Planned Parenthood sells baby parts on the black market and most Americans don't care...

[WarTim 3,456]

Titan, you are morally correct. (And correct Period). To the abortion on DEMAND crowd, it's tissue-fetus. It's a non-starter. If they admit it is a Human being, they are faced with the mass murder that is taking place. That would not allow them to remain comfortably NUMB. Keep up the good fight. Never forget you are right on this subject in every possible way. Unpopular in the minds of others matters not at all.......

[DKW 86 7,437]

Agree with most everything being said here. But even if Christ came back and said it, some folks aren't going to let the truth in.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

You would agree that the body's natural state for a birth is head first since that is what occurs in 97% of pregnancies correct? There probably are no reasons to birth a full term child breached medically.

Now if it is not in the normal position there are debates. Do you do a C-section, do you turn the baby through EVC, is it just as safe to birth the baby breech. So there are debatable issues. The methods of dealing with a breech.

The normal reaction of the human body is to make physiological changes that allows it to adapt and change to a climate (heat, cold, humidity etc).

Now as far as how long does it take (most say two weeks), type and length of exposure for safety during acclimation, there are debated issues there. The methods of obtaining acclimation.

So I doubt you will find arguments to prevent or stop or reverse the bodies acclimation to a temperature. Cause it is the way the body is suppose to react naturally. There probably is no reason to prevent the body from acclimating to a climate.

I'm still not understanding what you are driving at. Is this something about how if we let the woman stay long enough with a baby in breech position her body will acclimate? And if so, I'm not sure why it matter. I'm just not understanding what point you are trying to make.

That the body has natural states that are most efficient in how it operates and there are no reason to change it. Thus why you don't find research to do something like purposefully breech a baby for a full term birth.

You are not going to find research to stop body acclimation.

You are not going to find research to change the human gait in a normal healthy child. You will find alot about how we are messing up our gaits with footwear and body weight though.

You are not going to find research on rerouting human waste in normal healthy humans. Like in males......defecation to the front, urine to the back.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Agree with most everything being said here. But even if Christ came back and said it, some folks aren't going to let the truth in.

Ya well some of the people around here (not you) like to throw out statements without any truth. They are also the ones that I view as the biggest hypocrites cause they will complain about programs like WIC and CHIPS. Hey, its out of the womb... who cares if as a infant it dies of illness or malnutrition.

Like I said before

Pro-Choice while in the womb do what you want, but once it is out it better be taken care of in some way.

Pro-Life while in the womb it's a being with great potential, but once it is out it is a burden to society and taxpayers (depending on the income of the parents of course).

[WarTim 3,456]

"IT" , The Baby, is NOT a burden. Women that choose to carry their babies to term will not have difficulty finding couples ready to raise and financially care for their baby. Do some research and you will be amazed at the number of families ready to adopt.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

The INFANT, as was originally referred to is considered a burden depending upon the mothers income to many. Thus why people complain about WIC and CHIPS and their taxes going to them.

So will that be the new standard. You are pregnant.... you must birth.....you make less than $$$$$.... you must give baby up for adoption.

I have done the research. Why multiple times I have stated I support and prefer adoption. I also have complained about the adoption system several times here. Why I also know that one of the largest, best suited, and financially capable populations in this country that wish to adopt have the most difficult time adopting and are often turned down or on unreal in length wait lists. The over 35's. These couples are actually going overseas to adopt due to the US system, including my own family members.

Let's not forget homosexual couples that would love to adopt...survey says.....XX. Single parents that wish to adopt and have the financial means to do so..... survey says......XXX.

So if you make every mother that doesn't make a set income give their child up for adoption, and you keep the same standards/prejudices for adoption in the United States, then you will have even more babies lying in wait burdening the taxpayers.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

At least the baby is alive!!!!!!!

[DKW 86 7,437]

Agree with most everything being said here. But even if Christ came back and said it, some folks aren't going to let the truth in.

Ya well some of the people around here (not you) like to throw out statements without any truth. They are also the ones that I view as the biggest hypocrites cause they will complain about programs like WIC and CHIPS. Hey, its out of the womb... who cares if as a infant it dies of illness or malnutrition.

Like I said before

Pro-Choice while in the womb do what you want, but once it is out it better be taken care of in some way.

Pro-Life while in the womb it's a being with great potential, but once it is out it is a burden to society and taxpayers (depending on the income of the parents of course).

