It's standard journalistic practice to put the most important information at the very beginning of an article. For ABC News, it appeared the most pertinent facts about Irene Vilar, a woman who had 15 abortions in 16 years, were her fears about how pro-life activists would receive her new book, "Impossible Motherhood."
ABC reporter Susan Donaldson James perpetuated the myth of raging pro-life activists in her September 21 article about Vilar. Her lede read, "Irene Vilar worries that her self-described ‘abortion addiction' will be misunderstood, twisted by the pro-life movement to deny women the right to choose." Vilar, now a mother of two, told ABC, "no book like this has ever been written. I just imagine the ‘baby killer' and I could be a poster child for that kind of fundamentalism. And there are my little kids in all of that."
Vilar told Donaldson James, "she has already sensed ‘an inkling of hatred," a point noted in the third paragraph. By the fourth, Donaldson James had described the precautions taken by Vilar and her husband.
According to ABC, "Vilar has scheduled only closed-door interviews and will not do a book tour. At the urging of her husband, they have made sure all public property records do not reflect her name, so she cannot be targeted at their home."
Throughout the article Vilar blamed society for her decision to abort 15 pregnancies. "Women have a deep need for agency, for purpose and direction and society is not providing natural and healthy channels for creative action," she said. "In school and on TV, every message I get is what I am doing as a mother or wife is wrong. I should be thinking about a profession and not mothering. Everyone is having babies, and yet they don't want to care for them."
Donaldson James did report that Vilar's mother committed suicide when she was 8, that two of her brothers are heroin addicts and her grandmother was Puerto Rican nationalist Lolita Lebron, who served 25-year prison sentence for attacking the United States Capitol building in 1954. Yet, aside from a brief mention of the government-forced sterilization Vilar's mother endured and a brief mention of Vilar's much older, "tyrannical" first husband who told her "having children killed sexual desire," Donaldson failed to explore the role Vilar's familial history played in her decisions.
And naturally, no article about abortion can past editorial muster without having a medical expert proclaim abortion overall a safe procedure. Dr. Louis Weinsten, chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia noted that multiple abortions can cause complications in later pregnancies. He ultimately concluded, "Medically, in the proper hands, it's a very safe procedure and doesn't have much impact on future pregnancies until you get to four or more. But in the long run, most do fine."
Furthermore, this article gave ABC another chance to promote birth control as the ultimate solution to abortion. Vilar's story, wrote Donaldson James, "is a reminder that more needs to be done to educate women about the proper use of birth control and providing better access, according to Dr. Lauren Streicher, clinical assistant professor at the Northwestern University School of Medicine."
But lack of birth control was not the problem for Vilar. Her pregnancies "became completely self-destructive." Donaldson James noted, "After her 9th and 10th abortions, she ‘needed another self-injury to get high.'"
"In the beginning I was taking pills and I'd skip a day or two or give up one month. I'd think I'll be better next time," Vilar explained. "But slowly, my days took on a balancing act and there was a specific high. I would get my period and be sad, then discover I was pregnant, being afraid, yet also so excited."
Streicher told ABC that Vilar's "book really isn't about using abortion as birth control. She is unconsciously sabotaging contraception for self-mutilation. It's a way of escaping feeling empty."
Streicher also noted, "By her own admission, she is a psychologically disturbed woman."
Vilar clearly understood the mechanics of pregnancy and birth control. Yet all of the education about it, all the access she had to it couldn't keep her from having those 15 abortions.
—Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Pro-lifers are the violent ones?
September 22, 2009 - 09:20 ET by vrwc13Pro-lifers are the violent ones?
"I have said often, and I am sure of it, that the greatest destroyer of peace in the world today is abortion. If a mother can kill her own child, what is there to stop you and me from killing each other? The only one who has the right to take life is the One who has created it. Nobody else has that right: not conference, no government. - Mother Teresa
...Mrs. Vilar needs our fervent prayers...
v
Anti-Abortion Activist Shot
September 22, 2009 - 11:50 ET by allanfSomehow the networks missed this story of the shooting of an anti-abortion activist.
Irene Vilar, who has killed
September 22, 2009 - 09:24 ET by TEIrene Vilar, who has killed 15 of her own children, is worried that someone might commit a violent act against her?
