Planned Parenthood is evil[W:1642]

[Lursa]

I knew quite a few workers in PP. The office building my father owned & managed had a PP facility and I worked in my dad's office on college breaks/summers and knew everyone in the building.

The view in the OP article is nothing like the PP workers and philosophy and discussions I saw and participated in. It did mostly counseling and recommending birth control. They didnt do abortions and that was not a focus of the facility at all.

This is in an urban/suburban area of N. New Jersey.

 

[sneakosview]

That doesn't make it right.

Are you familiar the prison systems around the country? Your tax money is in part spent to pay for these institutions which house people who willfully and knowingly break the law which involves very violent behaviors against other people. Yet you focus on people's sexual behaviors being so important to you.

Sexual behaviors for the most part aren't violent. If we could know what the actual count of sexual act per day is - compared with the number of violent crime committed, I bet sexual acts win out hands down and 99.9999999% don't impact you at all. Crimes on the other hand usually cost us all in one way or another. And also they are so far beyond any person or institution's ability to control. Oh, and rape...isn't a sex act, it's an act of brutal violence.

I can spend eons of finger energy writing about things that your tax money goes for which you probably don't approve that doesn't related to sexual behaviors that cost you a lot more.

My question to you is "whata gonna do about it"?

The cost of abortions to you as a taxpayer is probably less than a penny. I can think of so many things politicians do to hoodwink you out of your money, which should be more of a concern.

But in this country, you'll always be paying for something you don't want to pay for, and are completely powerless to stop.

 

[1750Texan]

You won't be rolling your eyes come Judgment Day. Your little abortion party will be over and there will literally be Hell to pay for those who butcher the innocent unborn.. And denial isn't going to help you.

So if Ocean007 did not participate in or have an abortion...will he be judged for not opposing abortions?


Logic:
sensible argument and thought: sensible rational thought and argument rather than ideas that are influenced by emotion or whim

 

[Cable]

This mindset has ruled most of human history, and still rules the majority of developed and peaceful nations. America just happens to have a uniquely large contingent of authoritarian control freaks who are scared of women having control of their own lives.

Your argument has no merit. You don't know how I personally treat women, but if you did, it would be nothing like you obviously would expect.
The slave owners felt about slaves the same way you do about unborn children. They aren't real people. Fortunately we had people like Dr. King to lead us to the right conclusions.
Funny, have you ever noticed how little liberals have to say in support of him these days? Christian man that he was.
But to the point, all civilizations eventually start to decline. But it is a cultural issue. There was a time when abortion, pregnancy outside of marriage, and similar things were frowned upon.
No longer, and the family unit continues to disintegrate.

Thanks progressives, for giving us the moral freedom to destroy our culture.
It would be interesting to hear from a liberal what the actual unicorn utopia is expected to look like.
From my perspective it is looking a lot like the failing Roman empire.

 

[JayDubya]

So it isn't just about the evils of being raped and getting pregnant, or concerns about ones health. The law is that you can just decide whether you want the child or not.
I knew a girl in high school who had 4 abortions before she graduated. Obviously PP failed her. 4 Visits and she still couldn't figure out how not to get pregnant.

Very common. That psycho had no respect for human rights and she was free to kill again... and again... and again... and abortion statistics don't do a good job accounting for recidivism. They're not one and done... killing another human being in cold blood is a moral event horizon. Once you cross it, there's little chance of coming back.

She was a serial killer with a predictable MO.

If she had been locked up in the first place, she couldn't have hurt anyone else.

 

[JayDubya]

As the Bible says, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil." There's a whole bunch of us who are Christians

While I no longer claim any affiliation with nor any faith in Christianity, your perversion of it into a death cult is still obvious and still sickening. You call innocent children "human garbage from Satan" based upon the actions of their fathers... yet I recall that book said something pretty explicit about such business. And thanks to Google, it's easy to find:

"The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

Your version of Jehovah isn't even in line with the aspects of "Him" in the Bible I found most out of bounds with any concept of goodness... making a vainglorious bet and allowing Job (and especially his family) to be maliciously harmed, flooding the world, raining fiery death on the Sodomites, turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for the crime of looking back at that horror... while at his worst, the Old Testament "God" could be a bully and a tyrant, your "God" is literally a god of assassination and death.

As sure as anything, that is "calling evil good."

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Your argument has no merit. You don't know how I personally treat women, but if you did, it would be nothing like you obviously would expect.
The slave owners felt about slaves the same way you do about unborn children. They aren't real people. Fortunately we had people like Dr. King to lead us to the right conclusions.
Funny, have you ever noticed how little liberals have to say in support of him these days? Christian man that he was.
But to the point, all civilizations eventually start to decline. But it is a cultural issue. There was a time when abortion, pregnancy outside of marriage, and similar things were frowned upon.
No longer, and the family unit continues to disintegrate.

