When Does Life Begin?

most pregnancy crisis centers are created by prolife christians. they are for the purpose of discouraging abortion, and helping the mother find another alternative. some even help financially........
go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pregnancy_center

there is one in our local area that i support which gives options, counseling, pays medical bills and helps mothers with money issues. There are a few funded through Liberty University(christian school) L&J Home and Godparent Home. To say that most orgs are prochoice or that the christian ones don't help the mother is grossly innacurate.

kate, At least be honest and post the negatives in that same Wikipedia article:

Criticism
Crisis pregnancy centers are the subject of intense criticism, with allegations that CPCs are deliberately ambiguous in their descriptions of their services, and that CPCs provide false or misleading information about abortion to women who enter the premises.

On March 30, 2006, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced a bill called the "Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act", which aims to hold crisis pregnancy centers up to truth in advertising standards. [4]

On July 17, 2006, a Congressional investigative report was released by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), ranking member of the House Government Reform Committee. The report, titled False and Misleading Health Information Provided by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers states that CPCs in 15 states that received federal tax dollars misled or provided false information to investigators who called posing as pregnant 17-year-olds seeking advice about an unintended pregnancy.[5][6]

Critics charge that CPCs portray themselves as "medical facilities" when they do not have professional licensing from local or state health departments. Without licenses, these centers cannot provide well-woman exams, prenatal care or medical treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, nor can they provide prescriptions or refills for contraceptives. Critics claim that the only purpose of these centers is to discourage women from choosing abortion.

Some people have no shame.

i just gave that link to show that most centers are christian, in responce to stereo's question. to accuse me of having no shame is ridiculous. it seems when you have really nothing you resort to insults or accusations. the bit you pasted doesn't include studies of all centers nor of all states. It was a study done on only 23 centers that receive govt funding. There are thousands all throughout the USA, so to even try and say this represents the majority is wrong. Most christian centers, that i know of are upfront about not being a medical clinic and will give referrals for medical treatment.

Why? Jesus didn't mention it. The bible makes it clear that a foetus is worth exactly what the father demands in compensation for it's forced removal.

No, you got it all wrong. If you're willing to post something from any source, at least be honest enough to include the negatives in it. Otherwise, you're showing only part of the article that "seems" to support your position. Do you understand anything about ethics?

i was responding to tko and stereo. i was stating that most crisis centers are non profit christian organizations that do help the mother. i only cited winkipedia to show that. its ridiculous to say im shameless and unethical bc i didn't cite the criticism of 20 govt funded centers. there are thousands of non profit christian centers that help the mother financially, help provide other solutions and do not mislead about medical issues. anyone wanting to look up criticism on these centers can, but that wasn't what the convo was about. nor is the bit you pasted an accurate or even note worthy portrayal of all the centers. get some unbiased accurate info that shows more than the one percent of abuse allegedly done by centers.

kat wrote: "...most pregnancy crisis centers are created by prolife christians. they are for the purpose of discouraging abortion, and helping the mother find another alternative. some even help financially........"

Followed by: "...that study you cited only shows allegations against 20 out of 23 govt funded centers. that would be less than one percent."

First off, 20 out of 23 is not less than one percent, it's closer to 87 percent. Secondly, that was a Congressional investigative report. You wrote, "they are for the purpose of discouraging abortion," but one of the major complaints was "CPCs in 15 states that received federal tax dollars misled or provided false information to investigators who called posing as pregnant 17-year-olds seeking advice about an unintended pregnancy.

You seem completely immune to these serious charges, but instead try to defend your weak position. Shame on you!

And finally, the last paragraph which reads:
Critics charge that CPCs portray themselves as "medical facilities" when they do not have professional licensing from local or state health departments. Without licenses, these centers cannot provide well-woman exams, prenatal care or medical treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, nor can they provide prescriptions or refills for contraceptives. Critics claim that the only purpose of these centers is to discourage women from choosing abortion.

How can you even defend these frauds perpetrated against young women?

If you think you represent anything close to being "prolife," you haven't learned anything in life.

ci i dont think you read the cite correctly..go back and read it again and lets see if you can debate without using insults....

For this report, female investigators
telephoned the 25 pregnancy resource
centers that have received grants from the
Compassion Capital Fund, requesting
information and advice regarding an
unintended pregnancy. Twenty-three of the
centers were successfully contacted. In each
call, the investigator posed as a pregnant 17-
year-old trying to decide whether to have an
abortion.
During the investigation, 20 of the 23
centers (87%) provided false or misleading
information about the health effects of
abortion

Kate - You provided the link.

Regaurdless of your stance, my stance, wouldn't you agree that wherever a woman seeks information, she should be abe to recieve unbiased objective consultation and be given consultation as defined acceptable in the medical community.

Don't ou tink that the place she goes to should be outside of encouraging or discouraging abortion?

for sake of giving you the benifit of the doubt, I'm sure you see these centers as being the answer in many ways; as to say that they give the consultation needed. However, from what I've read, they would be unable to provide any sort of unbiased objective information to a pregnant woman.

You wrote: "...that study you cited only shows allegations against 20 out of 23 govt funded centers. that would be less than one percent."

Show your statement to anybody with any level of reading skills, and they'll tell you 20 out of 23 is not "less than one percent."

I think CI understands pretty clearly.

tko so since i didnt give info that i didnt even look for on less than one percent of all the thousands of christian orgs, im being misleading or dishonest? that is silly. the topic wasnt on abuse of centers ,nor have i seen any data that shows that a majority of these centers are misleading. i will say one more time, that study was on 25 centers getting govt money and of those 25, 20 were misleading. while that is 87 percent of the 25 in total, that is still less than one percent of the thousands in usa. You guys are grasping at straws if you are trying to use a study on one percent of all centers to further your points.