Irony
September 22, 2009 - 09:43 ET by nolotrippenIrony
This is sick
September 22, 2009 - 09:27 ET by jdlybrandExtremely disturbing on so many levels. Including misguided sympathy on the reporters part.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
...
September 22, 2009 - 09:39 ET by EugeniaWow. This woman is all over the place, blaming society for not being pro-motherhood to her own disturbing family background as excuses for her slaughter of 15 babies. It's mind-boggling. Yet now she's blaming prolifers in fear of retribution. She doesn't have to worry about us. It's the after-life she needs to worry about.
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything."
-- GK Chesterton
This is a weird offshoot of Munchausen syndrome.
September 22, 2009 - 09:53 ET by JWFThis psychologically disturbed woman needs help and ABC is using her to further their agenda. It is sick and is yet another sign of the slow decline of the MSM.
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Bingo
September 22, 2009 - 15:16 ET by onewiseguyYou nailed it.
Repulsive
September 22, 2009 - 09:56 ET by Bighead227This is no woman. This is a serial killer.
I don't hate this woman, any
September 22, 2009 - 10:14 ET by Mike SargentI don't hate this woman, any more than I hate the Unabomber. Seriously, I don't. I pity them both.
She's severely mentally ill. I don't hate her for that -- how could I?
Now that doesn't mean there are no consequences for (what I view to be) murder, but that does not mean that I (or anyone else, for that matter) should take it upon myself to deliver justice. God is quite capable of delivering justice by himself, without my help -- and this woman is clearly already tortured by the memory of the children she allowed to be slaughtered.
No, I don't hate her. I pity her, for her self-inflicted wounds. For her shattered life, her guilt, her shame...yes, pity is exactly what I feel. I would never harm her. She has done quite enough of that to herself.
I am quite sure
September 22, 2009 - 10:16 ET by candancethat dead pro-lifer from Michigan feels Ms. Villar's pain.
"But lack of birth control
September 22, 2009 - 10:35 ET by Cthulhu2012"But lack of birth control was not the problem for Vilar. Her
pregnancies "became completely self-destructive." Donaldson James
noted, "After her 9th and 10th abortions, she ‘needed another
self-injury to get high.'""
This paragraph made me stand up and go "aroo?" I get what it's tryin to say, but even still it was just kind of odd.
And I agree that this woman is seriously mentally ill, at least as much as those women who style themselves as "plastic surgery addicts." Course the media won't bother looking into THAT little part, they'll be looking into how the book will incite more right wingers to violence.
Soon, they'll say, the blood of abortion doctors will run through the streets as the pro-lifers sacrifice them on an alter made from the bones of ritually cannibalized newborn illegal immigrant babies to their unholy master, the one they call "God"!
EVERYBODY PANIC!
Why choose the lesser of two evils?
15
September 22, 2009 - 10:45 ET by jessieH15 abortions! she is not just a baby killer, she is a whore, too.
What about the Murder of Jim Pouillon?
September 22, 2009 - 10:48 ET by adamjw2What about the murder of Jim Pouillon by a pro choicer? By the way, does anybody know what the difference in mainstream media coverage was on the murder of Jim Pouillon compared to the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller back in May? There were 19 stories by the MSM on Jim Pouillon. Guess how many stories there were on Dr. Tiller? 643! If that doesn't indicate the media bias, I don't know what does. 643 to 19 on the exact same issue.
fyi that is an amazing 33
September 22, 2009 - 12:51 ET by MaximusBraveheartfyi that is an amazing 33 times more coverage of the PC story vs. the non-PC. M-B
violence?
September 22, 2009 - 12:41 ET by cajun2Pro lifers have potential for violence? Then explain to me how you describe ...late term abortion....dont be shy.
I wonder if she's
September 22, 2009 - 13:40 ET by JohnMI wonder if she's considered what her life would have been like if her mother had exhibited this behavior?
woman's got issues...
September 22, 2009 - 15:39 ET by UndercoverConservativeshe's got paranoia and a problem with psychological projection.
I can't think of a proper description of that 'woman' that wouldn't get me banned from civilized society as a frothing misogynist...
WWW.GS2AC.COM. 2nd Amendment Grass Roots Action in the Bay Area, CA. We're not all "Breakfast Cereal" folks here! :)
Could we please stop...
