Again, unsafe abortions are usually done illegally because there is no safe option.
Here is a list of commonly used legal abortion procedures during the first, second and (rarely) third trimesters of pregnancy. The D&E procedure is commonly used during the second trimester. And as you can see, the health risks to the pregnant person are extremely minimal. Giving birth is more dangerous than getting a safe, legal abortion. If you want details on the other procedures and surgeries, I'm sure WebMD has all of the info about each one. I looked at WebMD because it's not a biased site, and it always has good information. It's where I always go when I have a question about a health issue I'm dealing with.
Here is a list of facts form the peer-reviewed study I linked above:
1. An estimated 19–20 million unsafe abortions take place every year, and 97% of these are in developing countries.
2. Despite its frequency, unsafe abortion remains one of the most neglected global public health challenges.
3. An estimated 68,000 women die every year from unsafe abortion, and millions more are injured, many permanently.
4. Leading causes of death are hemorrhage, infection, and poisoning from substances used to induce abortion.
5. Access to modern contraception can reduce but never eliminate the need for abortion.
6. Legalization of abortion is a necessary but insufficient step toward eliminating unsafe abortion.
7. When abortion is made legal, safe, and easily accessible, women’s health rapidly improves. By contrast, women’s health deteriorates when access to safe abortion is made more difficult or illegal.
8. Legal abortion in developed countries is one of the safest procedures in contemporary practice, with case-fatality rates less than one death per 100,000 procedures.
9. Manual vacuum aspiration (a handheld syringe as a suction source) and medical methods of inducing abortion have reduced complications.
10. Treating complications of unsafe abortion overwhelms impoverished health-care services and diverts limited resources from other critical health-care programs.
11. The underlying causes of this global pandemic are apathy and disdain for women; they suffer and die because they are not valued.
No bullshit in the comments. You'll be blocked or comments will be disabled.
Stamp template is by : www.deviantart.com/art/Stamp-T…
(I only used the border/base and the size. I did the text myself with microsoft word and used paint tool SAI)
Related content
Comments: 69
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 2 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's...factually incorrect. Women seek out these procedures more often when they don't have access to proper reproductive health care and preventative measures, such as birth control. When women are barred from preventing pregnancy and end up pregnant as a result, they become desperate and are absolutely more likely to do whatever they can to end the pregnancy.
You're also incorrect about women dying more often from *safe, legal* abortions that are done by *trained medical professionals*. You are correct that illegal, botched abortions kill a lot of women, which is why I believe that it should remain legal. You should really research this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Did you even read the links I provide in the description of this deviation? They refute your points. Read them.
That first link is discussing maternal death rates, not the death rates caused by abortion. Maternal death rates refer to women dying in childbirth. That article is trying to claim causation when it's really just correlation. Abortion and maternal death rates may be related, but abortion does not cause a higher maternal death rate. Also, the statement "...the U.S., which has "virtually no restrictions on abortion" is completely inaccurate. The U.S. is full of laws and bans that make abortion inaccessible, in several states. Just because Roe hasn't been overturned doesn't mean there aren't a lot of little laws in each state making it difficult for people to get abortion care.
Racism and genocide only concern born people, try again. I'm not even discussing that with you because it's such a ridiculous argument.
I have done my research. See this journal:
Abortion ArgumentsTL;DR: Read the argument way at the bottom under "Extra, summed up arguments:"
WARNING: VERY LONG
Explaining the differences between a blastocyst, zygote, and baby:
Pro-lifers often refer to a fetus, blastocyst or zygote as a baby, but this is incorrect because there are several fundamental biological differences between these and a baby.
