Between the two you mentioned, I would prefer delivering babies!

Jay,I bet you would. The thing I like most about doctoring is that I am not one. Even if I did have the qualifications my bedside manner would disqualify me. My main prescription would be cyanide pills. Take two upon awakening. It would leave me plenty of time to play golf and chit chat on the internet.

Jay,I bet you would. The thing I like most about doctoring is that I am not one.

Yes, yes I would! In fact, i think witnessing the birth of a human being is one of the most exhilarating, and awe inspiring experience a person can have, and so much more , for the mother, i would think! Ask any mother, who opted to giving birth, rather than abort their child!

hicusdicus: Even if I did have the qualifications my bedside manner would disqualify me.

That’s actually a good thing, hicusdicus. Unlike you, most people are not aware of their limitations, much less aware of their bed-side manners. Kudos!

hicusdicus: My main prescription would be cyanide pills. Take two upon awakening.

Ah yes, and again, those darn pesky laws. If only. But be of good cheer, as the saying goes; Bad things come to those who wait, and are patient!

hicusdicus:It would leave me plenty of time to play golf and chit chat on the internet.

For sure, time management skills, very important these days!

That thing about witnessing the birth of a human baby I have already been told by my cousin whom I lived with for a short time. He had an IQ of 190 and was a practicing physician by age 21 but could never get it together.. I have always thought that witnessing any thing give birth to a new life was magical and awe inspiring. I think that killing anything is a travesty against nature unless it threatens your existence Everything has a right to life. Now you have proof of everything you have said about me.

If standing in line is a problem, one could just as easily move to the country!

I already live in the country with my own 5 acre lake full of fish which I detest. I don’t kill animals and I collect stray dogs and cats and what ever needs feeding. I also think that most people are not worth the cost of the bullet it would take to put them out of their misery. That putting down the elderly sounds like a good idea until you is one of the elderly.

No, it just means that abortion will not eradicate corruption, or a corrupted political regime, or crime, or war, to infinitum…In fact, how could abortion eradicate corruption, or crime for that matter, being that abortion is a corrupted, criminal act?

That is your opinion. Apparently at least 53 million people have disagreed with you. By the way I am a stanch subscriber to skeptic magazine. I agree with most everything Shermer and his cohorts say and know that man needs spirituality in his life to survive. My own need for the paranormal has just burned out and I don’t miss it. Maybe I am just a latent serial killer. I think you have already suggested this.

So why don’t we just do away with ALL of our laws and leave it up to all people to decide what is right and what is wrong in their own minds???

Don’t get me started on that!

Is that your way of admitting that you would rather not engage in the debate for the eradication of all laws as you would not, and could not, offer a reasonable argument to support such an endeavour?

Now thats a good idea.

It appears that both you and Karolyn are anarchists.

I is! How did you ever arrive at that?

The pro-life movement has never suggested that women should be required to have children. However, it is a biological fact that when a woman is pregnant she already has a child. Our argument is that this child should not be butchered.

Jay I don’t care what your argument is. The bottom line is that it is none of your business. Sticking your nose in other peoples personal affairs can get it cut off and start wars.

hicusdicus, you’ve missed the point. NO ONE is “sticking [his/her] nose in other peoples personal affairs.” It’s a well-known fact that the “pro-choice” crowd tries to frame the abortion issue this way, but the fact is ALL laws concerning abortion are directed against the abortionist, NOT the woman. There has NEVER been a law that punished women for having abortions.

Karolyn, would you please stop making those kinds of comments I am really beginning to like you.

I would call it less people on Obama care.

Or, rather then apply all our energy, time, and efforts on eradicating abortion, we could apply same said resources to eradicating obama-care!

Obama care actually means no care but you won’t know it.

I think what is meant by obama-care, is that obama will take care of obama!

If certain behaviors are so unacceptable that they must be illegal how come we still have Obama?

Because, people in high places who have been given the responsibility to uphold the law, to defend liberty, justice, and freedom, do not uphold the law, nor do they care to protect the rights of people for which the laws were written. In fact, they have changed the law to suit their nefarious purposes! Hence, Obama!

Hence, when people get to high places they stay high and forget their duties to us lower life forms.

True enough! And, as Thomas Jefferson rightly stated; Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely. As to your statement, referring to people as lower life-forms, surely you must be aware by now that the “Copernicus Principle” saturates, and dominates your view, and the value you place on human life!

I thought the value placed on human life was how little you can pay it to work 18 hour shifts.

There will never be a consensus as to when a fetus becomes a human being, so it would appear that Roe v. Wade will never be overturned as long as objective people make the decisions. It would seem logical that if it cannot live on its own, it is not yet a viable human being, so a human life is not taken in an abortion.

Viability is a phony issue. The Supreme Court made abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy and, today, abortion clinics across America routinely advertise elective abortions past the point where it is known that babies can survive on their own.

We also know that viability is a function of medical technology and unrelated to the question of whether the unborn are living human beings or not. This is proven by the fact that premature babies are now routinely surviving at gestational ages that would have been unthinkable a hundred years ago, despite the reality that unborn children are not biologically different than they’ve ever been.

Finally, if the argument is that the unborn are not viable because they are dependent on others to survive, then a one-year-old baby is no more viable than an unborn baby. Neither can survive alone. That could also be said about people who are severely handicapped or suffering from some debilitating illness, as well as people who are senile, comatose, unconscious, or under general anesthesia. If the ability to survive without others is what creates the right to life, these people have no more right to life than the unborn.

Jay, Read my above comment. Until the 14th Amendment is revised, the Supreme Court will not overrule Roe v. Wade.

James, I disagree. Read my response to your above comment here.

Karolyn says:

“There will never be a consensus as to when a fetus becomes a human being…”

Not true! The unborn child is a living human organism, starting at the moment of conception. Any medical textbook will tell you this.

You are confusing this with “viability,” which is a SEPARATE issue altogether, and which Jay has explained above.

Karolyn, you are really putting me in a perplexed state. I have to agree with you on this one. Maybe I agree with you on all your views and just don’t know it. My wife says I am not right in the head.

Karolyn says: There will never be a consensus as to when a fetus becomes a human being, so it would appear that Roe v. Wade will never be overturned as long as objective people make the decisions.

The pro-choice position is that abortion should be legal on demand through all nine months of pregnancy. There has never been even one poll which showed majority support for that position. The most that can be said is that a majority of people may support abortion in the extremely rare “hard-case” situations. Since even abortion industry studies show that virtually no abortions are done for these reasons, it is clear that most Americans do not support the vast majority of abortions that are actually performed.