I know too many in my church and friends that have adopted. We supported two children in Africa (Still support one today, we will be supporting another in Honduras soon.) I have friends that have adopted so many kids. Kim and i didnt marry until we were 38 and got pregnant and had Ethan 5 days before i turned 40. I would bet we would have adopted if we had met even 2 years earlier or had not had Ethan. We have friends that have adopted from Honduras 2X, Russia 2X, China 2X, Interracially adopted black kids into their white families, including CP child, 9X, etc. Americans are having to go out of country to adopt because of the crazy laws and a huge shortage of kids. We will soon have far more stable two parent SSM families soon that will want to adopt as well. While not my ideal, they will of course be far far better for the child than being sucked into a sink or sent to a foster home.

Wake up folks. We as a society have made abortion the dumb choice in 21st Century America. We should never turn a "mistake" into a "tragedy."

[WarTim 3,456]

At least the baby is alive!!!!!!!

Amen. Rather use tax $$$ for Life than to Slaughter millions of Babies...

[WarTim 3,456]

Agree with most everything being said here. But even if Christ came back and said it, some folks aren't going to let the truth in.

Ya well some of the people around here (not you) like to throw out statements without any truth. They are also the ones that I view as the biggest hypocrites cause they will complain about programs like WIC and CHIPS. Hey, its out of the womb... who cares if as a infant it dies of illness or malnutrition.

Like I said before

Pro-Choice while in the womb do what you want, but once it is out it better be taken care of in some way.

Pro-Life while in the womb it's a being with great potential, but once it is out it is a burden to society and taxpayers (depending on the income of the parents of course).

I know too many in my church and friends that have adopted. We supported two children in Africa (Still support one today, we will be supporting another in Honduras soon.) I have friends that have adopted so many kids. Kim and i didnt marry until we were 38 and got pregnant and had Ethan 5 days before i turned 40. I would bet we would have adopted if we had met even 2 years earlier or had not had Ethan. We have friends that have adopted from Honduras 2X, Russia 2X, China 2X, etc. Americans are having to go out of country to adopt because of the crazy laws and a huge shortage of kids. We will soon have far more stable two parent SSM families soon that will want to adopt as well. While not my ideal, they will of course be far far better for the child than being sucked into a sink or sent to a foster home.

Wake up folks. We as a society have made abortion the dumb choice in 21st Century America. We should never turn a "mistake" into a "tragedy."

Amen and may God continue to bless those adaptive families.

[TitanTiger 20,506]

You would agree that the body's natural state for a birth is head first since that is what occurs in 97% of pregnancies correct? There probably are no reasons to birth a full term child breached medically.

Now if it is not in the normal position there are debates. Do you do a C-section, do you turn the baby through EVC, is it just as safe to birth the baby breech. So there are debatable issues. The methods of dealing with a breech.

The normal reaction of the human body is to make physiological changes that allows it to adapt and change to a climate (heat, cold, humidity etc).

Now as far as how long does it take (most say two weeks), type and length of exposure for safety during acclimation, there are debated issues there. The methods of obtaining acclimation.

So I doubt you will find arguments to prevent or stop or reverse the bodies acclimation to a temperature. Cause it is the way the body is suppose to react naturally. There probably is no reason to prevent the body from acclimating to a climate.

I'm still not understanding what you are driving at. Is this something about how if we let the woman stay long enough with a baby in breech position her body will acclimate? And if so, I'm not sure why it matter. I'm just not understanding what point you are trying to make.

That the body has natural states that are most efficient in how it operates and there are no reason to change it. Thus why you don't find research to do something like purposefully breech a baby for a full term birth.

You are not going to find research to stop body acclimation.

You are not going to find research to change the human gait in a normal healthy child. You will find alot about how we are messing up our gaits with footwear and body weight though.

You are not going to find research on rerouting human waste in normal healthy humans. Like in males......defecation to the front, urine to the back.

That's not the only reason you find that. The other reason is that we actually have tons of deliveries each year where the baby is in breech position. We know the difficulty, stress and pain that it causes the mother. We have seen that the body is not 'acclimating' quickly enough to relieve the pressure. It's not just that we don't want to change what's natural, it's that we've seen enough of these breech presentation births to know WHY the other way is natural.

[TitanTiger 20,506]

Ya well some of the people around here (not you) like to throw out statements without any truth. They are also the ones that I view as the biggest hypocrites cause they will complain about programs like WIC and CHIPS. Hey, its out of the womb... who cares if as a infant it dies of illness or malnutrition.