Here is an image of a zygote;
See this as well:
Articles refuting your points:
This one is about the effectiveness of no-cost contraceptives in lowering abortion rates - www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic…
An article about how contraceptives do far more to lower abortion rates than extremists do: www.desmoinesregister.com/stor…
Laws in the U.S. DO prevent people from accessing safe abortion care: www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news…
The actual causes of maternal mortality: www.who.int/news-room/fact-she… Note that they list unsafe abortion as a reason for why women die. And unsafe abortion refers to illegal abortion. When abortion is legal, the death rate drops.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lmaooo ok, you've resorted to petty insults and started whining about 'left wing talking points.' yet you literally linked me to a pro-life website. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Young girl named Lia Mills speech for stop abortion, please watch this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzUb6i…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1.There have been surveys where women that have had legal abortions have been asked if they would have been prepared to resort to dangerous means if abortion were illegal, and about 6 to 20% said they would.
2. If abortion were limited to a stage in the pregnancy where it can be done humanely, do you seriously think the vast majority of said 6 to 20% wouldn't make a point of getting it done in that time limit?
3. If a person that has an abortion past that stage (barring a medical emergency) ends up dead or injured as a result (which would be a very rare occurrence when you consider the above two points) big whoop.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I was honestly so confused when I saw the stamp and didn't read the description, so I just stared for 2 or 3 minutes before finally realising descriptions can describe. XD
Just wanna say I support abortion only if the person receiving it must get it. I personally would most likely never get one, but I do believe people should be able to get one if they need to, and your statements have made me believe so even more.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am not sure what you mean by "must get it." But I certainly want the need for abortions to decrease, because it's always better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. That's why I think advocating for affordable birth control is so important.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I definitely agree with that. Better prevent it than have to deal with the problem of an unwanted pregnancy. I 100% agree with affordable birth control more than abortions.
What I meant was in the cases where the pregnant individual and/or baby may die or suffer. After all, as stated in the description, there are unsafe abortions that occur, which may result in two lives being lost instead of one. As much as I would prefer abortions to decrease, if it's necessary, it's necessary.
Hopefully that made more sense XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, well it's always up to the pregnant person to decide, no matter how they became pregnant. But hopefully politicians stop trying to take away birth control so that they don't HAVE to decide as often.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know that. Just because there are people who break the law to kill their children doesn't mean I think it's right, legal or not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You don't have to think it's right. You don't have to like it. There is literally no one on the planet who likes abortion or who TRIES to get one. It's a last resort. Regardless, it should remain legal and safe.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nah, when abortion is illegal, the murder dies along with her victim. When it's legal, the murderer lives to end another life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lol you can fuck right off with that bullshit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm still right though, and you know it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lol no fuck off please
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Explain why I'm wrong then if you're so intelligent.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You asked for it.
www.deviantart.com/journal/My-…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I find it hilarious how your link to the first stage of fetus development didn't even work. Also, check this out: www.youtube.com/watch?v=gON-8P…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Eh, the journal is old, and the link used to work. I'll have to find another link.
You should really read the entire thing. Or at least the summed up arguments - the bottom line arguments.
Also I've seen shit like that video a million times and I don't care. Fetuses do not have more rights than women do. In fact, even if fetuses had equal rights to women, abortion would still be acceptable. Read my arguments in the journal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Still, no one who has studied this can say that even clinical abortions are remotely safe to the woman. In clinical settings, seasoned abortion doctors have had organs spill on their operating table. The wombs of those unprepared mothers have been scarred permanently, physically incapable of holding another kid. What's worse is that these doctors that perform abortions have covered up failed abortions instead of seeking proper medical care for the woman. They want to keep the clean, pristine image of a completely harmless procedure that is reality more life-threatening than natural childbirth. That's why scientific opinions MUST be in the legal system - women NEED to be empowered and know what is going on.
(I have references/citations if you require.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I was wondering where you got that information. Most of the things I've read about the medical procedure have told me that it's way less likely to seriously hurt the woman than childbirth is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry for taking so long in response. Wanted to double-check so my sources were credible.