This “pro-choice majority” lie is nothing more than political spin and the abortion industry’s own actions prove it. Anyone who believes their viewpoint has majority support will steer their battles toward the legislatures where majorities rule. But the abortion lobby has spent over 30 years doing whatever it takes to keep abortion out of the legislatures and in the courts. Only people who know they can’t win in the legislatures would do that.

Let’s also not forget that, in 1850, there was no consensus in America for outlawing slavery or allowing women to vote. There was also a time when consensus was that the earth is flat. In fact, world history is littered with examples where “consensus” simply meant that most of the fools were on one side. Moreover, if consensus is what should drive abortion policy, that’s one more reason to overturn Roe. In 1973, there certainly was no consensus for legalizing abortion on demand.

Lets also not forget that there was a time in mans history when there was no God, just a lot of scary things.

Jay, the solution to abortion is more girls with hot lips. Spit never got anybody pregnant and gay pride does not contribute to murdering unborn babies. Maybe if we all just went homo we could drop the whole subject.

Obama reverses Bush’s ban on abortion funding abroad

Last Updated: Friday, January 23, 2009 | 4:59 PM ET CBC News

President Barack Obama speaks to reporters during his meeting with Democratic and Republican leaders Friday in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. (Charles Dharapak/Associated Press)
U.S. President Barack Obama reversed a ban implemented by his predecessor, George W. Bush, on funding for international groups that perform abortions or provide information about the procedures to women abroad, the White House said Friday.

“For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us,” Obama said in a statement released by the White House. “I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate.”

He said the ban was unnecessarily broad and undermined family planning in developing countries.

It is the latest in a series of tit-for-tat executive orders surrounding the contentious issue of abortion as Democratic and Republican presidents replaced each other over the past 28 years.

The memorandum, which Obama signed late Friday afternoon without media fanfare, was immediately lauded by pro-choice groups. Anti-abortion advocates criticized the president for what they said was a betrayal of his campaign pledge to support policies that reduced the number of abortions.

In one of his first acts as president in January 2001, Bush, who opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save a woman’s life, ordered federal funding be cut off to international groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counselling or referrals about abortion.

The ban is also known by critics as the “global gag rule,” because it prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that even talk about abortion if there is an unplanned pregnancy.

Pro-choice and women’s health groups argued the ban limited the reproductive rights of women in developing countries and increased the chances of women around the world dying from high-risk pregnancies because they lacked access to family planning.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2009/01/23/obama-abortion.html

Obama quote and voting history on abortion.

No litmus test; nominate to Court based on their fairness. (Oct 2008)

1990: Wrote law article that that fetus cannot sue mother. (Aug 2008)

FactCheck: Abortions HAVE gone down under Pres. Bush. (Aug 2008)

1997: opposed bill preventing partial-birth abortion. (Aug 2008)

Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions. (Aug 2008)

Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion. (Apr 2008)

We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life. (Apr 2008)

Undecided on whether life begins at conception. (Apr 2008)

Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception. (Apr 2008)

GovWatch: Obama’s “present” votes were a requested strategy. (Feb 2008)

Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy. (Feb 2008)

Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)

Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)

Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)

Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)

Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)

Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)

Moral accusations from pro-lifers are counterproductive. (Oct 2004)

Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)

Protect a woman’s right to choose. (May 2004)

Voting Record

Opposed born-alive treatment law because it was already law. (Oct 2008)

Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)

Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)

Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)

Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)

Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)

Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)

Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)

Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

When the US files bankruptcy and finally sinks to the status of a third world nation all this will be forgotten.

True enough!

I hope we all know by now that Obama said what the masses wanted to hear so they would vote for him. Why refer to anything he said it is meaningless.

Karolyn, Karolyn,
Put down the pot pipe dear, I think the goods are treated with a foreign substance!!!

Joe, Joe, I have as much right to my beliefs as you do to yours. I respect yours and do not speak out against ANYBODY’s religion or beliefs.

Karolyn:

I read his note carefully; I don’t think he said anything against your religion unless your pot pipe is part of it. And even then he just stated that the goods might be contaminated. Is pot part of your religion??

Surely you jest, 45. He facetiously responded to my post, ridiculing my beliefs.

A bowl of pot is the only real religion on this planet. Remember God created it. Probably because that is the only way he can put up with all the human nonsense.

So karolyn you are into the paranormal, may the force be with you.

Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy to ?

Could you get aborted now? I’m confused.

Het Robbie, How about a retroactive abortion for you since your mom missed the oppertunity?
Go to Oregon, they’ll assist you there.

Hey Robert
Call the kevorkian man he can if you can’t.

Right on dude! straight to heaven no questions asked.

That is absolutely correct, and it applies to any person(s) who die before the age of accountability, not just the un-born, or the aborted. Thumbs up on that one, Robert!

Jay, that sounds like catholic doctrine right out of the Popes mouth. More paranormal nonsense. When are you going to bring up purgatory?

Robert says: “ABORT NOW so I don’t have to go through and blindly obey all those rules from the religious nuts to get into heaven.

Absolutely correct, blindly obeying religious rules, or any rules, or laws, for that matter, will not secure your entry into heaven, in fact, the Bible is clear on that. However, we do not need to exercise abortion as a way to avoid obeying religious rules, or laws, rather, we should properly understand the purpose of religious rules, or laws, and that is for the purpose of societal stability, nothing more. A person does not have to be religious to say it’s wrong to murder a child, any more than they have to be religious to say it’s wrong to steal money.  Just because many pro-lifers are motivated by religious beliefs does not make abortion a religious issue.  Remember, the civil rights movement was often led by pastors and headquartered in churches, but that didn’t make civil rights a religious issue.    


To say that abortion should be off limits to the law because most pro-life people are Christians, is as illogical as saying we should do away with laws against theft because one of the Ten Commandments is, “Thou shalt not steal.”  If we are going to start rejecting laws simply because they are supported by religion, given that there is hardly anything illegal which is not also prohibited by Scripture, then we will have to do away with all of our laws.  



As for the ovary issue, we pro-lifers are as indifferent to our opponents’ ovaries, as we are to their spleens, gall bladders, and tonsils.


Heaven, the main reason used to fill the collection plate. Which came first Jay, God or the collection plate?

hicusdicus says: There is no such thing as intelligent design if there was you would not be here.

That’s very clever hicusdicus, and from a literary perspective, your wit, or your clever play on words, can certainly be appreciated. But to say , if there were “Intelligent Design” there would be no life on the planet, is to contradict your self. The fact is, there is life on the planet, and a planet, for that matter! So what do you really mean by your statement? That life on the planet is the result of non-intelligence, and, since life is the result of non-intelligence, therefore, there is no intelligence, no intelligent people, including yourself? Your statement, therefore, cannot be considered to be an intelligent statement!

Including myself! You got that one right. Actually I meant Karolyn not you and me. We are special at least I am I wear a helmet with a nose guard.