September 22, 2009 - 16:35 ET by stage9using the term "abortion"? This is a sanitized word used by the this wicked movement. We should call it what it is: infanticide.
Let's agree today to stop santitizing this murderous industry. It's not "pro-choice" it's "pro-murder". It's not "abortion" it's "infanticide" – it's murder.
The left has always tried to sanitize its language when it refers to its immoral behavior. By sanitizing the language, it appears more acceptable – more "civilized" – so that it would be more pallitable to society.
Perhaps you noticed them using this tactic during the Health Care debate? They stayed clear of words that suggested "government-run" and rather opted for words that would paint government run health care as our salvation rather than our undoing. "Public option" is one such reference. The word "option" sounds acceptable doesn't it? "Option" means you have a choice...right?
It's all about language. And liberals are the masters of it – as they are of infanticide.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will
be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for
pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner."
— Malcolm Muggeridge
Maybe it's because--with
September 22, 2009 - 16:52 ET by JerMaybe it's because--with the possible exception of the "partial birth" context--abortion has nothing to do with the killing of "infants".
Jer
→ Jer
September 22, 2009 - 16:57 ET by Cool ArrowDid you ever hear a woman exclaim "My fetus just kicked!"
I understand the age-old technique of Democrats to switch to dehumanizing terms when it comes to inconvenient humans.
But that doesn't make it right, though it may be legal.
A Democrat killed Harvey Milk, Nancy!
Cool and Jer, It seems to
September 22, 2009 - 17:09 ET by hydrodynDMCool and Jer,
It seems to me that these types of arguments regarding terminology are pointless unless some objective, or at least generally accepted, criterion can be adopted for determining when an embryo becomes a human.
Until then, pro-lifers will use "baby" and pro-choicers will use "fetus" (or some variant of each) and in each case, the other side will have no compelling reason to accept the other side's terminology.
hydrodynDM...
September 22, 2009 - 17:16 ET by JerAgreed!
Jer
→ Except
September 22, 2009 - 17:20 ET by Cool ArrowLegal standing in this instance is derived from the dehumanization of the subject.
Isn't that arguing from the premise that since some critical ideological mass was reached, a previously respected human entity is no longer human?
"I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God" - Satan
Cool, I wasn't speaking
September 22, 2009 - 17:39 ET by hydrodynDMCool,
I wasn't speaking about "legal" definitions.
I'm not sure which argument you are referring to - I was just pointing out that, as far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), there is no objective way to decide when a human becomes a human.
Unless I'm wrong on that, it's basically a matter of opinion and so arguing over words like "fetus" or "baby" can't be used as the basis of an argument that hopes to do more than just express opinion.
So you take it the defition
September 22, 2009 - 22:46 ET by Dan The Man 2So you take it the defition such as the Benne Geserit witches in Dune thought someone was not human though human in form? So when is one considered to be human and by whose criteria and why? It is infantacide no matter what anyone says.
Dan, I didn't offer an
September 23, 2009 - 05:48 ET by hydrodynDMDan,
I didn't offer an opinion. I did clarify what I meant by "human" in my post to celator (below) which includes a link to a forum post I created a while back on the topic.
The argument over abortion isn't one about whether abortions result in the death of an human embryo - it does. The question is if it results in the death of being with human rights (or standing or whatever) which ultimately depends on when you think an embryo has those rights or that standing.
Your use of the term "infanticide" gets back to my original point - you are using a term that reflects your opinion that the embryo is a baby and so does have those rights. But using that word is just your way of expressing that opinion. It isn't an argument for that opinion.
The question is if it
September 23, 2009 - 08:52 ET by Dan The Man 2The question is if it results in the death of being with human rights (or standing or whatever) which ultimately depends on when you think an embryo has those rights or that standing.
Yes the point is and always has been when is a person human. I have stated my opinion yet you evade and forget to state yours. A human sperm and egg will produce pretty much one item ... a HUMAN barring of course mutation and then it is still human. So from conception the baby is human, it is only how we choose to percieve the baby where we get into grey areas.