Here is some. This is one of the more credible sources I could find. While is still displays a bias, it is a peer-reviewed source and follows a logical format.
search.ebscohost.com.libdb.ppc…
Clyde Forsythe, the writer, holds that "too little attention has been paid over the past forty years to the complete lack of a factual record in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, and to the Court's fundamental assumption that drove the outcome". His reasons for believing this are that:
1. The abortion reporting system in the United States is dysfunctional because reports are not obligated: they are voluntary, and
2. The published abortion mortality rate and childbirth mortality rate are incomparable because of the published (corrupted) abortion record
He has about three more reasons, which mainly back up these two. He compares maternal mortality to countries with a more dependable record-keeping system than U.S. abortion clinics, and notes an increase in maternal mortality in the second trimester. He also demonstrates how there is no factual evidence supporting the claim that abortion is a safe practice. (p 192)
I would also recommend the work of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a prominent ex-abortionist and speaker on the subject. He's very knowledgeable on the subject.
What sources described it as being safer than natural birth?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I can't see the information in the link you sent me. It says I need a username and password...Also, I have a very hard time trusting pro-life activists' "studies." They often contain false information that is designed to misguide women and make them think that abortion will hurt them, even if it won't. For example, the myth that abortion leads to breast cancer that the pro-life activist Joel Brind came up with was proved false by major medical bodies,[2] including the World Health Organization ,[3] [4] the U.S. National Cancer Institute ,[5] [6] the American Cancer Society ,[7] the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ,[8] the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists ,[9] the German Cancer Research Center ,[10] and the Canadian Cancer Society .[11] . Also, there are 4,000 fake abortion clinics in the U.S. that have been set up by pro-lifers in order to misguide women and make them think they'll be getting an abortion when they'll actually be forced to sit and listen to religious propaganda and watch misleading videos explaining to them that abortion is bad for them, even though the information is all false; here's a video about these fake abortion clinics: www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-ex4Q… So, yeah, I don't know that I would be able to trust the study in the link you sent me based on pro-lifers' infamous tendency to lie and misguide women.
And actually, the other day, a pro-lifer told me that the following statistic was incorrect: "Prior to Roe v. Wade, as many as 5,000 American women died annually as a direct result of unsafe abortions." This person said that because there were doctors who would illegally perform abortions for them, a lot less women died before Roe vs. Wade than we thought since there were more antibiotics and penicillin became available, and these doctors were professionals, even though they were performing the abortions illegally. That was why I had to change my link in the description; at first, I had that statistic listed. It's possible that the pro-lifer who told me that could've been lying to support her belief, but I don't want to take any chances of having false information in my description; also, she did mention that the director of Planned Parenthood admitted to lying about those statistics because they were desperate to legalize abortion, and quoted her. Misleading people isn't good, and I personally disagree with it, but if it's true that the director lied, I can understand why she would go to those lengths to help people gain reproductive rights. It was also more of a white lie than anything.
Here are some links about the safety of different abortion procedures, one study explaining how childbirth has higher maternal mortality rates than safe abortion, and other things relating:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22… Just read the abstract. It has the results there.
www.who.int/mediacentre/factsh… This study doesn't say anything about more deaths from childbirth over abortion, but it does say that young adolescents are at a higher risk of dying from childbirth than older women are, and it also says that mortality rates are higher after women have unsafe (and probably illegal) abortions. It also has a lot of information about pregnancy/childbirth risks/mortality rates. It's mainly something that developing countries have to deal with (99% of maternal deaths happen in developing countries).
www.webmd.com/women/dilation-a… This is the same link I have in the description which explains the D&E abortion procedure, and it explains that risks are minimal and about as rare/similar to other surgical/medical procedure risks, and depression/grief happens after abortion for the same reasons it happens after childbirth - that is, your hormones make your emotions go crazy during pregnancy.
www.webmd.com/women/manual-and… Another explanation of a couple abortion procedures, again explaining that risks and complications are rare.
www.webmd.com/women/guide/d-an… This procedure isn't just used for abortions, but is also used to clean out the uterus after a birth or a miscarriage, and it even has benefits; it helps to diagnose and treat abnormal uterine bleeding and other problems.