LOL!

Hey Jay, roll this thought around your brain cavity. What if Obama’s mother had gotten an abortion? Would you chip in to help defray expenses?

Another Liberal who thinks two wrongs make a right. No morals on the Left.

Maybe it’s time to lighten up on the green stuff Robert Smith and join the present which is currently the year 2011…wow

Let’s see… oh yeah, wars and their conduct are clearly spelled out in the Constitution, and… let me see… no, not here… not there… gosh, I just can’t seem to find where it says, “and Congress shall have the right to fund abortion.”

It is “implied” in the Constitution, just like everything else the left wants to do. Just like the First Amendment and the 14th “implies” that the PP has the right to all that money.

And the individual can pay for it. We, as a nation, have bred such entitlement. The consequence of having unprotected sex is pregnancy irregardless of your religious beliefs (karolyn and Robert S.) It is pretty, darn simple but it happens to be an “uncomfortable” and “inconvenient” consequence for many people no matter how you try to “sugar coat” it (Karolyn and Robert S.) so the solution is to just get rid of it. Now isn’t that convenient. Speaks highly of liberal minds and values.

Abortion is a small part of Planned Parenthood’s services and is not federally funded. Few enough women are versed in contraception. Without Planned Parenthood, we’d be in even worse shape.

Seriously Karolyn, what planet do you live on? They teach this stuff in grade school now and anyone with a THINKING brain knows how to prevent a pregnancy and birth control is cheap and in many cases free!

If Song keeps closing down centers that give out free birth control ….then there won’t be any free birth control.I see what she is up too. I know that these products have to be purchased at Walgreens and the grocery stores which is fine. I do agree that birth control products should be made more available but conservatives don’t even want them talked about in schools. They say it is a communist plot to subvert our children. My granddaughter is now on birth control,just in case.

Why do the same people who oppose abortion always fight against sex education and birth control?

The pro-life movement has never been opposed to sex education. What we oppose are the sex education programs which have caused America’s epidemic of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, and abortion.

In the 1960s, organizations like Planned Parenthood began pushing something they called “value-neutral contraception-based” sex education. They contended that the way to reduce the relatively small teen pregnancy rate of that era, was to isolate morality from sex and teach kids the mechanics of having sexual relationships without getting pregnant. In effect, this approach was not value-neutral at all, it simply replaced traditional values with Planned Parenthood’s values.

Their argument for leaving values out of sex education is that teaching sexual morality is the responsibility of parents. However, they originally marketed the idea of sex education in the public schools by saying that parents weren’t talking to their kids about sex. That begs the question, if parents weren’t talking to their kids about sex before it was taught in the schools, what was going to make them start doing so afterward? Also, how is this message absorbed by children living in homes where the parents do talk about sexual morality. What do those kids think when their parents tell them that pre-marital sex is wrong, while their teachers are telling them that it is neither right nor wrong?

Of course, when the philosophy that sex can be morally neutral is delivered to teenagers, the guaranteed result is an increase in the rate at which they are sexually active, which is exactly what happened.

Those who defend this value-neutral contraception-based approach say that if birth control was taught and adhered to, teen pregnancy would not be a problem. This is not supported by real-world experience. After America’s public schools began introducing value-neutral contraception-based sex-ed in the 1960s, our relatively small teen pregnancy problem exploded into an epidemic of promiscuity, teen pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases. Additionally, children are now having sex at much younger ages. Forty years ago, for a 12-year-old girl to be pregnant would have been front-page news. Today, it is not even unusual.

Despite its well-documented failures, the abortion lobby continues to push value-neutral contraception-based sex education, while arguing that abstinence-based programs are unrealistic because teenagers are going to have sex no matter what we do. To understand the fallacy in that, imagine that a teenage girl tells her parents that she is not interested in having sex but her boyfriend is pressuring her.

In such a case, should her parents tell her that she is being unrealistic to expect him to be abstinent? Should they advise her to either jump in bed with him or just accept that he will go out and have sex with other girls?
Obviously, no decent parent would say that to their daughter. They would tell her that abstinence is entirely reasonable.

So if it is indeed realistic for a teenage boy to abstain because his girlfriend doesn’t want to have sex, then it is just as realistic for him to abstain because he has been taught that it is the right thing to do. The argument that kids are going to have sex no matter what we do is a lie. The most that can be said is that some kids will have sex no matter what we do.

Today, many liberal social engineers recognize that they are caught between a rock and a hard place. They abhor the abstinence message, but they see it gaining popularity among parents who have seen that value-neutral contraception-based sex education has been a train wreck. So now they’re pushing “Abstinence Plus” or “Comprehensive Sex Education.” Trying to appear reasonable, they now claim to support abstinence-based programs as an addition to contraception-based programs. Some even grudgingly agree that abstinence can be primary.

This is a scam. These people know that pushing contraception and abstinence together will neutralize the abstinence message. It’s no different than parents telling their teenagers, “Don’t drink and drive, but if you do, don’t spill anything on the seats” or “Don’t smoke, but if you do, use filtered cigarettes” or “Don’t take a gun to school, but if you do, don’t point it at anyone” or “Don’t use heroin, but if you do, don’t leave needles lying around where your little brother can get them” or “Don’t drive my new Corvette while I’m out of town, but if you do, replace the gas you use.”

The fact is, America’s epidemic of teen pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted disease was caused by a dramatic increase in sexual activity among children, and all the condoms and birth control pills in the world will not turn that around. The only solution is to reduce the sexual activity rate of children, and mixed messages will never do that.

Some people argue that abstinence-only programs write off those children who don’t remain abstinent and places them at a higher risk for pregnancy, diseases, and abortion. To some degree, that may be a valid argument. However, that doesn’t mean abstinence-only programs shouldn’t be adopted.

When laws requiring children to be strapped into child safety seats were being considered, it was already known that some children would die because they were in these seats. For example, when cars accidentally go into a river or lake, some children will drown when their parents panic and can’t get them out of their car seats. Other children will die in car fires because their parents were rendered unconscious during the wreck and not available to get them out of the car seat. In some crashes, children who might have been thrown from cars and survived, will instead die because they were strapped into a car seat.

The legislators who supported these child-restraint laws were aware of these risks. But, in passing these laws, they were not saying, “We’re willing to write off those children who will die because they were in a car seat.” Instead, they recognized that child safety seats save more lives than they take. In a perfect world they would be able to pass a law to save every child who gets into a car wreck, but they don’t live in such a world so they tried to save the most lives possible.

That dynamic also applies to abstinence-based sex education. No one believes it will save every child, but it will save the most children possible. On the other hand, it is sheer insanity to believe that value-neutral contraception-based sex education is a solution to the massive social problems that were created by value-neutral contraception-based sex education.