Like I said before

Pro-Choice while in the womb do what you want, but once it is out it better be taken care of in some way.

Pro-Life while in the womb it's a being with great potential, but once it is out it is a burden to society and taxpayers (depending on the income of the parents of course).

Sorry, but this is the biggest fact-free, conscience-assuaging, pro-choice fairy tale going today. For domestic adoptions right now, there are 36 couples waiting for a child for every child that gets adopted. Pro-life people are among the largest givers to charities that take care of pregnant women and children. They are the biggest proponents (and partakers) of adoption. My pastor, of a medium sized conservative, evangelical church back in Nashville had four biological children already and chose to adopt two boys of another race. AND he preached about adoption and started a major initiative in our church for others to adopt - especially encouraging people to be open to non-infants and across racial lines. The worship leader at the church my wife grew up in here just adopted a child after he and his wife already had two biological ones. In fact, I can't even keep up with all the people I know from Nashville and Alabama in Christian circles alone who have gone down this path - not because they couldn't have kids on their own, but because they wanted to open their homes and hearts to more kids.

Pro-life people put their words into action AFTER kids are born constantly. I may not always agree with the side of a debate some of them take over private charity vs gov't assistance, but to characterize it as pro-lifers not caring once it's born is total and utter malarky.

[japantiger 4,051]

Agree with most everything being said here. But even if Christ came back and said it, some folks aren't going to let the truth in.

Ya well some of the people around here (not you) like to throw out statements without any truth. They are also the ones that I view as the biggest hypocrites cause they will complain about programs like WIC and CHIPS. Hey, its out of the womb... who cares if as a infant it dies of illness or malnutrition.

Like I said before

Pro-Choice while in the womb do what you want, but once it is out it better be taken care of in some way.

Pro-Life while in the womb it's a being with great potential, but once it is out it is a burden to society and taxpayers (depending on the income of the parents of course).

I know too many in my church and friends that have adopted. We supported two children in Africa (Still support one today, we will be supporting another in Honduras soon.) I have friends that have adopted so many kids. Kim and i didnt marry until we were 38 and got pregnant and had Ethan 5 days before i turned 40. I would bet we would have adopted if we had met even 2 years earlier or had not had Ethan. We have friends that have adopted from Honduras 2X, Russia 2X, China 2X, etc. Americans are having to go out of country to adopt because of the crazy laws and a huge shortage of kids. We will soon have far more stable two parent SSM families soon that will want to adopt as well. While not my ideal, they will of course be far far better for the child than being sucked into a sink or sent to a foster home.

Wake up folks. We as a society have made abortion the dumb choice in 21st Century America. We should never turn a "mistake" into a "tragedy."

Amen and may God continue to bless those adaptive families.

Amen

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

You would agree that the body's natural state for a birth is head first since that is what occurs in 97% of pregnancies correct? There probably are no reasons to birth a full term child breached medically.

Now if it is not in the normal position there are debates. Do you do a C-section, do you turn the baby through EVC, is it just as safe to birth the baby breech. So there are debatable issues. The methods of dealing with a breech.

The normal reaction of the human body is to make physiological changes that allows it to adapt and change to a climate (heat, cold, humidity etc).

Now as far as how long does it take (most say two weeks), type and length of exposure for safety during acclimation, there are debated issues there. The methods of obtaining acclimation.

So I doubt you will find arguments to prevent or stop or reverse the bodies acclimation to a temperature. Cause it is the way the body is suppose to react naturally. There probably is no reason to prevent the body from acclimating to a climate.

I'm still not understanding what you are driving at. Is this something about how if we let the woman stay long enough with a baby in breech position her body will acclimate? And if so, I'm not sure why it matter. I'm just not understanding what point you are trying to make.

That the body has natural states that are most efficient in how it operates and there are no reason to change it. Thus why you don't find research to do something like purposefully breech a baby for a full term birth.

You are not going to find research to stop body acclimation.

You are not going to find research to change the human gait in a normal healthy child. You will find alot about how we are messing up our gaits with footwear and body weight though.

You are not going to find research on rerouting human waste in normal healthy humans. Like in males......defecation to the front, urine to the back.

That's not the only reason you find that. The other reason is that we actually have tons of deliveries each year where the baby is in breech position. We know the difficulty, stress and pain that it causes the mother. We have seen that the body is not 'acclimating' quickly enough to relieve the pressure. It's not just that we don't want to change what's natural, it's that we've seen enough of these breech presentation births to know WHY the other way is natural.

