Living and Raw Foods web site.  Educating the world about the power of living and raw plant based diet.  This site has the most resources online including articles, recipes, chat, information, personals and more!

Click this banner to check it out!
Click here to find out more!

Pages: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2
Re: Net Neutrality
Posted by: Jennifer ()
Date: December 31, 2017 08:24PM

Abortions and maternal death rates in Romania, 1965-2010.

The negative health effects of prohibiting abortion don't end with the mothers. Romania's abortion ban sparked a nationwide orphan crisis, as roughly 150,000 unwanted newborns were placed in nightmarish state-run orphanages. Many of those orphans now suffer from sever mental and physical health problems, including reduced brain size, schizoaffective disorder, and sociopathy.

To debunk the fake news story about the number of deaths caused by the abortion ban in Romania, which as I said is one of the Abortionists' talking points -


"Here in Romania, pro-abortion activists claim that 10,000 Romanian women died between 1967 and 1989 as a consequence of illegal abortions. This figure has never been supported by scientific reference.

And history has proven that, when it comes to abortion, falsifying numbers has always been part of the game – on the pro-abortion side.

For instance, Bernard Nathanson, co-founder in 1969 of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws – NARAL –, a powerful pro-abortion organization, has later confessed how, in the effort of getting all legal restrictions on abortion eliminated in US, they lied for years on end:

The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.

Concerning Romania, the facts are as following:

Long before Roe vs Wade, in 1957, the communist regime legalized abortion on demand in Romania. The year 1965 saw 1,115,000 abortions and 278.362 live births for a population of approximately 19 million. The abortion rate was 252/1,000 women, the highest ever recorded in world history. Fearing demographic decline, the communist government restricted access to abortion in 1966. After the fall of communism, in 1989, the first decree of the new crypto-communist leadership was to eliminate all abortion restrictions.

In Romania, the official numbers of legal abortions are as following:

* Years 1958–1966: 7,521,100 legal abortions

* Years 1967–1989 (after legal restrictions were introduced): 7,298,402
legal abortions

* Years 1990–2014: 7,819,253 legal abortions

The total number of surgical abortions legally performed in Romanian state hospitals in 1958–2014 is of 22,638,755.

But the real number of abortions may be twice as much, since the above-mentioned number does not include illegal abortions made during the communist regime, and, after 1989, it does not include abortions performed in private clinics, chemical abortions and abortions made among the millions of Romanians determined by domestic economic decline to work abroad.

Nevertheless, according to this under-reported number (which covers only surgical abortions made in state hospitals) Romania still ranks second in the world in terms of total number of officially reported abortions related to country population (112.3%), with 21,826,608 abortions for a population of less than 20 million.

In this context, offering Romania as an example of country which is restrictive in terms of abortion (a situation which Mrs. Clinton believes to be a deficit of human rights) is a claim just as false as saying the US is a dictatorship.

By the way, the United States percentage of officially reported abortions related to its population is of only 17,4%, while the world average is of 13%! Ranking first in this top is Russia, with a percentage of 142,9%.

If we want to understand what democracy really means when it comes to the abortion issue, it may be useful to recall the fact that the first regimes to liberalize abortion were Lenin’s, in Bolshevik Russia (1920), and Hitler’s (in Germany, only for disabled children, to purify the race, and in occupied Poland total liberalization, to reduce and subdue population).

We can further infer the close relationship between abortion and communism by noticing that ex-communist countries occupy 23 of the first 25 positions in this unfortunate ranking of officially reported abortions related to population."

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Net Neutrality
Posted by: riverhousebill ()
Date: December 31, 2017 10:35PM

Jennifer really debunking with life sitenews? your joking right?

So much for debunking!

This Pro-Life Christian Website Has an Unusual Commenting Policy…
September 12, 2013 by Hemant Mehta

If you run a website like this one, you have to consider how you want to handle comments. I prefer letting my posts speak for themselves and allowing commenters to agree or criticize as they see fit. Regular readers know I welcome religious voices (or critical atheist voices, for that matter) and I remove trolls to the best of my abilities.
LifeSiteNews, a Christian website covering stories appealing to social conservatives (pro-life, anti-gay, you get the drift) has plenty of stories worth picking apart, but they’re not interested in a true dialogue. Their commenting guidelines actually state in writing how little they care about voices that disagree with them:

I’m all for thoughtful, respectful comments and I definitely understand a firm line on moderation. But I just don’t understand this:
LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

That’s a fancy way of saying “Don’t comment here unless you already agree with us.” Forget banning trolls; they don’t even want to see sane, well-thought-out ideas from people who want to provide an alternative, opposing perspective.

So I just have to ask: Why bother?
What’s the point of a comment thread if the invitation is basically extended only to those who already agree with you? Why write opinion pieces if you’re not looking to start a conversation? Wouldn’t you just be better off closing comments for good?
Incidentally, this came up only because reader Dennis told me he tried to post a response to this awful article, but his comment didn’t even go into moderation. He was banned from the get-go, it seems, because he’s an atheist who is known to disagree with the site’s views.
I’ve asked LifeSiteNews why they do this. I’ll update this post if I hear back.

Previous Post

September 12, 2013
Quebec Charter of Values Lifts Christianity Above Non-Christian Faiths

Next Post

September 12, 2013
I'm Glad Angels Could Confirm This
Recent Comments
0 | Leave a Comment
"Why is Klingon Jesus posing with that petaQ?"

This Texas Mall Just Put Up ..."
"That's why I wrote, 'along the same lines'...It's a transcriptionist's job to see diagnoses. If ..."

This Atheist, Who Works as a ..."

This Atheist, Who Works as a ..."
"Of course even when you confront them with an argument that plays by their rules ..."

Rapper B.o.B.: Bill Nye Needs To ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

get the latest from
Friendly Atheist

Sign up for our

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2017 10:43PM by riverhousebill.

Options: ReplyQuote
Pages: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Navigate Living and Raw Foods below:

Search Living and Raw Foods below:

Search for:

Eat more raw fruits and vegetables

Living and Raw Foods Button
All Rights Reserved


Privacy Policy Statement

Eat more Raw Fruits and Vegetables