Dan, I'm not evading and
September 23, 2009 - 17:09 ET by hydrodynDMDan,
I'm not evading and I'm not forgetting to state my view. I've chosen to not express my view on this topic and I think you would be hard pressed to guess at it from any of my three years of posts on this site.
I understand your view. I know many others share it. But, again, there isn't a dispute about whether a fertilized human egg turns into a human (assuming normal development). The question - as you allude to - is when does that entity acquire the same rights and protections that a born human does. The grey area.
If there's an objective way to deciding that, I'm not aware of it.
Grey area? Six weeks its heart is beating and it has nerves.
September 23, 2009 - 19:03 ET by pahuberI guess there is no grey area for those who value life... no compromise here.
pahuber, So to you, an
September 23, 2009 - 20:41 ET by hydrodynDMpahuber,
So to you, an embryo acquires the rights of a born human when their body mechanically gains the ability to pump blood and to electrochemically transmit impulses. OK. I'm not going to argue if you are right or wrong.
Just wondering how you got to that decision and how you might argue that that particular milestone in the development of a human embryo isn't basically arbitrary.
→ Two cents
September 23, 2009 - 20:46 ET by Cool ArrowFor the life of the flesh is in the blood: Lev 17:11
I can't go forward any more than this.
Due to the economy, I can only afford $.01
September 23, 2009 - 20:52 ET by JerCan you go backwards?
Jer
→ Nope
September 23, 2009 - 20:57 ET by Cool ArrowThat phrase is repeated many times in the Bible. I have to concede human life begins at least when the first blood cell is formed.
Here's the other $0.01 you
September 23, 2009 - 21:00 ET by Free StinkerHere's the other $0.01 you need
"Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise;" --Psalm 17:28
Cool, I respect your
September 23, 2009 - 21:21 ET by hydrodynDMCool,
I respect your view, but presenting that quote as part of an argument assumes that the person you are discussing this with accepts the Bible as truth (however defined) and that they interpret that line in the same way you do.
And, if you are arguing with a pro-choicer, there's a good chance that neither of those assumptions are valid (no offense to pro-choicers).
→ Point of understanding
September 23, 2009 - 21:34 ET by Cool ArrowLegally, I've lost any debate on abortion anyway. People can be horrified with what happens beyond the womb, but there's a lot of synthetic comfort in having people in black robes telling you it's not a crime against another human.
We've got a giant proportion of the population right now who believe there is no crime in leeching off the government. No remorse, no compunction. They have inherited the concept through four generations now.
I can tell them how much better it is to be self-sufficient, but I can be the portrait of the American Sucker, too.
Morally, they're wrong. Legally, it's none of my business, even though I pay for their lifestyles and life choices.
Hydro...just throwing my two
September 22, 2009 - 18:35 ET by celatorHydro...just throwing my two cents in the discussion.
The approach that works for me is to look at the biological aspect. When the egg is fertilized, a living organism is created. To understand the nature of that organism, I look at the species on the taxonomic scale. In this case, the species, we can immediately determine, is human. It is human, with a distinct, unique pattern of DNA from the human gene pool.
For me, this biological approach resolves the issue of "when does this living organism become human?" Simple biology. It already is human, following the principles of biology: it has nothing to do with feeling pain, or whether it can talk, cry, see, know, or have utilitarian value. It is human, biologically.
The questions turns philosophical or theological when the discussion turns (and it often does) to the value of this human organism.
Anyway, this approach helps me understand the issue more clearly.
As to the question of the "fetus", that term is descriptive of a developmental stage, obviously, of that living organism, and not of the nature or essence of what it is. Sorta like teenager or old fart ;+}.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
celator, Thanks for the
September 22, 2009 - 20:58 ET by hydrodynDMcelator,
Thanks for the post.
In using the term "human", I meant it - as you mentioned - in the philosophical or theological sense. Ultimately, the question is one of when does a human embryo acquire the rights or status or whatever of an adult human.
Again, unless some kind of generally accepted way can be derived for determining when that happens, arguing about whether an embryo is a "fetus" or a "baby" seems pretty pointless to me since both sides are basically just throwing their opinions at each other.
I actually posted on this in the forum a while ago and had a pretty good (and very civil) discussion with folks here about this.
Cool...