Thanks progressives, for giving us the moral freedom to destroy our culture.
It would be interesting to hear from a liberal what the actual unicorn utopia is expected to look like.
From my perspective it is looking a lot like the failing Roman empire.

Uh, actually it does. If the argument is that my stance causes "the degradation of society," pointing out that this stance has reigned consistently since prehistory while society perpetually improved... kind of settles it. But anyway...

As far as I know, before becoming slaves, those people were on a different continent minding their own business. The ZEF, meanwhile, is damaging the woman's body from inside, to the extent of even disabling her immune system and depleting her bones. Rather different thing, to my mind.

Whooptie-do. Another control freak who, ironically, uses the same argument to defend his disregard for women as secret racists use to defend their racism: "But I'm not racist sexist! Look at all my black friends all the women in my life!" Whatever.

 

[Ocean007]

Um... no, it wasn't. Some of the medieval debates of the time were the genesis of later laws that would outlaw it sweepingly, but there were only a few specific and isolated cases of attempting to prosecute it, and no broad laws as far as I know. Some religious officials generally discouraged it, as it was a sign of lacking proper submissiveness to a husband (of course), but they were well aware there was no way to enforce or prove it, so they didn't bother coding it. Some other religious officials believed abortion was acceptable until "quickening."

Exactly. This kind of anti-choice nonsense is almost as ridiculous as the claim of anti-suffragists during the 19th and early 20th century that "women don't want to vote." :roll:

 

[Ocean007]

This mindset has ruled most of human history, and still rules the majority of developed and peaceful nations. America just happens to have a uniquely large contingent of authoritarian control freaks who are scared of women having control of their own lives.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. It's amazing -- not to mention appalling -- that the majority of those authoritarian control freaks are MEN. Although sadly, many women have also bought into that mentality.

 

[Ocean007]

Nonsense.

Um...NO, it's not nonsense at all. Most women who have had an abortion DO feel relief that the option was available to them. Whether YOU consider it "nonsense" or not is irrelevant.

 

[minnie616]

...
But to the point, all civilizations eventually start to decline. But it is a cultural issue. There was a time when abortion, pregnancy outside of marriage, and similar things were frowned upon.
No longer, and the family unit continues to disintegrate.

Thanks progressives, for giving us the moral freedom to destroy our culture.
It would be interesting to hear from a liberal what the actual unicorn utopia is expected to look like.
From my perspective it is looking a lot like the failing Roman empire.

Actually keeping abortion legal (within the parameters of Roe vs Wade ) and making it even more accessible to those who seek it plus taking away the stigma of abortions may help The USA regain more stable two parent families.
Marriage is usually delayed in today's world unlike in the not so distant past.
Many young people are going to college or focusing on careers before even thinking about children or marriage.
Since the sex drive is very strong in the teens and twenty's and abstinence is unrealistic , and most birth control is not goof proof unwanted pregnancies might happen which means the girl/ woman has one of two choices; have an abortion or have a baby.

Women who become single moms usually stay single moms and many end up on welfare.
Those who have abortions and delay motherhood may very well get married later and start families.

We have to be realistic and know that is what happens.

If we want the future generations to have two parent families we have to understand that sometimes some of those girls/ women just might have had an early before they married and raised a family.

The pro life movement may have played a major role in the increase of single moms.

Did the Pro-Life Movement Lead to More Single Moms?

As the co-authors of Red Families v. Blue Families, we often give talks about the recent rise in what’s called the “nonmarital birthrate,” or the idea that more than 40 percent of children are now born to women who aren’t married.
Sometimes at our talks someone will come up to us, confess his or her encounter with single parenthood, and say something like:
“When my daughter got pregnant and decided to keep the child, we were OK with that because we are Christians. When she decided not to marry the father, we were relieved because we knew he would be bad for her and the marriage would never work.”

They express these two beliefs—that they are Christian and thus uncomfortable with abortion and that they are relieved their daughter decided to raise the child alone—as if they are not connected.
But in fact this may be one of the stranger, more unexpected legacies of the pro-life movement that arose in the 40 years since Roe v. Wade:
In conservative communities, the hardening of anti-abortion attitudes may have increased the acceptance of single-parent families.

And by contrast, in less conservative communities, the willingness to accept abortion has helped create more stable families. [/B]

Read more:

Did the pro-life movement lead to more single moms?

As I have mentioned earlier, I feel that with the new virtually goof proof long term birth control , there will be fewer and fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

To me legal accesable early abortions and long term birth control is the hope for more stable two parent families in the future.

 

[Ocean007]

Many women do have their regrets.

True; SOME women have regrets. And other women have no regrets at all. They only regret GETTING pregnant in the first place.

