Over the years, I’ve conversed with the most extreme and immoral antilifers on the planet, those in whom no shred of human decency exists. They’re found all over the web on various sites, but a treasure trove of these loons are right here on WordPress. So I’ve decided to pick one every so often as an example of everything wrong with society.
Our first one is Crystal Shepard, a self-proclaimed “military brat” from California. She’s upset with pro-life Iowans for rejecting video conference abortions.
Iowa Anti-Choice Ignores Facts Because They Don’t Feel Right
For the past five years, doctors have been using a video conference system to consult with women in clinics across Iowa for chemically induced abortions. Women are examined in the clinic by trained staff, which includes administering all necessary tests and sonograms. The doctor then consults with the woman in-depth via video and reviews the results of the tests and procedures performed in the clinic. If the doctor determines the woman qualifies (the medication can only be used during the first nine weeks of pregnancy), he enters a code from where he is at, which opens a drawer in the exam room that contains the bottle of RU-486 pills. The woman then retrieves the bottle and takes the first pill while the doctor watches. She then takes the remaining two doses at home, where she will experience what amounts to an induced miscarriage. She follows up with an in-person visit at the clinic in 12-14 days, also speaking with the doctor again via video conference if necessary.
It appears Ms. Shepard is more concerned with access to abortion than the safety of women undergoing abortion. Is there another reason to support a procedure that reduces the standard of care these women receive?
Mifepristone (RU486) is hardly equivalent to a Benadryl tablet. One potential side effect of the abortifacient is heavy and prolonged bleeding that requires a surgical procedure to stop it, a fact particularly troubling to women in rural Iowa that may live several minutes from a facility with surgical capabilities. So to give them this medicine without a proper exam by a licensed physician is simply ludicrous.
Furthermore, 2006 statistics from the Food and Drug Administration show that over 1,000 women in the United States alone have died or were otherwise injured as a direct result of this medication. And yet this medication is given without a proper medical exam? Nonsense.
It should be noted that the abortion industry is suffering a staggering decline in medical professionals willing to butcher unborn children. In fact, the Guttmacher Institute – the research arm of Planned Parenthood – estimates that 87% of U.S. counties lack such a professional, thus threatening the livelihood of the industry.
So what better way to maintain the status quo than webcam abortions? Disgusting.
Sifting Reality 
What do facts matter to pro-aborts? Or any liberal, for that matter.
How counterintuitive is it that abortion activists claim abortion laws need to be lax to ensure safety, yet any time a law is proposed to enhance safety: sonograms, requiring the same sanitary standards as other medical facilities, requiring their ‘doctors’ are in good standing with area hospitals, and now that the doctor has to actually examine the mother the activists go into a panic!
“How dare you try to make abortion safer! These laws make abortion safer which makes it less safe… or something”
Having a doctor in the same room as the patient is not any safer then by webcam. Most doctors do not have admitting privileges at hospitals. When they need to send a patient they are admitted by a hospitalist. You can learn more about hospitalists at http://thehappyhospitalist.blogspot.com/
Also, doctors are not needed for non-surgical abortions as demonstrated by California, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-27/california-senate-bill-allows-nurses-to-perform-abortions.html
Jeffery Kraus,
Much of your comment lacks relevance, I hope you realize.
Anyway. It’s not possible to conduct a thorough examination without laying your hands on the patient – and any insinuation to the contrary is the result of utter stupidity. I’ve worked in the medical field for many years.
And are you suggesting that webcam abortions are safe because California allows them? Ugh.