September 22, 2009 - 17:15 ET by JerI've heard it the same number of times as "My infant just kicked!" Are you honestly accusing Democrats of coining the terms "abortion" and "fetus" for the sake of dehumanization? I know it's awfully tempting to associate Democrats with any and all things which may engender public disapprobation. It's an age-old technique of Republicans. But that doesn't make it right, though it may be legal.
Jer
→ Not so artful, Dodger
September 22, 2009 - 17:23 ET by Cool ArrowIf we could agree on having heard "the baby just kicked" . . . never mind.
A Democrat killed Harvey Milk, Nancy!
Inartful or not...
September 22, 2009 - 17:33 ET by JerI'll agree on having heard it--numerous times. But the very reason I support Plan B "morning after" abortificiants is because of the unspeakable horror of true infanticide.
Jer
Are you honestly accusing
September 22, 2009 - 18:12 ET by motherbeltAre you honestly accusing Democrats of coining the terms "abortion" and "fetus" for the sake of dehumanization?
A little story....I was in nursing school when Roe v. Wade was wending its way to the Supreme Court.
My OB instructor used to refer to the "fetus," as it was later called, as "the product of conception."
Dehumanizing enough?
Also, instead of spontaneous abortion, which is the correct medical term, accidental terminations of a pregnancey are commonly called "miscarriages," to distinguish them from "abortions" which are active interventions.
motherbelt...
September 22, 2009 - 18:25 ET by JerI'm not sure I fully understand your point. Do you object to the term "fetus" as dehumanizing? Or to its being called a "product" by your instructor? Or both?
How do you define "fetus"?
Jer
The subject was the
September 22, 2009 - 18:41 ET by motherbeltThe subject was the dehumanization of the unborn.
I thought I was pretty plain. Sorry you don't get it.
Those were simple, honest
September 22, 2009 - 23:11 ET by JerThose were simple, honest questions, motherbelt. I'm sorry you feel the need to react sarcastically, but that appears to be your inclination lately.
Jer
It was not sarcastic, Jer. It truly is dehumanizing beyond all
September 23, 2009 - 19:06 ET by pahubercomprehension... imho.
Sorry, pahuber...
September 23, 2009 - 19:35 ET by JerI'm afraid I must disagree. [setting aside the issue of dehumanization for the moment] Regrettably, this has been motherbelt's normal pattern of behavior with me of late. I politely ask for a simple clarification, and I get snark in return. Same as the other day when I asked whom she meant by "everyone knew etc.". Smartass non-answer retort. I won't bother again.
Jer
Are you honestly accusing
September 22, 2009 - 22:48 ET by Dan The Man 2Are you honestly accusing Democrats of coining the terms "abortion" and "fetus" for the sake of dehumanization?
Yes because they do. IMO it is the only way some person can rationalize killing an innocent human being.
Yeah, Jer....
September 22, 2009 - 17:34 ET by BO STINKS"It's got nothing to do with killing infants." Right, it's just killing giraffes, no, wait, it's killing rhinos, no...., h-m-m--m maybe it has to do with killing gorilla's? No, that doesn't sound right.
It is a shame you cannot hear the words that come out of your mouth, they are so ignorant and just plain ridiculous. BTW, so glad your mom wasn't as blood thirsty as you are.
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" Sam Adams
Some advice, BO...
September 22, 2009 - 17:49 ET by JerCrack open a dictionary, you disgusting moron. Your stupidity is only exceeded by your vileness.
Jer
Wow, that one must a hurt ya, Jer.
September 22, 2009 - 17:52 ET by BO STINKSBut, I AM thankful your mom wasn't as ignorant and bloodthirsty as you are. You are fun to play with.
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" Sam Adams
→ Jer
September 22, 2009 - 17:55 ET by Cool ArrowIf you promise not to call me a name, I'd like to offer:
Looks like an honest derivation would actually be "baby" or "Infant"
Sorry I cracked into word origins instead of a dictionary. How silly of me.
A Democrat killed Harvey Milk, Nancy!
As I'm sure you know, I
September 22, 2009 - 18:17 ET by JerAs I'm sure you know, I don't call people names who engage in civil dialogue with me. BO's post was anything but civil. Based on my high opinion of your sense of fairness, I trust you will extract a similar promise from BO Stinks.