Hence the word "efficient". Which refers to the bodies reactions physiologically.

[TitanTiger 20,506]

You would agree that the body's natural state for a birth is head first since that is what occurs in 97% of pregnancies correct? There probably are no reasons to birth a full term child breached medically.

Now if it is not in the normal position there are debates. Do you do a C-section, do you turn the baby through EVC, is it just as safe to birth the baby breech. So there are debatable issues. The methods of dealing with a breech.

The normal reaction of the human body is to make physiological changes that allows it to adapt and change to a climate (heat, cold, humidity etc).

Now as far as how long does it take (most say two weeks), type and length of exposure for safety during acclimation, there are debated issues there. The methods of obtaining acclimation.

So I doubt you will find arguments to prevent or stop or reverse the bodies acclimation to a temperature. Cause it is the way the body is suppose to react naturally. There probably is no reason to prevent the body from acclimating to a climate.

I'm still not understanding what you are driving at. Is this something about how if we let the woman stay long enough with a baby in breech position her body will acclimate? And if so, I'm not sure why it matter. I'm just not understanding what point you are trying to make.

That the body has natural states that are most efficient in how it operates and there are no reason to change it. Thus why you don't find research to do something like purposefully breech a baby for a full term birth.

You are not going to find research to stop body acclimation.

You are not going to find research to change the human gait in a normal healthy child. You will find alot about how we are messing up our gaits with footwear and body weight though.

You are not going to find research on rerouting human waste in normal healthy humans. Like in males......defecation to the front, urine to the back.

That's not the only reason you find that. The other reason is that we actually have tons of deliveries each year where the baby is in breech position. We know the difficulty, stress and pain that it causes the mother. We have seen that the body is not 'acclimating' quickly enough to relieve the pressure. It's not just that we don't want to change what's natural, it's that we've seen enough of these breech presentation births to know WHY the other way is natural.

Hence the word "efficient". Which refers to the bodies reactions physiologically.

It's more than "efficient." It's that breech position is actually causing significantly more pain. It's silly to think that we just need to leave her that way longer to let her body "acclimate" when everything in her body is trying to get the baby out but it's not coming out that way and causing a ton of pain and discomfort.

And I'm still not sure what this debate is supposed to be proving for you.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Ya well some of the people around here (not you) like to throw out statements without any truth. They are also the ones that I view as the biggest hypocrites cause they will complain about programs like WIC and CHIPS. Hey, its out of the womb... who cares if as a infant it dies of illness or malnutrition.

Like I said before

Pro-Choice while in the womb do what you want, but once it is out it better be taken care of in some way.

Pro-Life while in the womb it's a being with great potential, but once it is out it is a burden to society and taxpayers (depending on the income of the parents of course).

Sorry, but this is the biggest fact-free, conscience-assuaging, pro-choice fairy tale going today. For domestic adoptions right now, there are 36 couples waiting for a child for every child that gets adopted. Pro-life people are among the largest givers to charities that take care of pregnant women and children. They are the biggest proponents (and partakers) of adoption. My pastor, of a medium sized conservative, evangelical church back in Nashville had four biological children already and chose to adopt two boys of another race. AND he preached about adoption and started a major initiative in our church for others to adopt - especially encouraging people to be open to non-infants and across racial lines. The worship leader at the church my wife grew up in here just adopted a child after he and his wife already had two biological ones. In fact, I can't even keep up with all the people I know from Nashville and Alabama in Christian circles alone who have gone down this path - not because they couldn't have kids on their own, but because they wanted to open their homes and hearts to more kids.

Pro-life people put their words into action AFTER kids are born constantly. I may not always agree with the side of a debate some of them take over private charity vs gov't assistance, but to characterize it as pro-lifers not caring once it's born is total and utter malarky.

Actually that is my own statement from my own observations. I have no clue if that is what pro-choice is subscribing to or pushing. I don't follow them, rally with them, get their literature etc. My opinion is based on the attacks of programs such as WIC and CHIPS. Then things like being in the Opelika Walmart on EBT day and overhearing all the Auburn soccer moms complaining about the issue with one wearing a pro-life T. Or many of the comments about children on the Southside of Chicago. Seen similar comments on this board also.

I also realize there are large group of pro-life that do good and don't just talk the talk. I know pro-choice people that are huge into supporting adoption.