There are more procedures if you want to look into them, but I think the ones I linked you to are the most common.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/… This study was done to show how many deaths occurred as a result of legal abortions between 1972 and 1987, and the numbers of maternal deaths from abortion dramatically decreased (90%) over the years because of advancing medical technology. As of 1987, only 0.4 deaths per 100,000 legal induced abortions were reported. The study doesn't seem biased, since it says in the conclusions that although the death rate has decreased, we still need to increase the safety of anesthetic use and continue to try to make abortions safer.
www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=… After searching "number of maternal deaths from childbirth," these things come up, and it looks like all the sources listed agree that there are around 800 maternal childbirth deaths per year (or 18.5 per 100,000 deaths), which is much more than the number of maternal abortion deaths.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Here is a better link: scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/c…
Just because the person displays a bias doesn't mean that the studies and citations are biased as well. He cites secular organizations and not the "christian study" crap you're talking about. To further your point, do you have a credible source stating that Clarke Forsythe (mistook his name earlier, apologies) actually provided false evidence?
But honestly, and with absolutely no offense to you, none of what was said in response addresses the point of argumentation or even rebuts the peer-reviewed journal article (the article is peer-reviewed, meaning that it has been made available to any and all criticism from readers and writers on this author's same level. It is credible). You're saying that pro-lifers lie.
Okay.
"Pro-lifers" aren't a gargantuan hivemind, nor do they exhibit a tremendous history of false information (You need a credible source for that claim). You MUST keep in mind, the pro-life movement does consist of numerous ex-abortionist doctors, ex-mothers, and others who have lost their faith in the system of abortion clinics. That is what makes some of them credible. And if you say that they all are just mere liars, well you're going to need a source. For every single one of them. Please don't be close-minded, in denouncing an entire group based on the actions of a few.
We are also not looking how either of us "feel" about abortion rights. We need to look at the science and data available. You just said you hate lying, but now have justified it, stating that it was a white lie for the betterment of a good cause. If a cause requires a lie in order to get people to think that they are worthy, two meanings may be derived:
1) They are no longer/have never been a trustworthy cause because they lied about it.
2) They feared that the truth coming out would damage them.
What kind of an organization is that, and why would anyone listen to it? I mean, Planned Parenthood is the source, the core of clinical abortions performed in the United States, why would they lie unless they feared it would damage their moneymaking capability? Planned Parenthood is supposedly all for the enlightenment of women about their reproductive health. This is another lie, because they lied to everyone in the past.
I am personally for true enlightenment, brought about by facts and hard evidence. Anything besides those are fluff and irrelevant.
The sources you linked me do not address the number of reported vs. actual incidents in abortion clinics. Like Clarke Forsythe said, the reporting is corrupted in the U.S. because it is voluntary (not obligated by law). These otherwise very credible organizations have been fed crap research.
If you can get some credible evidence to suggest otherwise, I will respect you sincerely.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Just because the person displays a bias doesn't mean that the studies and citations are biased as well. He cites secular organizations and not the "christian study" crap you're talking about. To further your point, do you have a credible source stating that Clarke Forsythe (mistook his name earlier, apologies) actually provided false evidence?
I'm already aware that a peer-reviewed study isn't necessarily biased even if the person writing it is. However, the things that I have seen pro-lifers do have largely been extremely critical and have been lies. I'm not saying that all pro-lifers are liars. I would never be able to prove that, and I'm not going to try. No, I don't have a credible source stating that Clarke Forsythe provided false evidence; however, I've never even heard of him before now. I would have to look into his study some more if I wanted more information and/or if I wanted to know if any of his claims could be false.
But honestly, and with absolutely no offense to you, none of what was said in response addresses the point of argumentation or even rebuts the peer-reviewed journal article (the article is peer-reviewed, meaning that it has been made available to any and all criticism from readers and writers on this author's same level. It is credible). You're saying that pro-lifers lie.