Welcome to I’m Not Sorry · I'm Not Sorry . Net

 

[Ocean007]

Apply these same to the unborn child and see how it works out in your head. A woman can control her own body with no issues from me. It's when she decides to kill the unborn child's body within hers that the problem develops.

However YOU feel about a woman's getting an abortion for whatever reason(s), there's nothing YOU can personally do about it, at least not to personally stop that woman from obtaining it.

If it isn't YOUR pregnancy, meaning if YOU aren't the woman who is pregnant, it isn't your decision. Simple as that.

 

[Ocean007]

So it isn't just about the evils of being raped and getting pregnant, or concerns about ones health. The law is that you can just decide whether you want the child or not.

Yes, that's exactly it. I know it must burn anti-choice male conservatives that feel WOMEN can and do make sexual and reproductive decisions without a man's "permission." But we CAN make those decisions now, and you'll just have to accept it.

The days of the 19th and early 20th century, when men controlled whether women could be college educated, enter the trades and professions, and to VOTE, are, thankfully, long gone. I suggest you get used to it.

 

[Paleocon]

Um... no, it wasn't. Some of the medieval debates of the time were the genesis of later laws that would outlaw it sweepingly, but there were only a few specific and isolated cases of attempting to prosecute it, and no broad laws as far as I know. Some religious officials generally discouraged it, as it was a sign of lacking proper submissiveness to a husband (of course), but they were well aware there was no way to enforce or prove it, so they didn't bother coding it. Some other religious officials believed abortion was acceptable until "quickening."

:doh :doh :doh

Yes it was. If there was an absence of laws prohibiting it specifically in certain places that would have been because it was treated the same as other homicide. No significant number of religious officials believed that abortion was acceptable before quickening, the opinion you mention was that it was not murder before quickening, however it was still regarded by those holding the opinion you mention as being gravely wrong, as it was akin to contraception (which was itself illegal in much of medieval Europe).

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

:doh :doh :doh

Yes it was. If there was an absence of laws prohibiting it specifically in certain places that would have been because it was treated the same as other homicide. No significant number of religious officials believed that abortion was acceptable before quickening, the opinion you mention was that it was not murder before quickening, however it was still regarded by those holding the opinion you mention as being gravely wrong, as it was akin to contraception (which was itself illegal in much of medieval Europe).

Umm... No, it wasn't. In fact aspirin guides were quite common in medical literature at the time. This argument that it wasn't in the code because it just... wasn't? makes no sense.

But ok then. I mean, it doesn't matter to me -- it's not like medieval life is anything to aspire to on the whole. But you're just historically wrong.

 

[Paleocon]

Umm... No, it wasn't. In fact aspirin guides were quite common in medical literature at the time. This argument that it wasn't in the code because it just... wasn't? makes no sense.

But ok then. I mean, it doesn't matter to me -- it's not like medieval life is anything to aspire to on the whole. But you're just historically wrong.

Wasn't in what code?

 

[Paleocon]

Umm... No, it wasn't. In fact aspirin guides were quite common in medical literature at the time. This argument that it wasn't in the code because it just... wasn't? makes no sense.

But ok then. I mean, it doesn't matter to me -- it's not like medieval life is anything to aspire to on the whole. But you're just historically wrong.

If the code you're referring to is canon law, then duh. Canon law only concerns itself with crimes committed by or against clerics or religious, offenses against religion, and moral offenses which it deems prudentially ought to be punished by the canonical legal system. That a crime is not mentioned in canon law does not mean that it was not a civil crime.

 

[Logicman]

So if Ocean007 did not participate in or have an abortion...will he be judged for not opposing abortions?

I wouldn't think so, but that nevertheless invites evil.

The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to say and do nothing.

 

[Logicman]

Um...NO, it's not nonsense at all. Most women who have had an abortion DO feel relief that the option was available to them. Whether YOU consider it "nonsense" or not is irrelevant.

I'm not buying it. Any woman who has had an abortion and doesn't think about the 'what if's" of that baby, or the butchery of the act itself, needs to have her conscience checked.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

If the code you're referring to is canon law, then duh. Canon law only concerns itself with crimes committed by or against clerics or religious, offenses against religion, and moral offenses which it deems prudentially ought to be punished by the canonical legal system. That a crime is not mentioned in canon law does not mean that it was not a civil crime.

No, just its absence from law. You're claiming its absence from law is proof that it was against the law. :lol:

 

[Paleocon]

No, just its absence from law. You're claiming its absence from law is proof that it was against the law. :lol:

Strawman.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Strawman.

What? Do you know what that word means? :lol:

 

[Paleocon]

It means misrepresenting another's argument.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

It means misrepresenting another's argument.

Good job with the wiki. Ok, so, how exactly have I done that when your defense to the absence of evidence that abortion was illegal... Is that there is an absence of evidence that abortion was illegal?