Live Action public relations:
"AUSTIN, May 29 -- Today, Live Action released a new undercover video showing a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Austin, TX encouraging a woman to obtain a late-term abortion because she was purportedly carrying a girl and wanted to have a boy. The video is first in a new series titled "Gendercide: Sex-Selection in America," exposing the practice of sex-selective abortion in the United States and how Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry facilitate the selective elimination of baby girls in the womb.

"I see that you're saying that you want to terminate if it's a girl, so are you just wanting to continue the pregnancy in the meantime?" a counselor named "Rebecca" offers the woman, who is purportedly still in her first trimester and cannot be certain about the gender. "The abortion covers you up until 23 weeks," explains Rebecca, "and usually at 5 months is usually (sic) when they detect, you know, whether or not it's a boy or a girl." Doctors agree that the later in term a doctor performs an abortion, the greater the risk of complications.

The Planned Parenthood staffer suggests that the woman get on Medicaid in order to pay for an ultrasound to determine the gender of her baby, even though she plans to use the knowledge for an elective abortion. She also tells the woman to "just continue and try again" for the desired gender after aborting a girl, and adds, "Good luck, and I hope that you do get your boy."

"The search-and-destroy targeting of baby girls through prenatal testing and abortion is a pandemic that is spreading across the globe," notes Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action. "Research proves that sex-selective abortion has now come to America. The abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood, is a willing participant."

Six studies in the past four years indicate that there are thousands of "missing girls" in the U.S., many from sex-selective abortion. The U.K., India, Australia, and other countries ban sex-selective abortion, but the U.S., save for three states, does not. On Wednesday, Congress will debate the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act (PRENDA), which would ban sex-selective abortions nationally.

"Planned Parenthood and their ruthless abortion-first mentality is the real 'war on women'," says Rose. "Sex-selective abortion is gender discrimination with lethal consequences for little girls."

The complete, unedited video and transcript can be viewed at www.ProtectOurGirls.com, a hub of research and information on sex-selective abortions.

Live Action is a youth led movement dedicated to building a culture of life and ending the human rights abuse of abortion. They use new media to educate the public about the humanity of the unborn and investigative journalism to expose threats against the vulnerable and defenseless.

For further information, please contact Dan Wilson or Jameson Cunningham with Shirley & Banister Public Affairs at (703) 739-5920 or (800) 536-5920 and email at media@liveaction.org"

>> ^Sagemind:

What does the bill actually say?
The bill bans the abortion of a fetus that is at or over 20 weeks of gestation, except in cases of medical emergency. It also states that gestational age should be defined as "the age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman."
That starts the fetal clock an average of two weeks before the fetus actually exists. The purpose of a menstrual period is to get rid of an unfertilised egg, plus all the tissue that has built up in the womb to support it. A new egg typically reaches the uterus two weeks later. In practice, the law therefore bans abortions as early as 18 weeks into the fetus's development.
Does that definition of gestational age make any sense?
More than you might think. Most doctors count how many weeks a pregnancy has progressed starting from the woman's last period.
"It's been the convention for generations to measure the length of pregnancy from the first day of the last period," says medical ethicist Farr Curlin of the University of Chicago, Illinois. He says it is hard for women to pin down what day fertilisation may have occurred, but can easily remember the first day of their last period.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21721
-arizona-decrees-pregnancy-starts-before-conception.html


I can pinpoint about when a woman got pregnant. The gestation period for a fetus is 10 months (I know pretty crazy huh...but it is). So 10 months ago from the point at which they gave birth and the fetus becomes a Human Being, that is when they have gotten pregnant.

It's interesting to me all this talk about weeks and months when "God" gives us a nice perfect line in which to judge these things. Birth. When you are born is when you cease to be a part of your mother and have to crawl out of the womb ready to join the workforce. So lets stop arguing about viability of the fetus...if Conservatives cared about what doctors had to say they would've paid attention in school. Life begins at Birth, fuck off.

What does the bill actually say?

"The bill bans the abortion of a fetus that is at or over 20 weeks of gestation, except in cases of medical emergency. It also states that gestational age should be defined as "the age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman."

That starts the fetal clock an average of two weeks before the fetus actually exists. The purpose of a menstrual period is to get rid of an unfertilised egg, plus all the tissue that has built up in the womb to support it. A new egg typically reaches the uterus two weeks later. In practice, the law therefore bans abortions as early as 18 weeks into the fetus's development."

Does that definition of gestational age make any sense?

"More than you might think. Most doctors count how many weeks a pregnancy has progressed starting from the woman's last period.

"It's been the convention for generations to measure the length of pregnancy from the first day of the last period," says medical ethicist Farr Curlin of the University of Chicago, Illinois. He says it is hard for women to pin down what day fertilisation may have occurred, but can easily remember the first day of their last period."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21721-arizona-decrees-pregnancy-starts-before-conception.html

>> ^jonny:

Apparently, just the opposite is true, but your basic point is correct. The physical environments of the womb and early childhood have a huge impact on DNA expression through epigenetics.
>> ^ghark:
One example is when people make lifestyle decisions that lead to obesity - this physical transformation results in altered epigenetic tags, some of which will be passed on to their children. The children are paying the price for their parents mistakes in the form of increased fat accumulation which often leads to diabetes, obesity and other problems.