The real question is why organizations like Planned Parenthood continue to push it. The answer is that, for them, it hasn’t failed. It has provided a steady stream of customers for their birth control pills, abortions, and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases.

To see that the real objective of Planned Parenthood’s sex education system is to create a market for their “reproductive health care” business, recall an issue from the 1950s and 1960s. At that time, Planned Parenthood types were constantly whining about what they called the “double standard.” They said it was unfair for sexually active girls to be labeled as tramps, while sexually active boys were seen as just red-blooded, all-American boys sowing their wild oats. And even though their objections to this hypocrisy were certainly warranted, it was their solution to the problem that exposed their hidden agenda.

Once they were allowed into the nation’s classrooms, they did not work toward higher standards from boys, they pushed society to accept lower standards from its girls. They understood that higher standards for boys would reduce the demand for their products but lower standards for girls would increase it.

In effect, value-neutral contraception-based sex education was not a social policy as much as a business plan. The “value-neutral” part would guarantee an explosion in teen sexual activity and create the foundation for a “reproductive health-care” industry which they intended to dominate.

Unfortunately, their plan worked. Today, teenage girls are as “liberated” to be sexually promiscuous as teenage boys, and the result has been a financial bonanza for Planned Parenthood. Every year they rake in hundreds of millions in tax dollars to patch up problems that their sex education system created in the first place. America is learning the hard way that allowing amoral hustlers from the “reproductive health-care” industry to teach children about sex, is like hiring crack dealers to teach them about drugs.
While it may be hard for some people to accept that Planned Parenthood would inflict this sort of misery on children for political or financial gain, they should keep in mind that corporations do not work against their own interests. We have all seen that alcohol and tobacco companies will target children, and it would be naive to think that these gigantic multi-national corporations would market harmful products to children, but another one wouldn’t. The reality is that teen pregnancy is a cash cow for Planned Parenthood, and their sex education system keeps it well fed.

Jay – Well, somebody’s doing something right because teen pregnancy is at a all-time low since they started tracking 70 years ago. We still have the highest rate, but it is getting better. Looks like that sex education is paying off!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2011/02/teen_birth_decline_back_on_tra.html

Closer to the truth Karolyn, it is abortions that are keeping the number of teen pregnancies down, not the use of contraception, or sex-education. If a teen becomes pregnant and has an abortion, only the abortion is added to the number of abortions, or to the number of abortions performed statistics. But, should the pregnant teen choose to carry to term, or gives birth, only then is the birth of the child considered to be the result of teen pregnancy, and recorded, or added, to the teen pregnancy statistics. This is nothing more then clever accounting, or bookkeeping. You lower the numbers of one, teen-pregnancies, considered a drain on tax-payers, by increasing the numbers of another, abortions, very lucrative, and much profit . Since an un-married, single, teen mother with no visible means of support is an economic drain on tax-payers, and certainly no economic profit could result from such, it is then reasonable to push, and encourage the need for abortion, which is extremely profitable, while at the same time can be used to lower the statistical numbers of teen pregnancies! Brilliant! This practice, of “robbing peter to lend to paul” is dishonest at best, and purposely misleading at worst, as we are dealing not, with numbers, or commodities, but, with human beings. Shame on the pro-choice!

Karolyn: Abortion is a small part of Planned Parenthood’s services and is not federally funded. Few enough women are versed in contraception. Without Planned Parenthood, we’d be in even worse shape.

AMBITIOUS PLANNED PARENTHOOD WEB-CAM ABORTION AFFILIATE PLANS TO OPEN 12 NEW CLINICS
April 16th, 2011 scoggins

By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., National Right to Life Director of Education & Research

So how did one PPFA affiliate celebrate the national organization’s successful effort to protect the hundreds of millions of dollars in federal government subsidies the largest abortion provider in the United States receives every year?

By holding a ribbon cutting facility on a new abortion clinic in Omaha, Nebraska, of course, AND announcing plans to open 12 new clinics in the next five years, part of a $11.5 million capital campaign.

So much for the claim that abortion is a “small” part of Planned Parenthood’s business.

The affiliate making the announcement is Planned Parenthood of the Heartland (PPH). With 25 clinics in Iowa and Nebraska, PPH has been in the news a lot lately. PPH is spearheading a major effort to develop and promote so-called “web-cam abortions” (using the abortifacient RU486) and gobbling up two neighboring PPFA affiliates, one that had not previously offered abortions, another which had only one abortion clinic . The idea is to fatten the financial bottom line by reaching “under-served” women in rural areas.

PPH began offering web-cam abortions in 2008. Under the webcam system, an abortionist, maybe from a clinic in a large urban center, communicates with a woman at a remote location by means of a video conferencing system.

After a brief screening and counseling session, he clicks a mouse and triggers the opening of a drawer from which the woman takes out the two drugs that make up the “RU-486″ chemical abortion regimen: mifepristone and misoprostol.

By January of 2011 sixteen of the PPH’s clinics in Iowa were tied into the webcam system. As of that same date PPH says more than 2,000 women have received webcam abortions.

Continued: http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2011/04/ambitious-planned-parenthood-web-cam-abortion-affiliate-plans-to-open-12-new-clinics/

Karolyn says:

“Abortion is a small part of Planned Parenthood’s services and is not federally funded.”

Not true! In addition to what Jay has said above, over one third of Planned Parenthood’s clinic-level income comes from abortions.

Furthermore, ObummerCare is riddled with language, which mandates federal funding of abortions, and, since Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the galaxy, it will receive a huge chunk of that money.

You’re so right karolyn. And, since abortions are mainly performed for viable, but unwanted babies, maybe we can apply that standard everywhere. When my parents get old and are unwanted, should they be a burden on me? I think not! Will the govt pay to have them “transitioned”? After all, its just a choice, and who are you to tell me otherwise?

Looks to me like it is the extreme right who doesn’t want to take care of elders.

Not an America I’d be proud of. We take care of our own. I thinik it’s sad to see so many who want to kill so many by denying them health care.

Let ‘em die, I don’t want to spend the money is the rant from the right, not the left.

Rob

Jeep should be more concerned about the astronomical costs of retirement communities and nursing homes which only a select few can afford. I have long term care insurance and so does my mother but it is increasingly becoming out of reach for most. If I live another 25 years my plan will be obsolete and I can’t afford to up the premiums. Will Jeep allow me to die with dignity or will he prolong my death on the governments dime.

Rob:

Really? Then why is it that the libs were the ones to put the in section on committees to decide who gets treatment and who doesn’t? If I followed your rationale, I’d have suspected the right would have put it in. It goes along with your believe that the left is more generous – but they are only generous with someone else’s money. The conservatives are more generous with their own money according the charities.

