Monday, January 25, 2010

Atheism and Abortion

Is atheism compatible with legalized therapeutic abortion? Through my experience talking to and hearing stories from atheists I have concluded that atheism is very much incompatible with legalized therapeutic abortion.

The key to understanding if atheism is compatible with legalized therapeutic abortion is simple: 1) remove God from the equation and 2) put in place common human decency instilled in all humans to not kill each other.

Accomplishing the first premise of removing God from the equation is a simple task. What remains is science and law. Then a question quickly becomes clear: what do we rely on for an answer, science, law, or both?

I have found that the majority of pro-choice atheist choose to base their arguments on law almost entirely. The reason for this is obvious; the law does not recognize the person that is the unborn human being. Countering this argument is easy, though. Say that slavery in the United States of American did not end with the Civil War, does that mean that slavery would still be justified and moral if it was still legal? The answer is no. Another simple rhetorical question could be that if one day a Personhood Amendment became part of the United States Constitution that defined a person as "any human being from conception to natural death" would that magically make an unborn human being a person? The answer is no, a law cannot make something true or false; law is very much just a reflection of a person's (or a people's) view in which a society should be governed. Basing an opinion from law is similar to basing an opinion based on public opinion polls; it's absolutely useless and completely illogical.

When pro-choice atheists jump into the fray of scientific evidence to support their claims, their arguments fall flat. I have oftentimes asked simple questions to pro-choice atheists that they almost always dodge and try every trick in the book to not answer. I have been discussing abortion with an atheist online, the following is a part of that conversation:

SegaMon: Consider the statement: "Clearly God has caused more abortions than we have." Does that make elective abortion moral? Nope.

Now consider this statement: "Clearly God has caused more murders to happen than we have." Does this statement make murder moral? Nope.

Pro-Choice Atheist: Can you please have your god come out and talk to us and tell what she wants?!? That would clear up a lot of misunderstandings. Thanx.
Where is the logic of abortion being immoral?

SegaMon: Knowing what God wants can often times be internal. For specifics, the Bible has given us many things to direct us in the right way.

Killing people ourselves is wrong (ie murder is a sin). Even the majority of atheists believe in this form of morality (ie elective abortion is NOT a religious issue).

Now, can you answer the question that I asked? "Does this statement make murder moral?"

Pro-Choice Atheist: I will only answer questions that come directly from your god. You are but a misguided middle man with a tedious and banal way of thinking. As far as I can tell god hasn't caused anything, show us some proof, then I might take your ramblings more seriously. btw - Abortion cannot be murder, by the definition of murder.

SegaMon: I wasn't saying that "abortion is murder." However, if the law starts to protect the unborn just like the born, then that statement would certainly be true (it's a term of law).

My "ramblings?" Come back down to Earth, your ego is making you float away.

I don't have to "prove" God to you. Just the fact that we will NEVER fully understand the human body is enough proof of God that I need.

I was using LOGIC, something that you claim to have such a handle on. Just answer my question please.

Pro-Choice Atheist: I guess I haven't been clear enough. Your god doesn't exist and therefore your question is nonsense. You can't use logic and proof of god in the same paragraph. hehehe

SegaMon: YOU were the one talking about God, not me.

Thus, I used the same exact statement that you had and then replaced "abortion" with "murder" and asked if you could explain it.

Again, it wasn't me that brought up God, it was you!

My question was NOT about God.

Read my first post again and answer the question. If you do not answer, you have failed to follow truth and use proper logic.

If we are going to blame God for more abortions, then we should certainly blame God for more murders. God certainly kills more born people than we do from heart attacks, falls, strokes, cancer, hepatitis, HIV, TB, etc.

So please, if you fail to answer then you are conceding to defeat.

Pro-Choice Atheist: As I have said breore god does not exist (at least the christian concept) so, a nonexistent being can have no effect. No moral laws, no killing, no giving of life or death. Your question is nonsense. Change your question to something that relates directly to abortion and i will answer it.

SegaMon: [[Here I mistakenly thought that this poster was the poster of the video]] My question has EVERYTHING to do with abortion. Thus you concede to defeat.

Pro-Choice Atheist: [[Here the poster is correcting me that he is not the poster of the video]]

SegaMon: I do concede that I wrongly assumed that you made the video based upon your answers (I should have double checked).

Regardless of my mistake, my response was in regards to the video itself. My question has much merit in relation to the statements made in the video. Do you like this video? Do you agree with this video? If so then you should still answer my question.

Mistaking you for the video's creator is not as bad as not answering a simple question.