While there is evidence that undernutrition can lead to obesity in offspring (if that's what you meant), the research also seems to show that the same is true for other factors, such as the mother being obese e.g.
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v33/n7/abs/ijo200976a.html
and
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v16/n3s/full/oby2008518a.html

That first research article found that the chance of a girl becoming obese was 10 times higher when the mother was obese, and 6 times higher for a boy when the father was obese. This wasn't true for opposite sex (e.g. mother-son) so that indicates that it's epigenetic rather than genetic causes. The second article suggests that in addition to epigenetics other factors are also involved such as abnormal neural development in the womb because of abnormal energy intake by the mother. Either way, the field of epigenetics is bloody fascinating and is going to be the source of some very major breakthroughs in the future.

I watched the vid you posted, there's some excellent science there so thanks for that link.

Apparently, just the opposite is true, but your basic point is correct. The physical environments of the womb and early childhood have a huge impact on DNA expression through epigenetics.

>> ^ghark:

One example is when people make lifestyle decisions that lead to obesity - this physical transformation results in altered epigenetic tags, some of which will be passed on to their children. The children are paying the price for their parents mistakes in the form of increased fat accumulation which often leads to diabetes, obesity and other problems.

Actually bob, the most dangerous womb to be in is in a religious person's womb

Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".

Source

And it's even a pro-life website. So even by their own admission, religious people are having the most abortions. Why should religious influence be taken seriously AT ALL when you guys can't even follow your own rules? It's the same old religious double standard. It's OK for ME to have an abortion, but not YOU!

Its called murder... You treat the fetus as if were a turd. It is not. It is alive.

Woman's body ... Woman's choice. Choose to keep you legs closed else man up to the consequences.

I agree that none screams Yippee and get an abortion. However In 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions took place.

In 2010 there 14,748 murders is the USA.

The most dangerous place to be is in the womb of a woman.

You and your ilk are truly "narrow-minded".


>> ^VoodooV:

Woman's body...woman's choice. Get it through your thick head @bobknight33 You don't like abortion? That's fine bob, here's news for you: NO ONE LIKES ABORTION. No one wakes up on the day of their abortion and goes "Yippee!! I get to have an abortion today!" I guarantee you that every woman having an abortion wishes they could go back and make it so they didn't have to have one. Forcing them to live according to your morality accomplishes nothing but unnecessary suffering for both the parent and the unwanted fetus. If they chose to have it, that is their right, but you HAVE to allow them to abort it if they chose. You can't claim to live in a free society otherwise.
If we lived in a fantasy utopia where there was no rape, no birth complications, no unexpected situations and everyone was financially and emotionally secure enough to have a child and demand outstripped supply when it came to adoptions, then I MIGHT agree with you that people should be expected to be responsible for their actions. But that world doesn't exist.
Woman's body, woman's choice. End of fucking story. You seem to have a hard time processing this, but women aren't magic baby factories created for your enjoyment. They are living, sentient, human beings with thoughts and feelings (gasp) and forcing them to adhere to your narrow-minded "morality" as if they were cattle is pretty much the opposite of morality.

I think you're forgetting the second greatest commandment, which is to love your neighbor as yourself. On the contrary to what you said, God wants you to love everyone in the entire world. He wants you to love your wife like Christ loved the church. God asks you to do more and be more than anything this world asks you to do. Your children are a blessing:

Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.
(Psalms 127:3-5 ESV)

You misunderstand what that verse about the world means. It means do not value the material things of this world over the things of God. Look at the next verse:

"For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world."

Yes, God wants you to put Him first, because through Him all other things come. To want to do it without Him is like preferring to push your car up a hill instead of driving it down the freeway.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
We will never be satisfied with what is in the world, because it is all perishing:
All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
God told us not to love the world or anything in the world, and if we do, the love of God is not in us.
>> ^Doc_M:
I just can't live with no hope. Immortality is essential for human life, IMO.


And there you go Doc, the reason I choose the bleakness of my own unanswered curiosity over this:
"Nothing will ever satisfy you in your whole life, not the birth of your child, the love of another person, not your grandmother's cookies. In fact, I literally am asking you not to love anything or anyone but Me. And if you do love anything else, I will not love you. Also, please fear Me and die."
Thanks,
-the Lord

>> ^entr0py:

Wait, did Paul just give a schrodinger's womb defense? That was some creative hypocrisy.


That's very good. For you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5RvDorEnMc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

>> ^entr0py:

Wait, did Paul just give a schrodinger's womb defense? That was some creative hypocrisy.


Yep. and while we're on the subject...

Wait, did Paul just give a schrodinger's womb defense? That was some creative hypocrisy.

My sister just passed her GSCE maths. Grade C. She always struggled, I spent many an hour doing my best to help her revise and boy did she work hard at it. She clearly doesn't care for the subject or find it interesting so for her this pass is a great relief and I'm proud of her. Will she do any more maths? Not a chance.