Robert
Its times like this that save me from writing a reply because you do so much for your cause I just couldn’t add to it. Thanks

Why would your parents be unwanted? The only way you would have a say in their life or death is if they have a living will and want it that way. The only thing I can say about that subject is if they are done with this earth and want to leave, they should be able to. There is no correlation to abortion there. Actually, I wonder if it would be more cost-efficient for the government to assist with suicide.

Karolyn, It would be more cost effective FOR THE GOVERNMENT to assist in suicides for the elderly. That’s why we are afraid they will want to assist – whether the elderly want them to or not. And because I’m rapidly becoming one of those elderly, I don’t want someone else to decide for me.

Ain’t gonna happen.

My wife is footing the bill if you would like to contribute she would not argue.

I sure wish I could do that to my father in-law. He is now in a 6000.00$ a month vegetable storage program. The health care industry loves it.

If only we didn’t have those pesky laws, hey hicusdicus?

(Death is just a transition for the spirit.)
Your words karolyn What doe’s that mean to the baby that you want to kill?Yes kill some times with a knife in the whom to end it quickly before it has a chance to scream.Murder is murder know matter how you spin it.And agreeing with brother satan roberta mental midget dosen’t help your cause.

Whats wrong with murder? Its one of humans number one ways of getting what they want.

And I’m the “nutcase” hic? What a joke.

Yes you are correct song You are a nut case and a joke. Death can be a wonderful experience as long as you’re not the one experiencing it.

hicusdicus says: Death can be a wonderful experience as long as you’re not the one experiencing it.

No doubt that, Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Charles Manson would all agree with you. Does the fact that you share a common philosophy with death/murder with the above mentioned, give you any pause for concern?

NO it does not and you left out Henry Lee Lucas.

Hmm…

Like Hermann Cain’s agenda to make it legal to ban Mosques from any community. Everyone has an agenda to keep your perfect world perfect at least in your eyes.Liberals and Conservatives both have agendas that the opposing side doesn’t like. Not every issue has a right or wrong answer although we all try and make it so.

Islam is not a religion it is a terrorist organization.

That is true about any segment of society who are put into the position of pregnancies. That would be willing or unwilling and that is why personal choice is a necessary legal right. You are right in saying 18 years is a long time for taxpayers to pay for welfare,food stamps,Medicaid,emergency room visits,etc. and it will happen. Unless someone out there advocates that they be left homeless and have to fend for themselves or forced sterilization for parents or some other expensive or immoral solution. Women do get pregnant and not all of them are on birth control which Planned Parenthood does provide.They are a medical clinic who provides needed services so some folks need to come out of their comfy suburban homes and put yourself in other peoples shoes. You won the big issue of taxpayer funded abortions yet some of you still clamour for interference in peoples personal decisions.

“put into the position of pregnancy” edie…what is that? People don’t choose to get pregnant?

Sure they do. Millions of women try and get pregnant. Many thousands also get raped or have accidental pregnancies.To clarify even further 50,000 women get raped in the Congo each and every day and have little choice about it. That means millions of unwanted pregnancies. Life is hard enough for these women to even survive yet alone to carry someones elses child. Rapists in America aren’t as “aggressive” in numbers but the challenges of dealing with a rape pregnancy is daunting enough. To say that these women shouldn’t have the choice to go to Planned Parenthood or any other hospital to seek help is cruel. Some women can handle an unwanted pregnancy but the high and mighty who want to force women to give birth and raise this soon to be child is telling this women to be raped over and over again for the rest of her life. Sure adoption is wonderful but it is still her decision.

eddie, slow down there big boy. While I agree that even one rape is wrong, there are not 50,000 a day in the Congo. Please, try to avoid outrageous claims, they only weaken your argument.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/12/48-women-raped-hour-congo

And, your mindset is 180 degrees backward. Since we all know that sex leads to pregnancy, there are no unplanned pregnancies, but there are irresponsible people having sex. I know this flies in the face of your view that no-one is responsible for their behaviour. And, I am well aquainted with irresponsible people with children. I have three adopted children and have been a foster parent for 20 years. Have you done your part to deal with “unplanned” pregnancies?

edie I infer from your posting that you think of yourself as compassionate when in fact, your compassion is completely misdirected and in reality you are an ignorant dolt. Nobody is saying that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy can’t seek help duh! What they are saying is that tax payers should not be forced to pay for that. Charities, churches, families…why is the assumption that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy cannot seek help or pay for that help herself? I’m expected to pay for my medical care…AS for JEEP, kudos to you…Edie and the other incessant “whiners” and “bleeding hearts” on these posts should take note: JEEP is compassion in action something I really don’t think the likes of Robert S. or Edie, for that matter with all his over-bloated rhetoric about compassion know anything about.

You are correct in that it is 34,560 per month or 1,152 per day. Thanks for the correction.

Song. My granddaughters rape trial was yesterday so don’t preach to me about compassion and calling me a dolt. She is 15 and was lured to this guy’s house after he called her and said her boyfriend was there waiting for her. She met this guy (rapist) the week before and apparently was too trusting. If she had become pregnant then it would have been her and her mothers decision to carry the baby or to abort not yours. This young man was convicted and will be sentenced in Sept. and this was not his first rape. I also babysit my grandson and have for 22mos of his 23mos of life. He is now sleeping on the couch next to me after 45 minutes at the park and 20 minutes of reading.

eddie – So sorry about your granddaughter. I hope she’s receiving counseling. You should be proud that she went along with prosecution. Too many women do not, and the rapists go scot-free to keep raping. The prosecution and conviction rates are very low. I believe you know from my posts that I work for a domestic and sexual assault organization.

Why should a woman who was the victim of rape or incest have to bear a child?

When pregnancy occurs as a result of rape or incest, the baby is not only the child of the rapist but of the woman as well. Today, it is not unusual for rape victims who aborted their children to say they have come to grips with having been the victim of someone else’s violence, but cannot accept that they inflicted violence on their own baby. On the other hand, you never hear a rape victim who did not have an abortion later say she wished she had. In fact, they often see the baby as the only good thing that came from the situation.

There are those who argue that this baby would be a constant reminder of the rape. When adoption is suggested, the response is that many women are not emotionally able to carry a child for nine months and then give it to someone else to raise. In other words, we’re asked to believe that the kind of woman who would be traumatized by placing her child with a loving family, would be happier if her baby was brutally ripped to shreds, thrown in a dumpster and hauled off to a landfill.

Even if we bought into that, let’s imagine that a woman was kidnapped and held for two years during which time she gave birth to her captor’s son. When rescued, the woman says the baby is a constant reminder of her ordeal but that she could not stand to give him up to someone else to raise. Would we allow her to have him killed? After all, the dynamics used to justify abortion also exist in this situation.

