:: The S.I.C.L.E. Cell ::

:: Friday, November 30, 2007 ::

It's Perfectly Normal



I guess it's "pefectly normal" when the activities lead little 12-year-old girls right to the doors of their local Planned Parenthood abortion businesses...where adults abort and kill adolescents' "perfectly normal" babies...because while 10-year-olds are apparently old enough to act like adults in bed, and old enough to deal with the emotional repercussions of having their own children extracted from their bodies and thus killed, they're not old enough to have a baby.

(???)

Is it me, or does it make more sense to teach children to choose not to have sex until they are ready to have a baby, because babies come from having sex, and it's a big huge deal to either have a baby or kill one?

"Perfectly Normal?" To the devil with that; I choose common freaking sense, hello!

:: ashli 12:38 AM # ::
...

The American Cancer Society (ACS) says it will likely add working the graveyard shift to its list of carcinogens, because, for one, higher breast cancer rates have been found in women who work the graveyard shift. What the?! Umm...I'm thinking there's at least as much science behind the ABC link so why wont the ACS acknowledge that???

:: ashli 10:19 PM # ::
...

Picking it to pieces:

"But Dr. Wicklund acknowledges that abortion is an issue fraught with dilemmas. In the book, she describes witnessing, as a medical student, the abortion of a 21-week fetus. She writes that at the sight of its tiny arm she decided she would perform abortions only in the first trimester of pregnancy. She says late-term abortions should be legal, but her decision means she occasionally sees desperate women she must refuse to help."

OK, so...she didn't like the sight of the tiny arm, so she decided to limit her killings to children with tinier arms.

Although, it should be legal to destroy the bigger 21-week arms.

But not by her, because that would be wrong. No wait, not wrong. Just bad. No wait, not bad...just...not good...wait...

"Dr. Wicklund describes her horror when she aborted the pregnancy of a woman who had been raped, only to discover, by examining the removed tissue, that the pregnancy was further along than she or the woman had thought — and that she had destroyed an embryo the woman and her husband had conceived together."

The "removed tissue." Yyyyeah. Wait--I thought when it's your nice husband's baby it's a baby, but when it's a bad rapist's baby it's "tissue." It's like magic: a good man makes a baby, and a bad man makes tissue. OK, that explains it. The "doctor" is "horrified" because she accidentally whacked a BABY and not tissue! "Pro-choice" biology--it's just so confusing!

"And she describes the way she watches and listens as the women she treats tell why they want to end their pregnancies. If she detects uncertainty or thinks they may be responding to the wishes of anyone other than themselves, she says, she tells them to think it over a bit longer.

On the other hand, Dr. Wicklund has little use for requirements like 24-hour waiting periods, or for assertions like those of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who said in a recent Supreme Court decision on abortion that the government had an interest in protecting women from their own decisions in the matter.

'It’s so incredibly insulting,' Dr. Wicklund said in the interview. 'The 24-hour waiting period implies that women don’t think about it on their own and have to have the government forcing it on them. To me a lot of the abortion restrictions are about control of women, about power, and it’s insulting.'”

The abortionist "watches" women for uncertainty or coercion and then suggests to them that they have not taken enough time with their decision. Why would she do this if she is not interested in "protecting women from their own decisions in the matter?" And how come it's not "so incredibly insulting" when she "implies that women don't think about it on their own?" I guess this is "pro-choice" psychology, and individuals who work for the government question women because they are trying to control and subdue them while abortionists question women because they are trying to protect them. Makes perfect sense! Speaking of making cents, how much money does Justice Kennedy make off of aborting women's children? And how much does Wicklund make?

"That is unfortunate, she said, because her clinic experience confirms studies showing that emphasizing abstinence rather than contraception may cause girls to delay their first sexual experience for a few months, but “when they do have intercourse they are much less likely to protect themselves with birth control or a condom.”

First, Wicklund refers to the people she sees at her abortion business as "girls," yet when she criticizes Justice Kennedy above, she refers to them as "women." Now, "girls" can't get their ears pierced or see an R-rated movie alone until they're women. I wonder why Wicklund thinks that is. Power and control over the female sex? Or is this another case of "abortion magic" where the government is obviously seeking to protect the people in our society from decisions they might regret...unless, of course, the decision has to do with abortion, in which case the government should keep their filthy paws off abortion's silky drawers.

Next, don't they teach reference citing in journalism anymore? And exactly how does her "clinic experience" confirm the details of the unreferenced studies? How can she tell when girls delay their first sexual experience for "a few months" and how can she tell they are much less likely to protect themselves with birth control?" Are more of her patients abstinence only-trained? Or are the vast majority birth control-trained like I was in puhblik skooll? And why are those girls at the abortion business anyway when birth-control training solves the problem of abortion? You know, to the untrained eye, it looks like Wicklund is merely pulling comments out of her arse in hopes the reader will assume them as fact unquestioningly. But of course, she's using "pro-choice" scientific methodology, so you know it's sound.

"a woman she recognized as one of the protesters who regularly appeared, shouting, outside a clinic where she worked. Only now the woman was in the waiting room, desperate to end an unwanted pregnancy. Dr. Wicklund performed the procedure."

Oh my goodness. That would make the "pro-lifer" a big fat hypocrite, wouldn't it! Not like the "good doctor" who wouldn't harm a child with a 21-week arm but would expect someone else to do it. Not like Wicklund who questions women's abortion decisions daily but who is insulted when anyone else does. That's consistency. Damn those "lifer" hypocrites!

“It is one of the few areas of medicine where you are not working with a sick person, you are doing something for them that gives them back their life, their control,” she added. “It’s a very rewarding thing to be part of that.”

Jiminy Crickets, Batman! Do you mean to tell me that abortion is an "area of medicine" where you are not working with a sick person???!!? Prithee, what then is all the hullabaloo over the health exception? Do you mean that this "doctor" sees so few sick women--if any--that she makes the comment that abortionists are NOT working with sick women??? Flaming bug nuts!

Stop using me in your court documents then! Stop using me and women like me or start telling the truth--that there's another experience...the kind that finds you in a Cell, the experience that bears the kind of pain that nestles in the warm vascular tissue of permanent regret and grows like a life-sucking tumor for the remainder of days. And know, Wicklund, KNOW that you are also a part of that.

HT: JD

:: ashli 6:10 PM # ::
...

"Have an abortion or leave..."



"I left."

:: ashli 5:41 PM # ::
...

The most noble thing...

:: ashli 9:46 PM # ::
...