Planned Parenthood

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Originally Posted by puggymom

Forced childbirth should NOT be the answer to other's fertility issues.

I'm pro-choice here. In other words: If you make the choice to have sex in the first place, you've made the choice that you are responsible enough to care for or conceive a child. Plain and simple.

The ONLY time abortion is acceptable (imo) is in cases of rape which is less than 1% of abortions anyway.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by puggymom

Forced childbirth should NOT be the answer to other's fertility issues.

No one is suggesting forcing people to have babies, just not kill the ones they chose to have. Also, no one is suggesting people have babies to answer a fertility issue of someone else, just not kill the child they chose to have, and if they can't support it, offer a choice of someone else to raise and take responsibility for the life they chose to bring into this world.

Originally Posted by ItalianScallion

Take the hair out of your eyes lady and read the truth:
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new annual report from Planned Parenthood shows the nation's largest abortion business has made over $1 billion in profit for the first time in its history. The non-profit pro-abortion group shows the historical gain in its new annual report covering 2006-2007.
While Planned Parenthood made $972 milion in its 2005-2006 annual report, last fiscal year it brought in $1.017 billion.

On its web site posting of the annual document, Planned Parenthood says it "highlights our advancements in providing and protecting trusted health care services and medically accurate sexuality education."
Instead, the report finds Planned Parenthood doing more abortions than ever before.
The report shows an increase in the number of provided abortions from 264,943 in 2005 to 289,650 in 2006.
Of concern to pro-life groups, Planned Parenthood acknowledges the receipt of over $336 million in government grants and contracts from both state and federal governments.

The revelations from the annual report upset Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council.
"A majority of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion -- however, still Planned Parenthood receives more than $300 million in taxpayer funding each year for 'family planning' projects that help bolster their abortion trade," he told LifeNews.com.
He said Planned Parenthood was not a "wise investment" of public money because of its history.
"Would you invest in a company whose affiliates are complicit in sexual crimes against children?" he asked, pointing to numerous instances of its centers doing abortions on victims of statutory rape and sexual abuse.

"Would you take your hard-earned money and pile it into a company whose fundraisers "get excited" when someone wishes to target African-American babies for extinction?" he asked.

Perkins said the ultimate slap in the face to the majority of Americans who are pro-life is the fact that Planned Parenthood plans still receives government funds despite the fact its political action committee will spend $10 million this year election[ing] pro-abortion candidates.
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor

My hair is out of my eyes.

I still stand by the fact that Planned Parenthood prevents many abortions from happening by being proactive and providing birth control/education.

I am pro-choice and pro-abortion. It's much better when the abortion does NOT have to happen, but when a woman chooses to do so, the option should be there for her.

A woman doesn't need Planned Parenthood to get an abortion. If she doesn't have insurance/employment then she might.

The world is overpopulated as is, and I don't cry over the embryo's/fetuses who will never see the light of day. I feel for the women who have to make that choice and then live with it.

Are you against birth control as well?

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Originally Posted by puggymom

Forced childbirth should NOT be the answer to other's fertility issues.

Why is the unborn child getting executed for someone else's actions?

They've made the CHOICE to have sex. Once you make that choice, you have to live with it.

This is why people run around ####in' everything they see, because now (thanks to Abortion Clinics) there's no consequences to making a dumb mistake. You "screw" up, and someone else pays for it with death.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by pcjohnnyb

I'm all for choice.

I would never get an abortion though

This is where the dilemma comes into play though. Should the father have a choice? He isn't the one carrying a kid for 9+ months In my opinion, if you are a father that WOULDN'T want an abortion, and the woman gets an abortion, well then that is just a way of divine intervention showing that she isn't the woman for you.

He may not be the one carrying the child during gestation, but he would be there for the child (legally and morally) for at least 18 years (kinda trumps the 9 months). Also, presuming this isn't a rape issue, we're talking about a conscious choice of two individuals to potentially create a child, so why is his voice less than hers should the child be wanted (or, unwanted for that matter)?

I'm all about pro-choice. People need to stop getting in the way of other people's choices that don't affect them in the least. If anything, having abortion be a choice rather than a non-option, it causes less welfare recipients, thus, lower taxes

Statistically, can you back that up? Do most abortions kill babies of lower income parents?

I'm actually all for spaying/neutering people who cannot afford kids. Have it be something reversible and if they prove themselves worthy, they can at that point have the surgery reversed...but then we delve into "what is 'capable of providing for kids'"

Its all a messy situation do deal with.

I'm not for getting involved in people's business like this. I'm just against murder.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Wenchy

It's much better when the abortion does NOT have to happen, but when a woman chooses to do so, the option should be there for her.

