"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twofuckspam@hotmail.com> wrote in message

"TerryG" <ritpg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7322e1ab.0310220629.10eaa06e@posting.google.com...

"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twofuckspam@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:<bn50vr$s4cc5$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de>...

"TerryG" <ritpg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7322e1ab.0310211119.7d4eef89@posting.google.com...

"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twofuckspam@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:<bn2bms$snnel$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de>...

"IBen Getiner" <lappcatt@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ed606dee.0310200223.47e9d0e4@posting.google.com...

God would be a good one to ask.
www.gentlebirth.org/archives/matmrtlt.html

worldwide maternal mortality


http://www.gendercide.org/case_maternal.html

Has a good pie graph on how many women die per day of pregnancy-

related

causes.


http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00054602.htm

U.S. maternal mortality

Thanks for directing me to the above link. The following is a

copy/paste from the site:

"Editorial Note: Since 1982 in the United States, no progress has

made toward achieving the Healthy People 2000 goal of 3.3 maternal
deaths per 100,000 live births set in 1987 (objective 14.3) (4).

reason for this lack of improvement in maternal mortality is not
clear. However, during this same time period, infant mortality has
declined steadily because of advances in the survival of low
birthweight and preterm infants and in the prevention of some

of postneonatal mortality, such as sudden infant death syndrome."

Interesting. Medical advances have improved infant mortality
(abortion notwithstanding because they are excluded from be

as live births). But maternal mortality figures have remained
constant in spite of the fact that woman stand to benefit from

advances just as much as infants. So what could possibly have the
effect of canceling the benefits of medical advances for women who
deliver their babies. I can't help but wonder what percentage of
woman today who do deliver have had an abortion in the past. And

wonder what effect having had an abortion has on the probability

surviving a subsequent pregnancy and delivery.

I doubt it has an effect either way. The body goes through no

that

are any different from a birth or miscarriage.

For those of you with a mind sufficiently open and unbiased to

the above quote, ask yourselves why, when pro-aborts claim that
abortion saves women's lives, has there been "no progress" in

maternal deaths per unit of live births. If the pro-aborts were
telling the truth, high risk pregnancies would be terminated

more low risk pregnancies and lives would be saved. But isn't it
interesting that this is NOT what is happening! Why?

Because the "pro- life" movement has convinced so many that abortion

evil

(or frightened them away from clinics with their actions) that a lot

the

women who need them, won't get them. That would be my bet. And there

always women who will choose to carry to term despite the risks.

Then I think you would lose that bet.

So post a couple links that tell why. I don't recall myself that there

been any whopping new medical advances in the field of childbirth

come to think of it.

You seem to have forgotten what my post said. It specifically said
that during the same period, infant mortality had gone down because of
medical advances.

You don't seriously expect anyone to believe that, of all the women
who consider having an abortion every day in the US, the 3 to 4
thousand who do just happen to be the ones who are not at risk, do
you? Surely you wouldn't try to claim that only the women at risk are
the ones convinced not to have an abortion.

Because

abortion has virtually nothing to do with saving lives and

to do with life styles.

So does "pro- life".

You're absolutely right. If we ban abortion on demand in the US, our
life styles will absolutely be affected. More people but something
close to the same pie to distribute. But that's the difference
between pro-lifers and pro-aborts. Pro-lifers can do without the
newer car, or the 3rd TV or the private college education or the...

So why don't they? Children the world over die daily from hunger or lack

medical care. Children in the U.S. languish in foster care for their
minority while the "pro- life"rs whine for new babies to adopt. Shall I

on?

All the pro-lifers I know do make lots of sacrifices. A heck of a lot
more sacrifies than the pro-aborts. They're nowhere to be found when
it comes to volunteering to take care of pregnant women and children
with problems.

that is important to folks like you if they didn't donate so much of
their time and money. What sacrifices do YOU make?

And isn't it interesting that this incredibly

relevant fact was unwittingly exposed by a pro-abort. Don't you

wonder if they even take the time to read what they claim supports
their pro-abortion position? But they'll be the first to try to
convince some vulnerable woman to abort her child.

I will?

By definition, if you are a pro-abort, you will encourage women to
have abortions.

Ask Osprey for the definition of pro- abortion. Or go get it yourself...
www.m-w.com

I don't need to. I can smell them a mile away.

"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twofuckspam@hotmail.com> wrote in message

"TerryG" <ritpg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7322e1ab.0310220629.10eaa06e@posting.google.com...

"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twofuckspam@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:<bn50vr$s4cc5$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de>...

"TerryG" <ritpg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7322e1ab.0310211119.7d4eef89@posting.google.com...

