No, she is free to be selfish. I just don't like people using the excuse that the baby is "unwanted". Also, there is no "may" about it. She could find a loving home if she wanted to.
There are also open adoptions where the mother can choose the parents, parent. I think it's a little riskier though, especially for the adoptive parents.
I can see how someone would come to the conclusion that their main agenda is abortion particularly given its history, but the fact that they spend the majority of their time on prevention and other services does not lead me to make that conclusion
then you are looking at a false metric. the way to determine an organizations guiding "reason for being" isn't to look at what they do on a percent or daily basis (for example, the Marine Corps spends more money on personnel than on Tanks or Bullets; but the Marine Corps is not a jobs program), but rather to look at what makes them unique. Planned Parenthood is unique in the number of abortions it provides and the access it provides to them. The PP fight wasn't a fight of Republicans-want-to-defund-subsidized-pap-smears, it was a fight over government subsidization of abortion. both sides knew it, but the "3%" thing (which is false) became a talking point. Had Republicans offered to instead shift the exact same money to (say) a hospital chain with ties to the Catholic Church, which would provide all of the exact same services except[/i] for abortion, would Democrats have gone for that? no.
PP is a business, and in particular it is in the business of abortion, of which it is the largest provider - that is their uniqueness that defines them apart from the other myriad doctors offices at which you can get pap smears or drugstores at which you can purchase condoms. End this Corporate Welfare.
then you are looking at a false metric. the way to determine an organizations guiding "reason for being" isn't to look at what they do on a percent or daily basis (for example, the Marine Corps spends more money on personnel than on Tanks or Bullets; but the Marine Corps is not a jobs program), but rather to look at what makes them unique. Planned Parenthood is unique in the number of abortions it provides and the access it provides to them. The PP fight wasn't a fight of Republicans-want-to-defund-subsidized-pap-smears, it was a fight over government subsidization of abortion. both sides knew it, but the "3%" thing (which is false) became a talking point. Had Republicans offered to instead shift the exact same money to (say) a hospital chain with ties to the Catholic Church, which would provide all of the exact same services except[/i] for abortion, would Democrats have gone for that? no.
PP is a business, and in particular it is in the business of abortion, of which it is the largest provider - that is their uniqueness that defines them apart from the other myriad doctors offices at which you can get pap smears or drugstores at which you can purchase condoms. End this Corporate Welfare.
Planned Parenthood’s bottom line is numbers. And, with abortion as its primary money-maker, that means implementing a quota. I know this is true because I worked at one of their Texas clinics for 8 years, two as the clinic director.
Though 98 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services to pregnant women are abortion, Planned Parenthood and its political allies have sworn up and down that taxpayer dollars do not to pay for abortion. But of course they do. Planned Parenthood gets one-third of its entire budget from taxpayer funding and performed more than 650,000 abortions between 2008 and 2009. An abortion is expensive. Its cost includes pay for the doctor, supporting medical staff, their health benefits packages and malpractice insurance. As clinic director, I saw how money affiliate clinics receive from several sources is combined into one pot, not set aside for specific services.
Planned Parenthood’s claim that abortions make up just 3 percent of its services is also a gimmick. That number is actually closer to 12 percent, but strategically skewed by unbundling family planning services so that each patient shows anywhere from five to 20 “visits” per appointment (i.e., 12 packs of birth control equals 12 visits) and doing the opposite with abortion visits, bundling them together so that each appointment equals one visit. The resulting difference between family planning and abortion “visits” is striking...
As a Planned Parenthood clinic manager, I was directed to double the number of abortions our clinic performed in order to drive up revenue. In keeping, Planned Parenthood headquarters recently issued a directive mandating that all of its affiliates provide abortions by 2013...
i posted this as it's own thread; but it deserves mention here, as it answers your claim that PP doesn't push abortions, but are rather pulled into them.
and so forth
yes. they are "about" abortion.
CP, you really accept crazy **** too easily. I know you want to believe it, so you'll take one person who says what you want said and pretend that speaks for everyone everywhere. It doesn't work that and never will. And this isn't the first time you've made this error in reasoning.
So now "the Hill" is crazy ****? give me a break....Does anyone else see through this?
j-mac
J, what is in the article is crazy ****. And yes, it is. Notice you question nothing said in the article despite a lack of support in it. Yes, j, it is crazy **** and you and CP accept it far too easily.
But if you post something that gives no support for accusations made within, we are supposed to just accept it because it came from you....pfft. Good God man, get a clue.
j-mac
No, I disagree. That they provide the highest number of abortions says more about the people they serve (poor women) and the size of their business (they are the largest family planning center in the country with over 820 centers) then it does about their intention. PP is a business - they provide a product that their customers demand. You have to ask, "why do their customers demand abortion in such high levels"? 1) Because poorer women have a higher % of unintended pregnancies. 2) Because PP is the place to go for sexual health services including abortion in low-income neighborhoods. (Wealthy/middle class women will likely go to their actual doctor for such services.)
Neither of these conditions requires that the intention of PP is to provide abortion - they show that their customers demand abortion and that they have more customers than everybody else - since they are the largest family planning provider in the country.
Poor women are not the highest number of abortees.....
National Abortion Federation: Women Who Have Abortions57 percent of women obtaining abortions in 2000 were low-income
Well, wasn't that Sanger's vision? Get rid of the "undesirables"?
j-mac
Yes it was. Wasn't that the United States' vision? Get rid of the "savages". Look we both made irrelevant comments.
Sanger is irrelevant? She was the founder of PP......
j-mac
Sanger is irrelevant? She was the founder of PP......
j-mac
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?