Statistics (as a science) says that a statistic is good if it's sample is good.

Even if there are 1000 centers in the united states, the sample given suggests that 87% +/- some standard deviation will also give false information.

It would only be the 1% ou are refering to if the 20 centers that gave bad info were the ONLY centers out of the full 1000, etc.

This is what statistics is.

I don't think you aimed to be misleading, but I also don't think that enough time was taken to find a good example. the one you have provided only further suppors that these centers are not good places.

Honestly, I'm ethically driven to say that these places are fine to exist, but if they aren't offering objective accurate information, then they should not be getting government money.

Here's a recent article on CPCs:

Nation/World > associated press: nation
States React to Crisis Pregnancy Centers
By JULIA SILVERMANAssociated Press Writer
Originally published May 9, 2007, 7:23 AM EDT
ASTORIA, Ore. // Ninety miles and a mountain range away from the nearest abortion provider, pregnant women stream into a tidy storefront here where they receive free pregnancy tests, baby clothes, diapers and warnings about the alleged dangers of abortion.

At similar pregnancy resource centers in small towns and big cities nationwide, volunteers who believe abortion is murder advise women that the procedure has been linked to breast cancer and infertility.

Some states, like Oregon and New York, are trying to increase oversight of the crisis pregnancy centers out of concern that the information they provide about abortion may be biased or simply wrong.

"When women enter CPCs, they are walking into a trap," said Ikeita Cantu Hinojosa, Planned Parenthood's assistant director of government relations. "They are expecting to receive neutral, comprehensive medical care, but they're greeted with manipulation, designed to coerce and scare them."

The centers say states have no right to interfere in their efforts to encourage alternatives to abortion. Public money helps them carry out their goals.

Millions of dollars from the Bush administration's "abstinence-only" effort goes to the centers. Many recipients have bought ultrasound equipment that lets expectant mothers see the earliest stages of fetal development.

Minnesota earmarks nearly $2.5 million a year for the centers, Louisiana set aside $1 million in 2006 and Pennsylvania requires that all state family planning money be matched by equal funding for groups offering abortion alternatives.

Missouri's governor, Republican Matt Blunt, signed a bill last year to allow donors to crisis pregnancy centers to get a tax break. North Dakota lawmakers recently voted overwhelmingly to allocate $200,000 per year to the centers.

"This is telling someone that they do have a choice, that here are the positives of childbirth," said Democratic North Dakota State Sen. Aaron Krauter, who sponsored the bill. "The emphasis is in the counties with the largest number of abortions, so we can provide information through county social services and campus newsletters that there are alternatives to abortion services available."

Abortion rights groups have received cool receptions in states where they have pressed for legislation to monitor crisis pregnancy centers, regulate the information they provide, and require tighter oversight and disclosure from centers that offer free ultrasounds.

Bills in West Virginia were left to die when the state's Legislature adjourned in March, and sponsors of the proposals aren't optimistic in Texas, where bills would have required the centers to post notification that they are not licensed medical providers.

A New York bill would require centers to disclose that their pregnancy tests are available over-the-counter, among other provisions. The bill's backers say it will likely get bottled up in the Republican-controlled state Senate.

Oregon Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown, a Portland Democrat listed as one of the sponsors of a bill focused on the centers, said the issue is unfamiliar to many lawmakers. Democrats from more conservative districts say they've been under heavy pressure to vote against it, Brown said.

"I think there are a number of solutions, including administrative, executive solutions," if a bill can't get through the Legislature this session, she said. "But I think women have a right to know what kind of services they are receiving."

Crisis pregnancy centers say states should not get involved.

"The state should not be in a position to put pressure on one industry's competitor," said Diane Fell, the executive director of Astoria's Door of Hope. "We are competitors for Planned Parenthood. It's like Coke saying to Pepsi, 'You can't be on my block, go away.'"

Posters of fetal development dot the walls at Door of Hope, and brochures on adoption and counseling for women who have had abortions are fanned out on tables.

Pregnant woman are told the center won't make abortion referrals. If they press further about abortion, Fell presents them a brochure published by Care Net, the country's largest Christian pregnancy center network.

The pamphlet includes graphic descriptions of the procedure and advises that risks linked to abortion include damage to internal organs and infection. It also says, "Most studies conducted so far show a significant linkage between abortion and breast cancer."


That conflicts with the findings of the nonpartisan National Cancer Institute, which has concluded that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer."

The proposed Oregon legislation would require the state Health Department to collect data on any state funding going to crisis pregnancy centers, whether the centers observe medical privacy rules and if "intentionally misleading or medically and factually inaccurate information is given to clients at alternative-to-abortion organizations."

Fell resents the last part of the proposal.

"The health department refers clients to us," she said. "And so does the hospital. If we were threatening, they wouldn't refer to us."

ci your not accurately pasting all i wrote


ok last time......for tko and ci.....i was stating that the cite only offers stats on about one percent of all the thousands of centers. research was done on only 23 centers, and out of that EIGHTY SEVEN PERCENT of 23 were shown to be misleading. simple math shows that 87 percent of 23 centers would be about 1 percent of thousands of centers.

but more complex math as I outlined in my last post would say that 87 is probably pretty accurate, especially for a discrete sample (pass/fail; booleen)

kate, You're still missing the point; those thousands of CPCs use wrong information to scare young women into thinking they will get cancer by having an abortion. That's contrary to the National Cancer Institute.

Lies are lies, and they are not ethical ways to change people's mind to your way of thinking. That's a sin, and your god would not approve.

tko the study was done on centers that receive govt funding. there are only 25 centers that receive funding, according to that study. so those that receive funding arent even under the category as the thousands that don't receive funding.


i agree but that wasn't what i was talking about to begin with.