Besides does it really matter if I'm smart of not? If someone asks a very simple question, even if it's asked by a complete moron, then someone with half a brain should be able to answer it. So why do you not answer it?

Pro-Choice Atheist: I answered over and over and over and over. The question does not relate to me. How can I answer a question about god's actions if I think the whole bible is myth and metaphor ie that there is no such being? Answer your own question, i guess that's what you want to do any way?? Tell us what the point is you are trying to make.

SegaMon: You didn't answer the question: "Does the previous statement make murder moral?"

This is not a question about God. This is not a question regarding religion. This is a response to the video's statements. You didn't answer this question!

The reason why I wanted you to answer the question was to help guide you through my reasoning then hopefully you could see where I was coming from.

My point was if abortion is moral because God does it then murder must be moral because God murders too.

Pro-Choice Atheist: What if god doesn't exist? Like I've been saying over and over and over and over. Then, isn't your point meaningless? THAT'S what I've been trying to tell you.

SegaMon: My question was directly countering what was in the video (which was made by an atheist). My question was NOT about God. It was NOT about religion. How many times do I have to tell you that? I'll make my question easier for you to understand by using non-God speak:

"Clearly [mother nature] has caused more murders to happen than we have.

"Thus, does the previous statement make murder moral?"

Please answer the question. (I wonder how long this game of ping-pong will last, lol)

You said that "the question does not relate to me." Then why did you respond to my post to begin with? There must have been something that interested you in what I said. I can't stand it when people stifle conversations by not answering simple questions and ignoring the topic's core. That was what you did. If this conversation is not important to you, then maybe you shouldn't be talking to me.

Why would pro-choice atheists choose to not answer simple and direct questions? An answer that comes to mind would be that they are uncomfortable with either the facts that they know or uncomfortable with the facts that they may learn in the process of conversation. Although I am a staunch right-wing conservative eastern Catholic Christian it is amazing to find out that I am the one siding with scientific facts.

Knowing that every human being's life begins at conception is the crux of the scientific debate. The most important hypothetical question that must be asked of these pro-choice atheists is the following: if we do not side with protecting what science defines as a human being, then at what point of development do we start defending human life? Answers to this question have much variety ranging from "when brain waves that can be detected" to the extreme "when the umbilical cord is cut after birth." Then the response to whatever their answer is should become blatantly obvious; the answer is do we base decisions on the objective facts of science or on one of the numerous subjective opinions of imperfect minds? It would be a natural choice to side with undeniable scientific facts than with the imperfect opinions that our minds have determined for ourselves.

Thus, the argument is won in favor of life. Of course, the prideful pro-choice atheist will kick and scream in objection, but there is no denying their defeat. This is all done without the acknowledgement of God's existence. To deal the deafening blow to the pro-choice atheist's argument at this time is to state that it is common human decency to protect our own species from purposeful death (murder). If the person believes that there is no such thing as common human decency, then ask him if he is willing to kill a born person to prove his thesis. If this person is not willing kill then he does have common decency and is just being stubborn. However, if the person is willing to kill a born person then there is no use in talking to an insane lunatic who may one day become a murderer (I have actually met people that have said this).

Pro-lifers of all faiths, use the following information to define the beginning of human life at conception:

**Credit goes to for the following list of sources**

"Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

"Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14.

"Every baby begins life within the tiny globe of the mother's egg... It is beautifully translucent and fragile and it encompasses the vital links in which life is carried from one generation to the next. Within this tiny sphere great events take place. When one of the father's sperm cells, like the ones gathered here around the egg, succeeds in penetrating the egg and becomes united with it, a new life can begin."
Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life. New York: DK, 1996. p. 13.

"Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization."
The Biology of Prenatal Develpment, National Geographic, 2006. {A video documentary]

"The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual's unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated."
In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005. [A video documentary]

"Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote."
T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.

**Credit goes to Bobby Bambino of the Jill Stanek blog for the following list of sources**

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
Carlson, Bruce M., Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3.

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zygtos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being."
Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1

"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. ... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.

"...the term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation and fertilization ... The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers, pages 17 and 23.

"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2.

"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146.

"...every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."
E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943

“The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are…respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
- Human Embryology. 2nd edition. 1997, p. 17

“In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
Essentials of Human Embryology 1998 1-17.

“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. 1998, pg. 2-18.

“Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments… The zygote … is a unicellular embryo…”
Human Embryology & Teratology 1996 pg. 5-55.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Additional source for incompetent cervix post

Sometimes I run into an extra source for a topic that I have covered in the past. I figured that it would a good idea to add these sources as they are discovered. Some posts that I write include numerous sources. These sources can oftentimes be more important than the post itself.