Lastly, you’re a psychopath. You believe parents should be able to kill newborns, so how much weight do you honestly believe your comments hold? None. You’re a psychopath who should have been banned from this blog a long time ago.
psychopath
noun madman, lunatic, maniac, psychotic, nutter (Brit. slang), basket case (slang), nutcase (slang), sociopath, headcase (informal), mental case (slang), headbanger (informal), insane person She was abducted by a dangerous psychopath.
a person afflicted with a personality disorder characterized by a tendency to commit antisocial and sometimes violent acts and a failure to feel guilt for such acts Also called sociopath
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-do-you-know-if-youre-a-psychopath-2013-2?op=1
Mmm.. Terrance,
I thought you might appreciate a definition of “psychopath,” as well as a little intriguing test that you can take to see if you are an actual psychopath/sociopath, or if Jeff is, or even if John or Glenn is. (chuckle)
Interestingly enough, I think it’s kind of funny that in order to be a psychopath in your book, one must only disagree heartily with you on a particular issue and bingo! ;)
TheWarrioress,
So it’s perfectly normal to think infanticide should be legal? It’s perfectly normal to advocate the slaughter of three-month-old children, as Jeffery Kraus has many times in the past? Such beliefs are not indicative of a psychopath in your mind? We’re talking about BORN children, by the way. Jeffery believes parents should be allowed to kill them LEGALLY!
I don’t think everyone who disagrees with me is a psychopath. You disagree with me all the time. I don’t think you’re a psychopath; I think you’re an idiot. Difference.
I don’t have a clue what Jeffery Kraus thinks but I do know you, through your many comments and posts on this blog. You are dishonest and twist and maim everything the opposition says in order to create hyperbole of the worst kind; I’ve seen you do this very thing to me and what I write comment-wise. If you think someone is a psychopath, they are probably quite normal.
TheWarrioress,
In no sense am I dishonest. You’re still stuck on being called a hypocrite for your anti-life views. You plainly stated support for abortion in cases of rape, were rightly labeled a hypocrite, and you can’t let it go. You were caught. You were bested. You were shown to be a lying leftist and nothing more.
Attempt to open that narrow mind just a crack, if you will, Terrance.
I do not support abortion. I only support abortion when the mother’s life is at risk, or in cases of risk or incest when a CHILD is expected to give birth to a child. Were a twelve year old raped by her own father or a stranger, I would not expect to force that child to deliver a child. I would expect she would be given the morning after pill immediately and that this would be the end of it.
You have a problem, Terrance. It’s something that is recognized widely in the mental disorder known as Borderline Personality Disorder. You view things in only black and white. Your thinking is that things are either all good or all evil. You don’t allow for shades of gray or potential exceptions to a rule, (at least you come off like this anyway, the majority of the time). That is impaired thinking. Work on recognizing when you do it and at least you can attempt to fake it until you make it on stopping that nagging little flaw in your character. Or stay as you are and continue disordered thinking and projecting that disordered thinking onto others.
TheWarrioress,
I’m narrow-minded? You frequently come to this blog and lump all conservatives in with the likes of Pat Robertson. Has there been a time in recent history you haven’t tried to paint all conservatives with the same brush?
Please stop lying. Do I have to link to the exact post in which you said you support abortion in cases of rape? You plainly stated that you do – and you certainly didn’t limit it to raped 12-year-olds.
Regardless, a person’s humanity is not subject to review. It is not dependent on the father’s criminal record. It is unfortunate that rape occurs and that sometimes (rarely) results in pregnancy, but that is the fault of the criminal, not the unborn child.
LOL. And please take your psychobabble nonsense somewhere else. Nobody on this blog is as open-minded as me. I disagree with John, Marshal Art, Glenn, and every other conservative on this blog almost weekly. In fact, Glenn and I are having a pretty heated discussion right now in another post. I look at issues objectively. You don’t. You reject out of hand anything even remotely “rightwing,” “conservative,” or “Republican.”
I would also add that it might benefit you to brush up on your understanding of BPD. It is not characterized by black and white thinking; it characterized by an inability to regulate emotions. For example, most people would be mildly annoyed if their friend promised to pick them up at 8 but didn’t show up until 9. People with BPD, however, could be enraged or severely hurt. They are emotionally unstable, impulsive, and oftentimes suicidal. But if black and white thinking were the only requirement, you would have been diagnosed long ago.
Lastly, abortion is a black and white issue. We shouldn’t kill people. Not for convenience sake, not for the crimes of their parents, not for any reason, save self-defense. Why shouldn’t that be a black and white issue? Killing is wrong. It is immoral. There are no nuances.