Other people rationalize abortion for rape and incest because the pregnancy was beyond the woman’s control. That too is illogical. Allowing a victim of violence and brutality to inflict violence and brutality upon her own child will not return the control that the rapist stole from her, nor will it address the physical or psychological damage that was done to her.

Finally, we must never forget that the unborn child created through an act of violence is no less a living human being than the one created through an act of love. And just as we would not discriminate against a five-year-old who was conceived in rape or incest, neither should we discriminate against an unborn child who was so conceived.

Song, You must be a pillar in the nut case community.

It’s not a personal decision when someone else is paying for it.

whats a soldjer?? Writing yet??

Before Joe was on sex patrol and now he is on spelling patrol. Is that you entertainment for the day Joe?

eddie,
following me again??? I told you you are NOT gonna kiss my rear cheeks!!!

It ain’t a “child” sook. That is your religious perspective being forced on the rest of America. Keep that to yourself and not have all the abortions you don’t want to have.

Remember, each month your god allows eggs to pass without making more human beings. Further, early miscarriages far outnumber abortions. So, looks to me like your god is the biggest abortionist.

Rob

Well…what is it Robert? A goat? A dog? A cat? A monkey? No it is a human child. A human female has never given birth to anything but a human being. The heartbeat begins at four weeks gestation. The brainstem begins to develop earlier than that. Roe vs Wade was the end of America being a civilizied nation. Civilized Societies do not kill each other…especially the innocent and defensless.

Hitler justified the holocoust too. Pro-Choicers need to think on that one awhile.

Rebecca,
Robert thinks they are acorns!!! That’s because he wants to be a mighty oak instead of a weaping willow!!

Rebecca, at some point, you’ll give up trying to reason with a pro-deather. Pro-deathers are without a conscience. They “feel” their way through life and rely on emotions (reason and logic get in their way).
If you ever get a chance, ask some black friends how America can have a ‘leader’ who supports abortions and yet claims to be ‘proud’ of his heritage. If he’s so proud, then how is it possible that this “leader” and Hitler winked at the idea of blessing abortions?
He can’t have it both ways. Either people appreciate their heritage, or they don’t give a damn. That’s how America’s glorious ‘leader’ justifies abortions. And, it nets a candidate SO MANY easy votes. Ah, yes, a conscience is a WONDERFUL thing – if you don’t have one. It makes life so much “easier.”
Now, do you see what I mean, Rebecca?

There is no such thing as death! There is just an ending of physical experience. My belief is just as viable as yours. You have no more “proof” than I do. When I leave this physical existence, I will be free to come back again…and again…or to continue to live in time and space forever, as I so wish.

From Rebecca: “No it is a human child.”

Joe got it WRONG again. The proper statement is that what is gestating is no more a “human being” than an acorn is a tree.

IOW, the DNA and many traits you think are important might be there, but it isn’t a human being yet any more than an egg is a chicken.

Pregnancy is a PROCESS at which at the END a baby is born. Until that process is done it simply isn’t a “baby” unless that’s what the woman wants to call it.

BTW, if it’s so “complete” why can’t it gestate itself? Even an acorn can do that. Why didn’t your god set things up so human beings were as robust as an acorn? Doesn’t seem like much of a god to me.

Rob

Rob

Robert, a tree is an ADULT oak plant. A baby, even after he/she is born, is NOT an ADULT human. Therefore, as you’ve been told MANY times before, your acorn-tree analogy is NOT valid.

Furthermore, an unborn child is a LIVING HUMAN ORGANISM, as we ALL are. Any medical textbook will tell you this!

Misscarriage is a natural occurrance and designed by nature to end a pregnancy that otherwise would not have a good outcome. In fact, most misscarriages are the result of what is called a “blighted ovum”. Look it up. It is a circumstance where the gestational sac forms but no baby, or “fetus” forms. MY God has infinate wisdom not imparted on human beings. It is not for the human race to decide who gets to be born and live and who doesn’t.

Good comment but that should also settle the question of not having anymore wars. ( That would be Republican and Democrat wars and I said that for Dan’s benefit).

From Rebecca: ” It is not for the human race to decide who gets to be born and live and who doesn’t.”

No, it’s up to each individual woman to decide if she is going to carry what is gestating to term. It’s her choice. Nobody else from the human race should decide unless she asks someone to.

Rob

Says who Gregg?

Good point Rob. The para normal nut cakes will never be able to follow your accurate line of reasoning. They are to caught up in their idiocy.

“Accurate?” On WHAT exactly are you basing this?

Robert’s “line of reasoning” isn’t “accurate” by any STRETCH of the immagination!

Greg, If I say something is accurate then it is so. You can’t disagree with me because I am always right. The reason I am always right is because I know everything. If I don’t know something its because it is not worth knowing.

Rebbeca, Thank you for getting Hitler into the equation. Stalin killed a whole lot more people but he did not lose the war. The tax payers can pay to abort them or incarcerate them take your pick.

First thing, when the Republicans controlled Congress and held the White House, from 2000 to 2006, why did they not outlaw abortions? They had control, yet they did not.

Second thing, regarding Planned Parenthood, only 3% of all procedures performed by them are abortions.

Last thing: My mother had three miscarriages, does that mean that God is a murderer?

bard334,
Don’t tell me! She only got pregnant three times, right???

There are a number of hot battles going on in Washington, DC and across the country this year. We have budgets with deficits, raising the national debt limit, getting health care under control, and an ever-changing field of people who have announced—or are about to announce—their candidacy for president. None of the fights has been hotter than the struggle over the funding of Planned Parenthood.

In the Planned Parenthood funding fight, it appears that the figure of 97 percent has achieved a startling degree of importance among both sides of the debate.

The figure first emerged as Planned Parenthood, feigning that the fight against its taxpayer funding is all about abortion, began publicly proclaiming that only three percent of its services were abortions. That meant 97 percent of what it does is not about abortion.

This claim, of course, ignores the fact that the 97 percent figure is based on a mathematical formula that equates one abortion with, for example, one pap test. Ironic, of course, as an abortion takes a life and a pap test is done to possibly save a life.

Planned Parenthood’s math is based on numbers contained in its Planned Parenthood’s Services Fact Sheet. According to that document, Planned Parenthood performs 11,383,900 services every year and 332,278 are abortions. Thus, abortions are 2.9 percent of the total services and everything else is 97.1 percent.

Of course, Planned Parenthood could have been a bit more accurate and taken the fact that those 11.4 million services were provided to 3 million unique customers. If we take the 332,278 individuals who had abortions, it represents 11 percent of PP’s unique customers—not three percent.