"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twofuckspam@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:<bn2bms$snnel$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de>...

"IBen Getiner" <lappcatt@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ed606dee.0310200223.47e9d0e4@posting.google.com...

God would be a good one to ask.
www.gentlebirth.org/archives/matmrtlt.html

worldwide maternal mortality


http://www.gendercide.org/case_maternal.html

Has a good pie graph on how many women die per day of pregnancy-

related

causes.


http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00054602.htm

U.S. maternal mortality

Thanks for directing me to the above link. The following is a

copy/paste from the site:

"Editorial Note: Since 1982 in the United States, no progress has

made toward achieving the Healthy People 2000 goal of 3.3 maternal
deaths per 100,000 live births set in 1987 (objective 14.3) (4).

reason for this lack of improvement in maternal mortality is not
clear. However, during this same time period, infant mortality has
declined steadily because of advances in the survival of low
birthweight and preterm infants and in the prevention of some

of postneonatal mortality, such as sudden infant death syndrome."

Interesting. Medical advances have improved infant mortality
(abortion notwithstanding because they are excluded from be

as live births). But maternal mortality figures have remained
constant in spite of the fact that woman stand to benefit from

advances just as much as infants. So what could possibly have the
effect of canceling the benefits of medical advances for women who
deliver their babies. I can't help but wonder what percentage of
woman today who do deliver have had an abortion in the past. And

wonder what effect having had an abortion has on the probability

surviving a subsequent pregnancy and delivery.

I doubt it has an effect either way. The body goes through no

that

are any different from a birth or miscarriage.

For those of you with a mind sufficiently open and unbiased to

the above quote, ask yourselves why, when pro-aborts claim that
abortion saves women's lives, has there been "no progress" in

maternal deaths per unit of live births. If the pro-aborts were
telling the truth, high risk pregnancies would be terminated

more low risk pregnancies and lives would be saved. But isn't it
interesting that this is NOT what is happening! Why?

Because the "pro- life" movement has convinced so many that abortion

evil

(or frightened them away from clinics with their actions) that a lot

the

women who need them, won't get them. That would be my bet. And there

always women who will choose to carry to term despite the risks.

Then I think you would lose that bet.

So post a couple links that tell why. I don't recall myself that there

been any whopping new medical advances in the field of childbirth

come to think of it.

You seem to have forgotten what my post said. It specifically said
that during the same period, infant mortality had gone down because of
medical advances.

You don't seriously expect anyone to believe that, of all the women
who consider having an abortion every day in the US, the 3 to 4
thousand who do just happen to be the ones who are not at risk, do
you? Surely you wouldn't try to claim that only the women at risk are
the ones convinced not to have an abortion.

Because

abortion has virtually nothing to do with saving lives and

to do with life styles.

So does "pro- life".

You're absolutely right. If we ban abortion on demand in the US, our
life styles will absolutely be affected. More people but something
close to the same pie to distribute. But that's the difference
between pro-lifers and pro-aborts. Pro-lifers can do without the
newer car, or the 3rd TV or the private college education or the...

So why don't they? Children the world over die daily from hunger or lack

medical care. Children in the U.S. languish in foster care for their
minority while the "pro- life"rs whine for new babies to adopt. Shall I

on?

All the pro-lifers I know do make lots of sacrifices. A heck of a lot
more sacrifies than the pro-aborts. They're nowhere to be found when
it comes to volunteering to take care of pregnant women and children
with problems. All the pro-lifers I know could have more of the stuff
that is important to folks like you if they didn't donate so much of
their time and money. What sacrifices do YOU make?

And isn't it interesting that this incredibly

relevant fact was unwittingly exposed by a pro-abort. Don't you

wonder if they even take the time to read what they claim supports
their pro-abortion position? But they'll be the first to try to
convince some vulnerable woman to abort her child.

I will?

By definition, if you are a pro-abort, you will encourage women to
have abortions.

Ask Osprey for the definition of pro- abortion. Or go get it yourself...
www.m-w.com

I don't need to. I can smell them a mile away.

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message

TerryG <ritpg@hotmail.com> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message

TerryG <ritpg@hotmail.com> wrote:

So what could possibly have the
effect of canceling the benefits of medical advances for women who
deliver their babies.

No medical care.

You fail to account for the fact that infant mortality has gone down
in the same period. OF COURSE YOU DID! Don't tell me. The infants
have found their own coverage. RIGHT!!!!!

Shrug. State and local governments often provide medical coverage for
children.

Perhaps you can tell me how a baby can be treated during pre-natal
care while the health of the mother is ignored. You just won't get
this, will you!