Blog post that source was added to: "Incompetent cervix linked with abortion"

Source added to the blog post: (8) Langerquist SL, McMillin JL, Nelson RM, Snider KE, Davis' NCLEX-RN Success: Second Edition, F.A. Davis, 2006, Philadelphia.

Sentence mentioning source: It is known that "cervical trauma may occur and may lead to incompetent cervix," a statement that my education has repeatedly confirmed.

Hopefully this additional source is useful. Also, any suggestions for added sources are certainly welcome.

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Quick thought about a common pro-choice view

I have always heard about people who believe that it would be morally sufficient to kill human beings to help alleviate the theoretical problem of world overpopulation. Through news stories I heard about China forcing their population to abort children who were their second child (oftentimes referred to as the "One Child Policy"). Very few politicians in the United States openly support this policy; however, there are many pro-choice politicians whose opinions have become known that they secretly admire this policy.

Throughout my life I have never actually met someone who told me that they would not mind killing people to abate the "problem" of a rising world population. I finally met someone with that very belief in 2003: my first year in college. I met this person while riding the city bus. On this bus, I ran into an old classmate from elementary school and, somehow, we started discussing abortion. At first he claimed that the unborn were not actually human beings. After some debate he conceded that therapeutic abortion was indeed the killing of innocent unborn human beings (and even agreed to call them "babies"). I asked him one of the questions I asked him earlier in the debate: "do you agree with legalized therapeutic abortion?" He answered "yes" with an unwavering tone. He elaborated further by saying "I don't care if abortion kills children, it is needed to decrease our world population." I was shocked to hear this coming from his mouth! He agreed that abortion was the direct and malicious killing of unborn children yet it was justifiable to him by some unproven theory that we were going to overpopulate the world!? I bid him farewell. I really did not want to see him ever again. Come to think of it, I never did.

Today I was looking over some comments to a news story about abortion protesters displaying abortion photos when I cam across this very same argument:

I'm all about choice. If a woman decides not to have a child by all means kill it. The world is over populated as it is, and it would be one less mouth to feed. (1)

Many who state this belief also understand the biologic and scientific proven fact that human life starts at conception. It cannot be denied that these people consider the theoretical problem of overpopulation to be more important than human life itself. This is also very telling of many of those who consider themselves pro-choice. Many pro-choice people will certainly agree with pro-lifers that human life starts at conception. For them, the only reason to remain pro-choice is because of the supposed benefits of killing an unwanted child: continuing an education, having extra free time, the ability to go to parties, the ability to save and use more money for themselves, saving the environment, reducing world population, or one or more of any many other asinine reasons.

The biggest difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers? That's simple. Pro-lifers wish to defend unborn children while pro-choicers wish to destroy unborn children to their own personal gain.

I wonder if these pro-choicers would be willing to help further reduce the population by actively killing the "unfit" or "unwanted" born people in our society?

Keep in mind that I am referring to the ideological debate of those who SHOULD know better. I am NOT referring to women who have aborted yet have received little to no information regarding the facts of the unborn, offered little in the way of support in allowing the unborn child to live, and lead to believe the numerous lies that pro-choicers espouse.

1. (of Phoenix, Arizona), "Billboard shows aborted fetuses outside Phoenix high school: Comment from ckaye02" published on October 13, 2009. URL LINK

Sunday, January 3, 2010

Planned Parenthood's suggestion to me for birth control

I used an online algorithm advertised by Planned Parenthood called "My Method." This is a simple algorithm program that takes user answers to questions and then provides a statement based upon them. The idea is simple. However, this algorithm does not always have an answer. This also means that Planned Parenthood does not always have an answer.

"My Method" was not advertised to me as something that is only meant to be used by women. However, the questions fully expected me to be a woman. I am a man and do not experience menstruation nor do I have a vagina. Planned Parenthood must assume that only women are responsible for birth control? That's a strange proposition. Either that or they think that men have vaginas! Quality improvement, Planned Parenthood! You should have asked what gender I was at the onset of the algorithm.

For the questions assuming that I had female biological characteristics I answered how I knew that my wife would have answered. We are both very pro-life and do not agree with any form of birth control except for abstinence and natural family planning (NFP). I answered these questions with this in mind.

