Latest Posts

Mike addresses the feminist penchant for murdering the unborn as just being an event like choosing an item on the menu or it just being some lifestyle choice without granting the slightest consideration to the fact that they are promoting a heinous and sadistic operation that not only destroys a life but can and does totally destroy the female who undertakes that action..Here..Here and Here..

significant abortion risks:
  • Breast cancer
  • : This is considered as major risk in abortion. About 50% of women are affected by this type of cancer after abortion.
  • Premature delivery:
  •  When you go through one or more induced abortion surgeries, there is a significantly increased risk of premature delivery in future. This kind of abortion risk is mainly associated with several complications like cerebral palsy, prematurity in brain, eye problems and several bowel diseases.
  • Infertility:
  •  This is a very rare case in the risks of abortion, where a woman might not get pregnancy in future.
  • Pelvic inflammatory diseases:
  •  This can be a life threatening risk for you after abortion, which can lead to infertility and ectopic pregnancy. About 5% of women suffer with pelvic inflammatory diseases.
Also this particular nasty side affect that is ignored as well..

Causes of Post-Abortion-Syndrome
The causes for this stress disorder are really quite simple. The thing that has made the very existence of Post-Abortion-Syndrome debatable is the fact that it often does not surface until many years after the abortion. It is very common for a woman to say that she is fine about the whole thing, but later in live she finds herself engulfed in feelings of guilt, confusion, and exploitation. The reason for the surfacing anxiety is partly a mystery, but is often associated with the birth of a wanted child, or during unrelated counseling. (Gentles 1990, 85-86) The very interesting phenomenon about this dis-order is that the synptoms seem repressible, at least for a time. Clinical research has shown that when women are in trusting sharing relationships they report deep seated feelings of guilt, anxiety, depression, loss, anger, and exploitation over their abortion experience. The causes for the dis-order surfacing seems to be in many ways, time itself. (Allied Action Inc. 1996, 1).

Mike Adams
Mike Adams  
Poverty, Rape and Abortion

Author’s Note: Every summer at Summit Ministries ( I give a speech meant to equip young pro-life students with proper rebuttals to pro-abortion choice arguments. I have been asked to reprint the speech in my column (in condensed form). I am doing so in two parts. The first part can be accessed by clicking on this link. I hope you find this – the second of two installments – both beneficial and informative.Whenever I find myself in an extended argument about abortion I find that there are about six arguments I can expect to encounter before the argument has come to term, so to speak. But, fortunately, the six arguments all suffer from one fatal flaw, which makes them somewhat easy to rebut as long as the proponent of life stays focused on the central moral question of the abortion debate, which is “Are the unborn human?” I’ve dealt with four of the six arguments in the first installment of this series. I deal with arguments five and six below.
Argument #5: “It is wrong for a woman to be forced to give birth to a baby she cannot afford.”This argument is also remarkably calloused – so much so that it is difficult to understand how those who make it could describe themselves as “liberal.” Do we really need to start reassigning Jonathan Swift’sModest Proposal to understand how profoundly sick and distasteful this argument really is? Swift wrote (satirically, of course) a proposal that suggested people eat their babies in order to relieve hunger and poverty. Pro-abortion choice arguments often sound chillingly similar.
For those who have never read Swift, I like to use a more contemporary example. In the 80s, a punk rock band calling themselves “The Dead Kennedys” wrote a song called “Kill the Poor” in which they mockingly suggested that we kill poor people as a means of eliminating poverty. That would certainly eliminate poverty. But is that really an acceptable solution? Of course, it isn’t. That was their point.
Make sure to confront abortion choice advocates with the question of whether it is permissible to kill to eliminate poverty. When you do, they will say something like this: “No, I would never advocate killing the poor. I would advocate abortion to prevent them from becoming poor people in the first place.” They are trapped once again in the untenable position of denying the personhood of the unborn. (Please review argument #1 from the first installment in this series).
2. “Back alley abortions will increase if abortion is illegal.” This argument simply assumes, like the first, that the unborn are not persons. If they were not then the abortion choice advocate would be in the awkward position of arguing that someone has a right to commit murder in a safe and sterile environment. This hardly survives the straight-face test. But if, for some reason, your opponent can’t see its absurdity tell him the following: I’m planning to rob the Wells Fargo Bank across the street but there is fungus all over the sidewalk. I’m afraid I might slip and fall during my escape. Could you call them and tell them to power-wash the sidewalk some time before I commit the robbery? And hurry up. I need the cash!
They may try to lie at this point and say that when abortion was illegal 10,000 women died per year using coat-hangers on themselves in back alleys. But those numbers are both false and irrelevant. Within a few years after abortion rights were constitutionalized the number of annual abortions went up at least six fold – and that is a very conservative estimate. That means over a million more babies were killed per year within just a few years after Roe v. Wade (compared with pre-Roe numbers). The fact that they were killed in a sterile, well-lighted environment did not make them any less dead. Please review argument #1.
3. “It is wrong to force a woman to bring an unwanted baby into the world.” Put simply, there is no such thing as an “unwanted baby.” If a baby is unwanted by its mother there is always, and I mean always, someone else who would want to adopt the baby. People cannot easily adopt in the country because so many children are unnecessarily aborted. But there is something even more sick and twisted about the “unwanted baby” excuse; namely that it insinuates that abortion prevents child abuse. But we have already established that abortion is child abuse. Please review argument #1 before reading further.
The very idea that we would murder children to prevent child abuse, which usually takes the form of simple battery, elevates intellectual laziness to a Zen art. It is the intellectual equivalent of promoting arson in order to prevent burglary. It is true that burglary will go down when we burn down everyone’s house but by now you get the point. And hopefully the pro-abortion choice advocate gets the point, too.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that abortion has not been an effective means of stopping child abuse (even if we exclude abortions). In 1973, there were 167,000 reported instances of child abuse. By 1982, reported instances of child abuse rose to 929,000. That is an increase of over 500 percent in less than a decade. When will so-called liberals take responsibility for this unmitigated disaster?
4. “It is wrong for a woman to be forced to bring a handicapped baby into the world.” It is frequently suggested that abortion is morally permissible when doctors discover, prior to birth, that a baby suffers from certain physical handicaps – such as Down’s syndrome or cerebral palsy. My response usually goes something like this:
“I agree that there are far too many handicapped people in the world. Every summer I take busloads of people who are wheelchair-bound on a trip to the Grand Canyon. We enjoy the view for a few minutes before I roll them off the edge of the Canyon. They are usually dead long before they hit the bottom. That is a good thing for them and for society as a whole. It is better to be dead than to be handicapped. Their lives are not worth living whether they realize it or not”
This provokes a strong reaction – as it should. After all, I am accusing the abortion choice advocate of gross insensitivity. That is usually when they argue that they are not killing a handicapped person but rather preventing a handicapped person from ever being born. Please review argument #1. Your opponent is trapped once again.
The last time I gave this speech at Summit Ministries a handsome, intelligent, and athletic 6’2 African American student approached me and said the following: “I was misdiagnosed with cerebral palsy before I was born. The doctors were wrong. I am so glad my mother had me. Thank you for your speech.”
To be continued …