I think if you want to get kids into maths I really think you have to get them early. People always say that they don't have a maths brain, and while I don't doubt that some people find it harder than others I just don't buy that we all pop out of the womb preprogammed to be good/bad at specific school subjects. If it is as Tyson says, that the learning of maths actually lays down the nuerons required for problem solving then perhaps poor tuition early on in a kids education can effectively stunt their ability to learn more. That was always the feeling with my sister, the foundations on which they were building the new knowledge either didn't exist or were weak, and its difficult to go back to basics without being insulting. I think the fact her interests have diverged away from Science/Maths towards the arts (she's a keen photographer) is because she was struggling with the Sciences rather than the fact she struggles with the Sciences because she is more artistically inclined. (And I think this Science vs Art is a false duality, but thats another matter )

Anyway, just my thoughts/ramblings.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^bcglorf:
The tragedy is neither side wants to discuss the underlying problem of reaching an agreement on when life begins, and thus is granted full human rights.
People have trouble accepting conception as that point.
People have trouble accepting birth as that point.
What's worse, is people refuse to discuss that point as it makes them uncomfortable.

I think one side rejects discussion more than the other - no prizes for guessing which one. And if it's true that abortion IS murder, we're gonna have to build a few hundred jails for all the millions of women that are gonna be imprisoned for murder.
And the doctors, and anyone else involved. Maybe fathers too?
How about rape pregnancies? Should we force the mother to look after it? Maybe dump it in an orphanage? If god forbid someone got pregnant in this way, and the woman got rid of it, the woman could end up with a smaller sentence than the scumbag who raped her.
There are a fucking billion nuances that need sorting out, but they just want to shout each other down, or stand outside abortion clinics yelling at innocent people in the street.
The pro life community in general has its head up its own arse - it is currently legal; to change the law you must put forward a convincing, logical argument. By taking the approach they're taking, they're never gonna get anywhere. Not that i want them to.

I said nothing about sides, but I dare say neither side has much claim to focusing on presenting a convincing, logical argument. People are either murderers or haters of women and lovers of rapists. Both sides are equally negligent and stubborn in their refusal to recognize or even acknowledge the real underlying question.
You should note you even just did it yourself leaping right over any discussion of when life begins and went straight after people's heart strings over jailing millions of women and even jailing of rape victims.
Stop and have the logical discussion of when a fetus is a human and should be granted full human rights.

No, i didn't skip over anything - you can hardly expect me to discuss all aspects of abortion in a few paragraphs. I stated some of the issues that would need to be handled if the law is changed, i stated my opinion, and criticised the approach of pro-lifers. I think that is a logical thing to do - the law is the law and if they want to change it, it is they who need the convincing argument. That isn't because i'm pro-choice, that's just a fact of life.
I didn't intend tug on any heart strings, hence why i framed my argument without emotive language; it appears matter of fact to me, if you can suggest some appropriate adjustments then i may make them. But why would you rather skip over the discussion of such things? Perhaps that shows your own desire to skip over some issues.
Don't forget that if i am pro-choice, then i will frame an argument for pro-choice. It is not my responsibility to do otherwise.
If i wanted to change marijuana laws (and i do), then i need to provide a convincing argument first (which i can). Then i have to make sure others are listening and focus my energies on those who are not. This seems logical and sensible to me. Do you disagree? If so, how else do you suggest we go about changing established norms? Problems must be identified before they are adressed, no?


My problem is you still have the same frightened attitude as any of the other combatants on either side. The 'heroic' girl in this video is the same as well.

Why is everyone so scared by consideration of the real question, when does life begin?

All of your pro-life arguments apply to the exact moment before the child leaves the womb. Should anybody having a c-section get to choose if the doctor hands them the baby or slits it's throat and tosses it aside? After all, it hadn't been born yet so it's a matter of choice.

The question of when life begins is paramount, and both sides are uncomfortable with it. You haven't shown my you are in any way unique, you've failed in both posts to even touch the notion of when a human life should be granted full rights. One might assume the being pro-life, you feel life begins at birth, but that of course introduces the ugliness mentioned above.

The womb of an American woman is the most dangerous place for an unborn baby to be! Oh, that's so rich that conservatives would bring up economic disparity after how they shat upon the Occupy demonstrations. ROTFLMFAO

What, because it's a "compassionate" murder of infants, it isn't social darwinism? Of course it is. He is still saying that they should be selected to die because of their infirmities, regardless of what the stated motivation is. It is making an arbitrary determination on the value of a life is, and when someone doesnt meet that criteria, that they are better off dead. And that we would be morally justified in murdering them even out of the womb.

It's a good thing these two don't have Dawkins as their Father:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Miracle+drug+saves+Aussie+baby+in+world+first%3A+doctors-a01612048752

http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/ellerycase

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Ahh yes, there can be no nuance, no context to what anyone says. In this case, clearly Dawkins feels that murdering a child is absolutely fine, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with alleviating the suffering a horrible disease is causing it.
Oh, and as to your video description? Dawkins has stated on many occasions that he does not believe in social darwinism. Troll harder, little fool.