I know there are people that wish to adopt in this country. I have stated more than once I want adoptions to happen and the system needs to be changed to make it easier. I have family members that have gone outside the country cause of this system. By the time I am married and ready for children I will be in that 35 up range. Meaning it is a very real possibility my wife might be a woman that can't have kids (assuming she is same age). Then we would have to adopt. I would prefer to adopt in the United States, but if we are sitting on lists and getting pushed cause we are over 35 then I'm going out of the country.

You seem to have the ability to only find and be around the most benevolent, honest, sinless, charitable beings on this Earth. I congratulate you on that.

Out of curiosity I googled it. They do press that issue. My view wasn't influenced by them, it was influenced by my own viewings of individuals in societies where I lived.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

You would agree that the body's natural state for a birth is head first since that is what occurs in 97% of pregnancies correct? There probably are no reasons to birth a full term child breached medically.

Now if it is not in the normal position there are debates. Do you do a C-section, do you turn the baby through EVC, is it just as safe to birth the baby breech. So there are debatable issues. The methods of dealing with a breech.

The normal reaction of the human body is to make physiological changes that allows it to adapt and change to a climate (heat, cold, humidity etc).

Now as far as how long does it take (most say two weeks), type and length of exposure for safety during acclimation, there are debated issues there. The methods of obtaining acclimation.

So I doubt you will find arguments to prevent or stop or reverse the bodies acclimation to a temperature. Cause it is the way the body is suppose to react naturally. There probably is no reason to prevent the body from acclimating to a climate.

I'm still not understanding what you are driving at. Is this something about how if we let the woman stay long enough with a baby in breech position her body will acclimate? And if so, I'm not sure why it matter. I'm just not understanding what point you are trying to make.

That the body has natural states that are most efficient in how it operates and there are no reason to change it. Thus why you don't find research to do something like purposefully breech a baby for a full term birth.

You are not going to find research to stop body acclimation.

You are not going to find research to change the human gait in a normal healthy child. You will find alot about how we are messing up our gaits with footwear and body weight though.

You are not going to find research on rerouting human waste in normal healthy humans. Like in males......defecation to the front, urine to the back.

That's not the only reason you find that. The other reason is that we actually have tons of deliveries each year where the baby is in breech position. We know the difficulty, stress and pain that it causes the mother. We have seen that the body is not 'acclimating' quickly enough to relieve the pressure. It's not just that we don't want to change what's natural, it's that we've seen enough of these breech presentation births to know WHY the other way is natural.

Hence the word "efficient". Which refers to the bodies reactions physiologically.

It's more than "efficient." It's that breech position is actually causing significantly more pain. It's silly to think that we just need to leave her that way longer to let her body "acclimate" when everything in her body is trying to get the baby out but it's not coming out that way and causing a ton of pain and discomfort.

And I'm still not sure what this debate is supposed to be proving for you.

Why do you keep associating acclimate with pregnancy and birth? I said I was referring to climates and temperatures. Nowhere did I say it was involved in birth. Just like I didn't say gait was involved in birth.

It was a comparison of two natural body functions, that occur at different times and for different reasons, that you won't find research saying we should change. Human gait is a third function that is separate of those two, that in a normal healthy person you won't find research saying we should change it.

And efficient for me refers to it all of it in regards to the human body. The human body for example acclimates to temperatures that it spends the majority of its time in. This is so that it functions at max efficiency for performance and protection of itself.

The research I have read (and I have seen research saying it is just as safe with skilled physicians and safer than a C-section) in regard to vaginal birthing is that the dangers are in the child. Greater chances of fetal cord compression and fetal distress. So why put the baby in danger if you are going to by turning it to a breech? But unfortunately in what we are discussing the babies health is a moot point.

[TitanTiger 20,506]

The research I have read (and I have seen research saying it is just as safe with skilled physicians and safer than a C-section) in regard to vaginal birthing is that the dangers are in the child. Greater chances of fetal cord compression and fetal distress. So why put the baby in danger if you are going to by turning it to a breech? But unfortunately in what we are discussing the babies health is a moot point.

Ok. I guess I don't get why you even brought it up. We don't turn babies to a breech position from a vertex one because it doesn't work. It makes things more risky and painful for the mother.

As far as c-section vs vaginal with breech births, that has never been at issue. That's a side argument. Vaginal vertex births are always preferable to either.