At the end of the algorithm, "My Method" gave me the following message:

My Method cannot determine which birth control methods may be best for you based on your answers to these questions. (1)

The reason that Planned Parenthood cannot provide me with a solution is that abstinence and Natural Family Planning are not a part of their vocabulary. The reason that they believe this is simple: they believe that human beings are incapable of controlling their natural instincts of sexual behavior. They believe that each and every one of us will one day "cave in" to our sexual desires and participate in an unending parade of intercourse with person after person.

Unlike Planned Parenthood, I believe that we humans are capable of more than acting like animals.

(1) Planned Parenthood Federation of America, as accessed on the website "Sex. Really." "My Method by Planned Parenthood" as accessed in January 3, 2010. URL LINK

My email to

My wife and I were watching the show The Secret Life of an American Teenager and were enjoying it quite a lot. We were happy to notice that they did not offer abortion as an option for a teen pregnancy. However, this was no surprise to me since most television shows consider abortion to be a topic that is"too hot to handle." This is why I admire the movie Juno for actually addressing abortion during teen pregnancy within the movie so honestly.

Before every commercial break, one of the actors from the show suggests the viewers (which, I suppose, are mostly teenagers) to talk to their parents about sex. Another thing that they suggested to these viewers was to make a visit to their website titled The website actually gave good reasons to be abstinent from sex. However, the website went in great length about kinds of birth control methods to use other than abstinence, all of which are not 100% effective in STD prevention or pregnancy prevention (all forms other than abstinence fail in this regard). I accept this kind of talk on these sorts of websites. It's what today's society suggests to our youth. I do not agree with it, though.

The thing that bothered me the most about the website was the numerous times it linked to Planned Parenthood Federation of America's Teen Talk website. This website is filled with half-truths and lies. This is especially true regarding abortion. This is why I decided to email to see if they could oblige my offer to remove the links to this organization. I know that they probably will not agree, but the least I could do was educate! I gave them over 20 sources for them to peruse as well! The email I sent them is as follows:,

My relationship reality is simple: contraception is unnecessary and abortion is the killing of unborn human beings. That being said, I have both things to say about that is commemorative and horrendous. Please read my list, it is very important that you understand these things.

I commemorate the website for...
1. Encouraging abstinence as the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy and the transmission of STDs. I knew that as a teenager and I know that now as a 24 year old Registered Nurse.
2. Encouraging teens to listen to their own voice in saying NO to having sex before they are "ready."

Those things I believe are horrendous about the website is...
1. Connections and links to Planned Parenthood Federation of America who has been documented time after time to pass one medical inaccurate information regarding therapeutic abortion, birth control effectiveness, and fetal development. This is the most important aspect of my email today. Please hear out my case against Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and please consider removing any and all links to this organization known to have started under the premise of eugenics.

The reasons why Planned Parenthood of America Federation should be removed from the website is...
1. Documented resistance of this organization to give their patients and the public accurate and unbiased information regarding therapeutic abortion. For example, PPFA states that abortion does not lead to a higher risk of premature birth or low birth weight babies. However, this is untrue! Time after time, therapeutic abortions have been shown to lead to a higher incidence of incompetent cervix (which is one cause of premature birth and miscarraiges which have to be appropriately treated through cervical cerclage etc.) (1). PPFA states that there is no such thing as "post-abortion stress syndrome." However, there is certainly evidence that it does exist through unbiased research (2,3). Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome is certainly not proven but it is also not completely disproven, either. Many people have spoken out about their own abortion stress (4). PPFA claims unequivocally that therapeutic abortion has not chance to be displayed as increasing the chance of breast cancer. However, PPFA's claim cannot be undeniably proven. In fact, there are many scientific studies that have should some type of link or that the link is unclear at this time (5, 6, 7, 8). These discrepancies are just on PPFA's teen-talk website that you have linked your visitors to (aka teenagers). Planned Parenthood also lies about medically sound information. refer to LiveActionFilms investigation regarding this reality: "Investigation of medical lies and manipulation at Planned Parenthood of WI" and "Planned Parenthood lies about abortion images" (9, 10)

2. Planned Parenthood has been documented to repeatedly allow abuse of young girls to continue. Watch the numerous examples through videos from LiveActionFilms: "Planned Parenthood clinics across the country are contributing to the abuse of young girls" (11). The fact that some (possible most of them) are encouraging minors to continue their sexual relationships with adults is truly horrible and damaging to the girls that they should be helping.

3. An organization with their beginnings as an arm to encourage eugenics should not be linked to by secular, bipartisan groups (such as Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, wished to use her organization to further encourage eugenics and euthanasia to make human genetics stronger (12, 13). Furthermore, she targetted minorities, immigrants, and the poor working class. Know that today's Planned Parenthood, as part of the abortion industry as a whole, commits abortions on black women at a much higher rate than that of whites. While blacks make up 12.8% of the United States population while 38.5% of all abortions were done on black women (14, 15). This racism should not have begun. We cannot change this. However, it should not be encouraged through PPFA. Please stop linking your website to this organization.

