TYT on The Turnaway Study

There are so many flaws with the Turnaway Study, it’s laughable.  First, one need only look at their website or their Facebook page, to see the obvious bias, and what they are trying to do, which is to validate abortion.

The video below is a report from The Young Turks (TYT), on the Turnaway Study.  Let’s watch and listen.

Take note of the screen shot below, specifically, the 1st bullet point. What does this tell you?  You have to reverse the psychology of what is obviously an attempt to justify abortion.  That 1st bullet point could just as well read:  “No mental health consequences of women denied abortions" Full. Stop. 

The 2nd bullet point “Later abortion is safer than childbirth”, may be true, if of course you don’t count the baby who is killed by it.  There was another article which quoted the following:

We find physical health complications are more common and severe following birth (38% experience limited activity, average 10 days) compared to abortion (24% limited activity, average 2.7 days). There were no severe complications after abortion; after birth complications included seizure, fractured pelvis, infection and hemorrhage. We find no differences in chronic health conditions at 1 week or one year after seeking abortion. [emphasis is mine]

Using the fact that women who have given birth, need time to recuperate?  Really? 

And lastly, the 3rd bullet point indicates that having children can put you in the poor house.  No one ever said raising kids was cheap, and no one I know killed their unborn children because they couldn’t afford them.

Now, go back to the video and listen at around the 1:20 mark.  Listen as the female co-host jumps in saying the overall feeling of the women who had abortions, was relief.  That’s cool, I can deal with that.  But she followed that by saying that the women who were denied abortions, had to deal with the stress of being stuck in a situation where either physically, emotionally, or financially, they knew they were not going to be able to handle.  EXCEPT THEY WERE!!!

The stats speak for themselves.  86% of the women who were denied an abortion, were still living with their babies a year later, while 11% put their babies up for adoption.  What pro-life has been saying all along, is that women will most likely keep their babies, if they’re not allowed to legally kill them in the womb.

What Question(s) Should The #Savita Inquiries Answer?

There has been so much emotion, understandably, regarding the death of Savita Halappanavar. Her husband Praveen, has every right to know if her death could have been prevented. Hopefully, the inquiries into her death will answer any questions he has.

Many, like me, have seen her death as being exploited into a demand for legalised abortion in Ireland. Having said that, what is the one question you want answered from these inquiries? I'll go first, with the obvious question.

Would terminating Savita's pregnancy have saved her life?

Abortion never saves a woman's life [Video]

ProLife Ireland, You’re Being Set Up

I just read Dr. Jen Gunter’s latest post where she explains why (in her opinion) the panel set to investigate the death of Savita Halappavanar must be changed.

There is only one international expert and three of the doctors on the panel work at Galway, the hospital where she died.

She goes on to say that Dr Sabaratnam Arulkumaran (the one international expert) is a good choice to lead the panel.

The head of the panel is an expert from England and a good choice.

What she fails to inform her readers of, is that Dr Sabaratnam Arulkumaran is NOT unbiased when it comes to abortion.  In fact, he co-wrote a paper titled “Safer childbirth: A rights-based approach”, which having read the abstract only, says:

This paper highlights some of the current global efforts on safer pregnancy with a focus on reproductive rights. We encourage readers to do more in every corner of the world to advocate for women's reproductive rights and, in this way, we may achieve the MDGs by 2015.

Now we all know that “reproductive rights” means “abortion rights”, right? RIGHT?  So why would a team of experts set to investigate Savita’s death, be headed by a guy who believes women should have the right to kill their unborn baby? 

This reeks of a pro-abort set up to change Irish laws to allow abortion on demand.

#ProLife ALERT From Youth Defense

From Facebook:

BREAKING: British doctor who will lead Savita inquiry has previously written that countries who restrict abortion should be CHALLENGED.
He favours "liberal abortion laws" which make "choice of a termination of pregnancy a right for women".

http://www.ijgo.org/article/S0020-7292(09)00143-X/abstract

 

Indeed he has.  Spread the word.

Are We Conservative Enough?

From Care 2 “Conservatives Say Next Election Needs More Abortion, Rape Talk”

Well, I wouldn’t have put it that way, but I’m not the one spinning abortion and rape into a faux “war on women” either.  Yes, faux.  There was never a war on women.

From the article:

According to groups like anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List Mitt Romney should have spent more time debating President Obama on abortion. In a statement released Wednesday Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said Romney took a weak position on abortion that set the tone for Senate candidates and caused those losses as well. She said Romney was “wobbly” on social issues and called on conservatives to redouble their focus on abortion.

“Abortion meant rape in the minds of many voters because the debate was not fully engaged,” she said. Dannenfelser said Republicans seemed to have called “a de facto truce on social issues” while Democrats “launched a war.” Seriously.

Seriously.  Pro-aborts made up a phony war on women, striking fear in women who actually believed that Mitt Romney would take away their birth control, and overturn Roe v Wade.  How do you defend against a faux war?  You can’t.  When everything thing you say is twisted and exaggerated, it’s best to avoid that topic.

Mitt Romney has a history of flipping on issues, depending on where he’s running.  In Massachusetts, he was pro-choice, because he had to be to get elected. 

To this day, I don’t know what his personal position is on abortion, and neither do millions of other people, hence why they didn’t vote for him, or why they didn’t vote at all.  We put up the wrong candidate, not because I think Mitt Romney is a bad person, he’s not.  But because of his history of flipping, people couldn’t really trust him.

One last snippet from the Care 2 article:

Social conservatives claim the answer to their electoral woes is to become more conservative, and that the answer to their shedding of women voters to become more anti-woman.

I would  disagree that we need to become more conservative.  We’re conservative enough.  As for the shedding of women voters, as much as I hate to say it, the loss of women voters only shows how vulnerable gullible women can be.  And you wonder why they didn’t allow us to vote back in the olden days?  This is why ladies!

Women are smarter than this, but they need to be educated on conservatism.  They need to know that they need not fear conservatives.  Conservative women, are women too.  We fight the same battles they do, we just don’t use our unborn children as pawns in the battle to attain truly equal rights.