But the nature of how they are doing these abortions makes it relevant. Because if you read why they do everything to change to vertex from breech if possible, it's not just the baby's health, but the distress, pain, length of labor and so on it causes the mother. It can even cause maternal death because the baby simply won't come out that way oftentimes. Because they are essentially performing a partial-birth abortion in everything but name. Only real difference here is that instead of jabbing it in the head with scissors like some sort of horror film, they are using forcepts in a careful manner to only crush the parts they don't want and deliver the ones they do in tact.

And the fact that I can type that last few sentences and be talking about a legal procedure that is defended by many rather that recapping American Horror Story or Saw has to be the most bizarre, grotesque and sad thing I've ever heard of.

[homersapien 11,409]

Anyway, the OP is about a lie meant to slander Planned Parenthood. Planned parenthood offer counseling on abortion, adoption and parenting.

They don't guide patients to any option for the purpose of making a profit. Their purpose is to serve women, not push a given procedure.

[WarTim 3,456]

Anyway, the OP is about a lie meant to slander Planned Parenthood. Planned parenthood offer counseling on abortion, adoption and parenting.

They don't guide patients to any option for the purpose of making a profit. They're purpose is to serve women, not push a given procedure.

This is THE most clueless post in the history of....well...in history. This is over the top ignorance or just Lying.

[homersapien 11,409]

Anyway, the OP is about a lie meant to slander Planned Parenthood. Planned parenthood offer counseling on abortion, adoption and parenting.

They don't guide patients to any option for the purpose of making a profit. They're purpose is to serve women, not push a given procedure.

This is THE most clueless post in the history of....well...in history. This is over the top ignorance or just Lying.

You are the one who is ignorant.

http://www.plannedpa...w-what/adoption

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Anyway, the OP is about a lie meant to slander Planned Parenthood. Planned parenthood offer counseling on abortion, adoption and parenting.

They don't guide patients to any option for the purpose of making a profit. They're purpose is to serve women, not push a given procedure.

You forgot education and resources for birth control.

[homersapien 11,409]

Anyway, the OP is about a lie meant to slander Planned Parenthood. Planned parenthood offer counseling on abortion, adoption and parenting.

They don't guide patients to any option for the purpose of making a profit. They're purpose is to serve women, not push a given procedure.

You forgot education and resources for birth control.

True.

I was referring only to the pregnant women who seek counsel from PP. But that's in important part of their services also.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Ya well some of the people around here (not you) like to throw out statements without any truth. They are also the ones that I view as the biggest hypocrites cause they will complain about programs like WIC and CHIPS. Hey, its out of the womb... who cares if as a infant it dies of illness or malnutrition.

Like I said before

Pro-Choice while in the womb do what you want, but once it is out it better be taken care of in some way.

Pro-Life while in the womb it's a being with great potential, but once it is out it is a burden to society and taxpayers (depending on the income of the parents of course).

Sorry, but this is the biggest fact-free, conscience-assuaging, pro-choice fairy tale going today. For domestic adoptions right now, there are 36 couples waiting for a child for every child that gets adopted. Pro-life people are among the largest givers to charities that take care of pregnant women and children. They are the biggest proponents (and partakers) of adoption. My pastor, of a medium sized conservative, evangelical church back in Nashville had four biological children already and chose to adopt two boys of another race. AND he preached about adoption and started a major initiative in our church for others to adopt - especially encouraging people to be open to non-infants and across racial lines. The worship leader at the church my wife grew up in here just adopted a child after he and his wife already had two biological ones. In fact, I can't even keep up with all the people I know from Nashville and Alabama in Christian circles alone who have gone down this path - not because they couldn't have kids on their own, but because they wanted to open their homes and hearts to more kids.

Pro-life people put their words into action AFTER kids are born constantly. I may not always agree with the side of a debate some of them take over private charity vs gov't assistance, but to characterize it as pro-lifers not caring once it's born is total and utter malarky.

As individuals, I would agree. However, politically, I think that is questionable. I think your dismissal is a little to quick and convenient.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

The research I have read (and I have seen research saying it is just as safe with skilled physicians and safer than a C-section) in regard to vaginal birthing is that the dangers are in the child. Greater chances of fetal cord compression and fetal distress. So why put the baby in danger if you are going to by turning it to a breech? But unfortunately in what we are discussing the babies health is a moot point.

Ok. I guess I don't get why you even brought it up.

Cause you said you couldn't find research to purposefully breech a baby during birth. I was just saying it is that way for many other things with the human body also.