An even more accurate representation of how important the abortion business is to Planned Parenthood is that the 332,278 abortions bring in $162.8 million—which is 40 percent of its annual clinic income.

But Planned Parenthood insists on using the three percent and 97 percent numbers.

There is however, another 97 percent number that those opposed to Planned Parenthood taxpayer funding have seized upon.

In the same Fact Sheet referenced above, Planned Parenthood claims to have provided the following services to pregnant women: 332,278 abortions; 7,021 prenatal clients; and 977 adoption referrals. That’s a total of 340,276 services. Thus, abortion is 97.6 percent of the services Planned Parenthood provides to pregnant women.

Using words like “service” and “provides” in the same sentence with abortion is really a disservice to the 332,278 tiny human beings who were killed at Planned Parenthood facilities in 2009. Nevertheless, I use the words so that we focus on the numbers instead of the horror.

Several elected officials have tried to educate other legislators, and the public, on this number, but their wording has not always been precise and the results have created confusion.

For example, as part of the Senate debate on Planned Parenthood funding, Arizona Senator Jon Kyl said that the abortions are “more than 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.” This caused an uproar among Planned Parenthood apologists, but the fact is that, in order to be accurate, he simply had to add “to pregnant women” at the end of his statement.

So, let’s be very precise. According to Planned Parenthood’s own Fact Sheet, 97 percent of the services Planned Parenthood provides to pregnant women is abortion.

That is the 97 percent number that Planned Parenthood’s opponents will agree with.

That is the 97 percent number that shows the true nature of Planned Parenthood’s services.

When your elected officials regurgitate Planned Parenthood’s claim that abortion is only three percent of what it does, enlighten them with the real numbers. Explain the real 97 percent number—that 97 percent of the services Planned Parenthood provides to pregnant women is abortion.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2734242/posts

Excellent post, Jay! I submitted a post down further below, regarding that 3% figure, before I saw your post here. It wasn’t nearly as detailed as yours. Sorry for the oversight.

The more the merrier Greg. However, I seriously doubt that the left-wing posters will be convinced. For the simple reason that they suffer from a psychological anomaly known as; ABORTOPHILIA: Love of abortion. A warm, even passionate emotional attachment to abortion, especially as practiced by the Birthist sect, when it is seen as a wonderful, life-enhancing and essential option in life. Characteristic of abortionmongers and other Birthist Abortionites.

As well, they are afflicted with; ABORTOMANIA: A form of insanity characterized by great excitement and enthusiasm for abortion. Common among abortionmongers and other Abortionites, especially those of the Birthist sect, after the process of abortionthink has run its full course.

Additionally; ABORTIONTHINK: Doublethink with respect to the value of life, holding in the case of the Birthist sect of Abortionism that prenatal life is both inviolable under the ethic of sanctity of life and also disposable at any time for any reason. Also, the rationalizing process of devaluing the life of another sufficiently to justify destroying that life with little or no remorse based on any of the Abortionite criteria which define the various sects.

So you see Greg, it is not about “choice” as the addicted to abortion claim, rather, it is their obsession, and love of the act of abortion itself! Very disturbed and sick puppies, are these abortion lovers!

Jay – Because I am pro-choice does not mean I “love” or am “obsessed by” abortion. Apparently, you are more obsessed by it than I am. You keep preaching to the choir. However, I do appreciate your doggedness and have learned a few things from all of your research. If you had your way, abortion would be against the law resulting in illegal abortions and more death and complications and more unwanted babies. If you want to take it a step further, in order to force reluctant women to have their babies, you could have the government imprison them for the duration. You would have to do that to ensure that they would not go off and have illegal abortions. Then the gov. could be in the adoption business and recoup some of the money spent on keeping the women. Of course, after the births, the women could be spayed.

If abortion is outlawed women will again be killed in back-alley abortions.

Virtually every study on this subject has concluded that deaths and injuries due to illegal abortion have been wildly exaggerated and that the vast majority of illegal abortions were done by licensed doctors who were simply breaking the law.

Not only are abortion apologists lying when they say that thousands of women used to die every year from back-alley, coat-hanger abortions, but their own research proves it.

Figures released in 1986 by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) show that in the 15 years prior to the legalization of abortion, the average number of women dying from illegal abortion in the entire United States was 136 per year and dropping.

Obviously, it is a tragedy when even one young woman loses her life in this way. However, there is a way to protect women against illegal abortions without butchering millions of defenseless children.

The first thing to keep in mind is that pro-lifers don’t do abortions. If abortion were outlawed today and illegal abortionists started springing up next week, every one of them would be someone who is pro-choice. In fact, every woman who was ever killed or maimed during an abortion – whether it was legal or illegal – was killed or maimed by someone who was pro-choice. In other words, when the abortion lobby says, “If abortion is made illegal, women will die,” what they’re actually saying is, “If you stop us from killing babies, we’re going to start killing women.”

So clearly, the solution to the back-alley abortion problem is for the pro-choice gang to agree not to do them. They could also help us pass legislation requiring that, (a) people who commit illegal abortions are to be prosecuted under the same homicide statutes that apply to any other hired killer and, (b) anyone who coerces a woman to have an illegal abortion, or helps to arrange an illegal abortion, is to be charged as an accessory to homicide.

Of course, these people are never going to agree to this because they never cared about this issue to begin with. They simply wanted to make it look like we are responsible for the pregnant women they are threatening to kill. The fact is, every time one of these radical pro-choice fanatics screams about dirty coat-hangers and back-alley abortions, the blood is on their hands – not ours.

Also, if the motivation for legalized abortion really is to save the lives of women, why don’t we legalize rape? After all, it is not uncommon for a woman to be killed by a rapist to keep her from identifying him to the authorities. Legalizing rape would save those women by taking away that motivation. We could also set up rape clinics where rapists could take their victims. These centers could offer clean rooms, condom machines, emergency contraception, and perhaps even doctors on staff in case the rapist injures his victim. We could even issue licenses to rapists requiring them to undergo routine testing for AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Remember, the pro-choice argument is that women are going to have abortions regardless of what the law says, and that keeping abortion legal will make sure they occur in a clean and safe environment. Those dynamics also apply to rape. Keeping rape illegal has not prevented women from being raped, so why not at least try to prevent back-alley rapes? As ridiculous as this suggestion is, if the goal is saving women’s lives, it makes as much sense as legalized abortion.

http://www.deathroe.com/Pro-life_Answers/Answers.cfm?ID=40

Jay, that was some kind of windy speech I had to take a nap to get up the energy to finish it are you a shut in or just terminally bored?

I suppose the same could be asked of you, hicusdicus. But no doubt you deny it, and rightly so!