We were discussing maternal childbirth mortality and maternal abortion mortality, since you asked, "What sources described it as being safer than natural birth?", and I provided plenty of links that are related to either one or both of those topics (aside from the different kinds of abortion procedures, but those are relevant because they tell us how safe the different procedures are). I think all of the links I provided are perfectly relevant to this discussion. Please explain to me why you don't think so, and try to be specific and explain why each link isn't relevant. Also, since I couldn't read the article you sent at first, I didn't know how to rebut it (I am skimming it right now, but definitely won't read the whole thing by the time I post this comment). Oh, and on the reliability of peer-reviewed articles - they are not always reliable, and a good chunk of them are discarded and/or found to have major flaws every year. Another thing about peer-reviewed work is that it often has multiple authors, and this is because scientists can do more/obtain more reliable results when they work together. Lastly, I already addressed the "pro-lifers lie" thing up above. No, not all of them lie, and I never meant to say that all of them do. Sorry that it seemed that way.
"Pro-lifers" aren't a gargantuan hivemind, nor do they exhibit a tremendous history of false information (You need a credible source for that claim). You MUST keep in mind, the pro-life movement does consist of numerous ex-abortionist doctors, ex-mothers, and others who have lost their faith in the system of abortion clinics. That is what makes some of them credible. And if you say that they all are just mere liars, well you're going to need a source. For every single one of them. Please don't be close-minded, in denouncing an entire group based on the actions of a few.
Again, I know they aren't all liars. Please show me a list of ex-abortionists and ex-mothers who have turned into pro-lifers, and explain what you mean by "have lost their faith in the system of abortion clinics." Also, I think you're putting too much emphasis on sources. Some things can be learned through common sense or experience and can be just as reliable. A friend of my mother's had an abortion when she was younger, and today, she's married with 3 kids and is perfectly happy and healthy. Also, if abortions are so dangerous, then how can so many health care providers/abortionists continue to get away with performing them, and how can only 0.4 out of every 100,000 women in the U.S. die from them? 0.4 isn't even a whole person. If you're questioning the method of how that statistic was obtained, and you think it's not reliable for some reason, then consider that if so many women were dying from legal/common abortion procedures, there'd probably be a lot of people - particularly pro-choice people and people who know/are close to women who have gotten abortions - noticing, rioting and getting angry about it, but there aren't, and big organizations/the people who are responsible for addressing the safety of medical procedures, like the World Health Organization, would probably look into it and let people know, but they haven't. Also, wouldn't there be a bunch of protests about women's safety if these common procedures were so dangerous?
Pro-lifers, of course, are generally more concerned about the fetus than about the mother, so many of them (and here I'm talking about uneducated people online/emotional people, not specialists/professionals) aren't usually arguing that legal abortion procedures are unsafe to women because they have evidence that they're unsafe to women, but instead are arguing that because they want to save the fetuses. I saw an article just the other day that said they banned the D&E abortion procedure in Kansas, and the article never once mentioned what 'D&E' actually stood for, but it (probably deliberately) reiterated the word 'dismemberment' over and over, trying to trick people into thinking that the 'D' stands for 'dismemberment,' and it doesn't. This is yet another example of pro-life attempts to mislead people, and to appeal to emotions. I was also attacked by pro-lifers in the comments section, and that's actually where the one pro-lifer I was talking about said that the director of Planned Parenthood lied; also, there are many of them trying to tell me that there's no such thing as a safe abortion - without any kind of evidence to back up their claims - thus reinforcing what I said above about some pro-lifers' desire to say that abortions are unsafe just because they want to protect the fetuses. Honestly, pretty much all the pro-lifers I've talked to have been people online in random debates or arguments, and of course people online generally spout shit out of their asses, especially when it comes to a debate that is this polarized. Anyway, this girl who told me that the director lied and that far less people died when abortion was illegal than originally thought (again, without any links/evidence) was being a complete bitch to me, and she literally responded to everything I said, even if it wasn't directed at her, just so she could insult my intelligence or spout more shit or tell me why her opinion is apparently right and why mine is apparently wrong, even though opinions can't be right or wrong. Anyway, this is one of the main reasons I mentioned that pro-lifers lie - because the majority of the ones I've talked to online have, or they've been assholes to me. Don't take this the wrong way. It's easier for people to be assholes online, so I know that's a big part of why these pro-lifers have treated me this way and/or said uneducated and narrow-minded things to support their opinions. I hope I've cleared up the "pro-lifers lie" statement I made earlier, and I hope you don't think I'm generalizing that to include all pro-lifers anymore.