4. Planned Parenthood is the leading organization providing abortion services in the country. They were reported to have carried out 305,310 abortion in 2007 (that is approximately 1/3 of all abortions in this country) according to their own annual report published in April of 2009 (16). This wouldn't be worrisome to those in favor of abortion, but if you realize the truth that abortion is the killing of human beings then one would feel different. It would be best for you and everyone to know the facts regarding therapeutic abortion and the development of the unborn which these procedures destroy and kill. For more information regarding this topic, visit links below range 17 through 21 (there are certainly more sources, but this is a good start)

Planned Parenthood's lies should be rebutted and/or not allowed to be spread. My offer is the following: remove the link to Planned Parenthood Federation of America or provide a source from the opposite side of the fence, namely, which carries more true facts about abortion than any PPFA website or clinic.

Thank you for your time. I hope that you have considered this issue as much as you can. Please consider my proposition for those in need of unbiased information regarding pregnancy altogether. I hope that you read this entire message. Have a wonderful day.

Christopher Schmenk, RN

As you can see, I took my time in researching and providing evidence to my claims. This is something that is important in any important issue such as abortion. Please contact organizations and educate them regarding the truth about abortion. The truth is not as evident to people as it may seem. I will be praying that they understand my message.

(1) Schmenk, Christopher: Incompetent cervix linked with abortion, October 16, 2009. URL LINK
(2) Reardon, David, Elliot Institute, Fact Sheet, 1997. URL LINK
(3) Coleman, Priscilla: Abortion Mental Health Research: Update and Quality of Evidence, Spring 2008. PDF LINK
(4) Website Mentioned: Silent No More Awareness
(5) Xing P, Li J, Jin F. "A case-control study of reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer in Northeast China.” Humana Press, e-publication online September 2009. URL LINK (Showing increased risk)
(6) Kitchen AJ, Trivedi P, Ng D, Mokbel K. "Is there a link between breast cancer and abortion: a review of the literature." Int K Fertile Women's Med, Nov-Dec 2005. (Showing that research is unclear)
(7) Lipworth L, Katsouyanni K, Ekbom A, Michels KB, Trichopoulos D, "Abortion and the risk of breast cancer: a case-control study in Greece." Int J Cancer, Apr 1995. (Showing increased risk)
(8) Robertson C, Van Den Donk M, Primic-Zakelj M, MacFarlane T, Boyle P, "The association between induced and spontaneous abortion and risk of breast cancer in Slovenian women aged 25-54." Breast, Aug 2001. (Showing increased risk if abortion was done prior to first full-term pregnancy)
(9) LiveActionFilms: Investigation of medical lies and manipulation at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. URL LINK
(10) LiveActionFilms: Planned Parenthood lies about abortion images URL LINK
(11) LiveActionFilms: The Mona Lisa Project URL LINK
(12) Wikipedia: Information Page on Margaret Sanger. URL LINK (Even though I'm not the biggest fan of Wikipedia, the fact that this website acknowledges the true history of Margaret Sanger was notable)
(13) Green, T, "The Negro Project" URL LINK
(14) Center for Disease Control (CDC), "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Abortion Suveillance Summary" November 27, 2009. PDF LINK
(15) U.S. Census Bureau, "State and Country Quick Facts" Last revised on November 17, 2009. URL LINK
(16) Planned Parenthood Federation of America, "PPFA Annual Report" April 2009. PDF LINK
(17) Condic, Maureen. Westchester Institute, "White Paper: When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective" October 2008. PDF LINK
(18), "Medical Testimony" Last updated on December 8, 2009. URL LINK (This link contains many sources at the bottom of the page that are from unbiased scientists and their findings in research)
(19) My Family Doctor, "When Does Life Begin? Medical experts debate abortion issue." Accessed on Jan 3, 2010. URL LINK (Note that the debater arguing against conception being the starting point of becoming a human being is a bioethicist and not a scientist, it should be further noted that the opinion of this person is extremely subjective and not based on scientific fact)
(20) Alcorn, Randy. Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Questions: Scientists Attest to Life Beginning at Conception, published in 2000. URL LINK of book excerpt, URL LINK of Amazon book listing
(21) Schmenk, Christopher: Right Choice, October 22, 2008. URL LINK (There are many sources on the bottom of this blog entry as well)