Jer
Jer
September 22, 2009 - 18:43 ET by MrShy"As I'm sure you know, I don't call people names who engage in civil dialogue with me."
Uhhh... you sure about this?
Yes, Bo went a bit far with the humor/attack just now, but you have revealed a turrets'-like syndrome tendency on more than one occasion now.
Yeah, Shy...absolutely sure
September 22, 2009 - 18:54 ET by JerShow me one example of where I have initiated a personal attack against another poster at NB. You can search from now until Christmas and you won't find it.
Perhaps you have yourself in mind.
Jer
Jer
September 22, 2009 - 18:58 ET by MrShyPerhaps you have yourself in mind.
Hahahaha.... "Perhaps". :p Yeah, you could say that.
You are TOO funny.
But I neither hate you or even hold you in any sort of contempt for it. Never stalked you for an apology or admission, either. (Where's my medal? :)) It happened. We all have our bad nights.
Sorry, Jer.
September 22, 2009 - 18:45 ET by BO STINKSIt's just that I never, ever hear anyone from your side standing up for the rights of the human 'fetus' and it gets me real testy. You are a good guy and I am glad you are here.
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" Sam Adams
I'm sorry, too, BO.
September 22, 2009 - 19:08 ET by JerI'm sorry, too, BO. I react emotionally--much too emotionally in this instance--when [earlier] Democrats are gratuitously and casually accused of infanticide, and then I am personally labeled "bloodthirsty".
I realize it is a highly contentious issue and evokes very strong, passionate, and heartfelt views. Personally, I favor more restrictive abortion laws than those now in place, but not its outright ban.
Jer
Jer & BO
September 22, 2009 - 19:11 ET by MrShyIt IS highly contentious, and one I'm on the fence about. Most things on the conservative side I'm pretty much sympathetic to (uh duh, or I wouldn't be a conservative), but this one sort of transcends everything.
To be honest, Shy, my
September 22, 2009 - 23:18 ET by JerTo be honest, Shy, my position has shifted over time from generally accepting the rather arbitrary legal demarcations established by the majority in Roe, to now supporting more restrictive provisions governing abortion rights.
Jer
Shy, my position has shifted over time - Jer
September 23, 2009 - 08:09 ET by vrwc13Jer, how do you decide where to 'draw the line'? Remember this from Life Magizine in 2002?
v
→ No harm - no foul
September 23, 2009 - 08:13 ET by Cool ArrowAt Nuremburg, the most common defense was "I was just following orders"
"I was just following orders" --->
September 23, 2009 - 08:32 ET by vrwc13CA, I can hardly understand how/where one 'draws the line' on human life.
At birth it's almost a given, although I have heard stories of 'deformed' babies that doctors at birth 'let expire'.
Partial birth abortion is an abomination, just read the procedure...
So work your way back from partial birth abortion...8 months...7 months...6 months...etc.
At what point is the 'fetus' not human/baby?
v
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. Ps 139:13
Yes, I do remember vrwc...
September 23, 2009 - 18:47 ET by JerYes, I do remember vrwc...that issue of Life, similar intra-womb photography, and other reasons have prompted me to rethink and modify my views.
I can't say where the line should be drawn. But I do know that I would rather a fertilized egg be "aborted" by a morning after pill the day after conception when it is the size of a pin dot, than have an unwanted newborn baby bashed against a brick wall.
Jer
Good morning Shy
September 23, 2009 - 08:43 ET by cocodrieNice to hear your voice. One thing to remember is that in every successful abortion an innocent baby dies.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
coco
September 23, 2009 - 19:19 ET by MrShyGood evening cooc... :) (no, not a morning person :p)
I totally don't argue that. The only complexity is the right of a woman's body and how much the government should dictate in this area. But heck, yes, it's life right from the start.
Jer, you must be from
September 22, 2009 - 17:09 ET by vrwc13Jer, you must be from Egypt, 'cause you are always in de'nile...
...at this point, 8 weeks, most women don't even know they are pregnant yet.
btw Jer: if ya got the stomach for it. Google 8, 10, or 12 weeks with 'safe search off' and you can see 'fetus' hands and feet of the aborted...
v
...four weeks later
vrwc13
September 22, 2009 - 17:18 ET by JerI've seen them before. What am I denying?
Jer