Until what age of child? Seriously, should a third trimester baby be killed in this fashion? How about a 1 year old that she didn't realize would be such a life changing event - retroactive abortion? How is the first or second tri-mester any different from the point of view of taking another person's life than the third, or the first year of life?

The world is overpopulated as is, and I don't cry over the embryo's/fetuses who will never see the light of day. I feel for the women who have to make that choice and then live with it.

I do, too. I have a great amount of sympathy/empathy for someone feeling they're that choiceless that they'd kill someone for their own well being in the future. But, I feel even more for the unborn child, personally. The innocent life that was not part of the decision to be born; the decision the mother and father made. (I'm ruling out rape/incest as they're an insignificant percentage of abortions performed).

[tommyjones]

Originally Posted by AndyMarquisLIVE

Why is the unborn child getting executed for someone else's actions?

They've made the CHOICE to have sex. Once you make that choice, you have to live with it.

This is why people run around ####in' everything they see, because now (thanks to Abortion Clinics) there's no consequences to making a dumb mistake. You "screw" up, and someone else pays for it with death.

I know you aren't that familiar with the ins and outs of sex, but when safe sex is practiced properly there is little chance of pregnancy. so the choice to have sex is no longer directly related to the choice to have a baby.

Now unprotected sex is another story, if you are out having unprotected sex you reap what you sow. But thats still none of your business, the woman is the one paying the consequences either way she chooses

[pcjohnnyb (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

He may not be the one carrying the child during gestation, but he would be there for the child (legally and morally) for at least 18 years (kinda trumps the 9 months). Also, presuming this isn't a rape issue, we're talking about a conscious choice of two individuals to potentially create a child, so why is his voice less than hers should the child be wanted (or, unwanted for that matter)?

I agree. I am just saying that it is a touchy issue. If mom wants kid, dad doesn't want responsibility but he is the father (for sure, its proven) then should HE be able to tell the mom she can't have the kid? I think not

Statistically, can you back that up?
Do most abortions kill babies of lower income parents?
anything can be backed up statistically. Can I assure you that the stats are true? Nope. But here it goes

WHO HAS ABORTIONS?
• Fifty percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 17%.[7]

• Black women are 4.8 times as likely as non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.7 times as likely.[7]

• Forty-three percent of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic.[3]

• Women who have never married obtain two-thirds of all abortions.[7]

• About 60% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.[7]

• The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women).*[3]

• The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[8]


Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States


I'm not for getting involved in people's business like this. I'm just against murder.

And I don't consider it murder if the egg/embryo/fetus cannot survive outside of the mother. If this is the case, it is "assisted life" in my mind, and I am not against taking someone off of outside assistance (such as, a breathing machine) if they cannot even enjoy life. It is better for them to be put out of their misery. If the case involves parents who do not want and cannot/won't support the kid, yet don't plan to give it up for adoption, I am all for it being put out its misery before it even has to experience that terrible life.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by tommyjones

I know you aren't that familiar with the ins and outs of sex, but when safe sex is practiced properly there is little chance of pregnancy. so the choice to have sex is no longer directly related to the choice to have a baby.

Until there's something as effective a birth control as abstinence, I'd say you're wrong. It's much less a risk, but not a non-issue.

Now unprotected sex is another story, if you are out having unprotected sex you reap what you sow. But thats still none of your business, the woman is the one paying the consequences either way she chooses

Both parents have consequences, as does the child, regarding the choice.

[This_person]

I agree the statistic kind of implies the lower level, but it doesn't speak to the people above the poverty level, but below 300% of the poverty level. As you say, statistics can prove anything

Originally Posted by pcjohnnyb

And I don't consider it murder if the egg/embryo/fetus cannot survive outside of the mother. If this is the case, it is "assisted life" in my mind, and I am not against taking someone off of outside assistance (such as, a breathing machine) if they cannot even enjoy life. It is better for them to be put out of their misery. If the case involves parents who do not want and cannot/won't support the kid, yet don't plan to give it up for adoption, I am all for it being put out its misery before it even has to experience that terrible life.

You're suggesting that parents can and should have the right to starve their children, or each other, or handicapped family members under their care - anyone who couldn't get by on their own.

Because, a womb is not comparable to a breathing machine. There's a certain implied level of care one assumes when they choose to be a parent (a choice made at intercourse, not at birth). That implied care includes the gestation period. Now, once the child is born, they certainly have the choice to not provide for the child. If they do that by giving the child up for adoption, that's legal and humane. If they choose not to by killing the child ("won't support", as you said), that's murder. In my opinion, that includes the time from knowledge of being pregnant through the child's emancipation. We wouldn't tolerate a mother (or father) getting a prescription that htey know will kill a child for the child with the full intent of actually killing that child, so why do we tolerate a mother killing the child chemically or medically in the womb?