We are also not looking how either of us "feel" about abortion rights. We need to look at the science and data available. You just said you hate lying, but now have justified it, stating that it was a white lie for the betterment of a good cause. If a cause requires a lie in order to get people to think that they are worthy, two meanings may be derived:
1) They are no longer/have never been a trustworthy cause because they lied about it.
2) They feared that the truth coming out would damage them.
Since you don't want to talk about how each of us feels about it, I'll provide more links. Here, I'm trying to show how safe/effective some of the common legal abortion procedures are, which I consider to be relevant to the stamp, at least. (If you don't think they're relevant, explain why this time).
ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detai… This is a study that was done looking at the safety of the aspiration abortion procedure done by nurse practitioners, certified midwives, and physician assistants in California. A random sample of 11,487 early aspiration abortions were completed by 5812 physicians, and it doesn't say anything about mortality rates, but it gives the percentage of complications due to the procedure.
ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detai… This is a study that was done looking at safety, efficacy and acceptability of outpatient mifepristone-misoprostol (abortion pills) in Mexico.
ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detai… This abstract contains a paragraph explaining how things like mandatory waiting periods and biased counseling requirements before abortions are detrimental to women's health, and I'm including this because it's related to health/safety of women.
I don't have much time to look for more articles at the moment, but if you want more or want something specific, I can look later.
I did not justify lying; however, if a white lie is told for the greater good, I see no harm in telling it, especially if there are more benefits than downfalls. If the director lied (and again, I have no proof that she did, and according to the person who claimed that she lied, it was in the 60s, meaning that she may not even be the director of Planned Parenthood anymore), she was doing it to try to protect the reproductive rights and/or health of women. That, I can be sure of.
What kind of an organization is that, and why would anyone listen to it? I mean, Planned Parenthood is the source, the core of clinical abortions performed in the United States, why would they lie unless they feared it would damage their moneymaking capability? Planned Parenthood is supposedly all for the enlightenment of women about their reproductive health. This is another lie, because they lied to everyone in the past.
I am personally for true enlightenment, brought about by facts and hard evidence. Anything besides those are fluff and irrelevant.
The sources you linked me do not address the number of reported vs. actual incidents in abortion clinics. Like Clarke Forsythe said, the reporting is corrupted in the U.S. because it is voluntary (not obligated by law). These otherwise very credible organizations have been fed crap research.
Again, I don't have proof that the director lied, and again, if she did lie, it was in 1960, at a time when women had little reproductive health benefits against maternal death and complication. One member of Planned Parenthood lying in 1960 doesn't prove that the entire organization would lie because they "feared it would damage their moneymaking capability," just like a bunch of pro-lifers online and the ones that set up the 4,000 fake abortion clinics lying doesn't prove that all pro-lifers lie. It seems as if you're trying to tell me that all the members of Planned Parenthood are liars because of a single white lie that may have been told to protect women half a century ago...
As far as the article goes, again, I couldn't read it the first time you sent it to me, and I have somewhere to bee very soon. If the links I provided in this comment still don't seem to address the issue to you, let me know.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay, I'm gonna be honest with you- I tried to respond. This is a veritable essay's worth of letters. I can't respond to all of this.
(I did read the links, but they require login.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Odd. I thought EBSCOhost was available to everyone... Which ones do you need a login for?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I believe all of them are on EBSCO. So all of them. (I linked you an EBSCO article earlier and you couldn't log in to that.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That doesn't make any sense...I wasn't logged into anything when I looked at the articles. :/
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All three of them say "EBSCOhost login".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And you can't even see the abstracts? ... I clicked on one of them just now, and it gave me the full article.. Note: I right-clicked and clicked "view in new tab"
Maybe try that?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I always click "view in new tab". It's just not working. Maybe a website outside of EBSCO has the same articles in PDF format.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry..I don't know how to fix the problem. It worked for me
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>