Yes Jay, I am a shut in and I am terminally bored. I am also completely perplexed how humanity ever progressed as far as it has considering how people rationalize their bias. I bet a lot of people died falling out of trees before some one thought of using a vine.

Hey Sook, here is some proof.. Do you know of Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)? He said in January when he introduced legislation to strip Planned Parenthood of its federal funding. “There’s no question that money that Planned Parenthood receives for its operational expenses from the federal government…”

Of course he claims it frees up resources that can be used to provide and promote abortions through its abortion clinics. It’s the same old crap he brought up many times before.

The money does NOT go for abortions. Quit lying about that, sook.

Rob

Just exactly how do you know that it’s not going for abortions, Robert? Do tell!

Why don’t you think before you post such childish rants. sook young please take your own advice.

” If anything it was a return of power to the states from an oppresive federal mandate.”

Really!

Do you support Oregon to have assisted suicide?

Do you support medical pot in 16 states as a states’ issue?

Rob

Yes for Oregon and yes for the 16 states allowing medical marijuana.

Trvisea, On that subject we are on the same page.

Sure, if Oregon wants it, then fine. That’s for Oregonians to decide. You rail against states rights like its unConstitutional or something. Hmmm…

Robert,
no, I don’t believe in assisted suicide as alot of the people that want to commit suicide are not really able to make a clear decision!
Medical pot?? Yup, in any state that votes it in!! Medical ONLY!!

The only assist I need for suicide is for some one to not hide my gun. Constant blinding pain rules in ones decision to end their life.

It is a fallacy that the Civil War was fought over states rights. The civil war was about slavery.

“Our new government’s foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery –subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.” Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy.

Your statement is moronic and simplistic. I would blow you away with history, but its not worth the time.

Fine. The American Civil War was not about states rights (the right to the slave trade, free commerce, the right to secession, etc.) it was fought over slavery. Feel better? You may want to read what the Constitution says about federal and state responsibilities. We are only one nation because of the Constitution, not because you will it so.

bard334,
you may also want to check out the fact that Lincoln was only worried about slavery in the southern states, not the little that was still active in the NORTHERN states!! Check it out!! Read about the REAL Lincoln!!

There are many who think Linclon was gay, sleeping with guys and stuff. I don’t subscribe to it but that’s what some think.

Rob

The right also says that about Obama. When they don’t like someone the lies fly in every direction.

Actually Eddiee
It wasn’t the right that said it,It was his gay lovers!Sorry!

The civil war was fought for the same reason all wars are fought for, MONEY.

The primary cause of the Civil War was an ever growing oppressive Federal Gvt. imposing it’s will on the States. Sound familiar ?

Hey Jeep, have you not figured out yet that the federal government does what it wants. Where ever it wants and how ever it wants.

“If you want to see the weakest and most subservient women in America, just look at the faces of those entering an abortion clinic. What you will see is sadness, desperation, fear, and resignation. What you will not see is women who feel empowered or in control.”

Are you in the habit of standing outside abortion clinics? Of course, many women go through emotional distress because of their circumstances, but it’s still their choice!

Karolyn, aside from the fact that you haven’t got a clue to what you are talking about I bet their are a pot load of women in Africa who wish they could get a free abortion.

They’re still a bunch of selfish, self-serving, murdering, bitches.

Hey gunner, you sound like a swell guy and your terminology is so sophisticated.

Hypocrit!

Vagabond is simply saying that we should have selective abortions. Their side(conservatives?) will pick and choose who they deem unfit and unworthy of their political agenda and then do away with them.I always knew there were little nazi’s lurking in their ranks and Vagabond is honest enough to come forward.

I can’t help but wonder if they would summiarily abort gays, pedophile priests, and liberals.

BTW, I’ve heard that if priests could get pregnent that abortion would be a sacrament.

Rob

Probably heard that from your parents???

Robert
(I’ve heard that if priests could get pregnent that abortion would be a sacrament.) If that did happen it would be a miracle let alone hurt like hell.

Yes, I also am certain natural childbirth would be out as well. And, I do believe it wouldn’t just be priests. Men in general.

great idea Rob. maybe it will catch on.

You all are a bunch of nut cases. The second world war killed over 50 million people on purpose and you are all up in arms about a few abortions. Unwanted children do not usually grow up to be model citizens. We are all animals and are not contrary to popular beliefs something special. We need more Einsteins and less Al Ca-pone’s.

hicusdicus,Since Roe vs. Wade made mothers slaughtering their own unborn childred legal(not moral) in the U.S. alone there have been 50 million “known” abortions. The death count of WW2. Just what are us”nut cases” talking about?
What makes you say that the child not aborted would become an Al Capone? You want to prove that with any facts? Did Al’s mom really want an abortion but it was illegal? So a gangster was born.
You weren’t aborted. Are you evil?

Thank goodness there are 50 million less mouths to feed in this country! Seriously, though, how do you know those 50 million aren’t here right now or have been here in different personas?

Karolyn,How do I know there aren’t just 50 million others because of some reincarnation? I don’t. How can you be so sure that there are? You can’t. If I just came over and blew your brains out, would it be OK because you’ll just come back as someone else? I doubt it.
I know how you can make it 50 million and 1 less mouths to feed. All you have to do is step up and do your part.

Since Roe versus Wade the crime rate in this country has dropped off considerably because of the abortion of unwanted children. If you doubt this just goggle it.

Karolyn
They probably are speaking spanish!

Hicusdicus, Since the early 70′s the crime rate went down(if you don’t count the 50 million murders). Prove that it’s because the babies were killed instead of adopted by loving parents. There hasn’t been a world war killing 50 million people since then either, but I doubt abortion is the reason.
Traffic deaths have gone down. Is that because we aborted bad drivers?
Is a fifty million death count worth a few percentage points drpped in the crime rate?

Jim H, I bet it would make a difference to you if it was some loved one having a crime committed against them or even you personally. The reason the traffic fatalities went down is because all the bad drivers got killed off.

hicusdicus, So you’re saying the reason I haven’t been a victum of a crime is because of abortion?
Do you just say weird stuff to get a reaction, or are you just plain goofy?

JimH, Its quite possible that you haven’t been attacked because your potential attacker was aborted. I wish the two armed robbers who filed me full of bullet holes had been aborted. Of course I would not have experienced the thrill of being pronounced DOA and spending 9 days in ICU. The nerve damage from all the bullets zipping around in my groin, lungs and spine have made walking a bit difficult. Abortion has been going on since somebody figured out how to stick a sharp stick where it does not belong. People are going to do what they want to do in spite of your beliefs in the para normal. So give it a rest.

hiscusdicus, you just answered my question, “JUST plain goofy.”

I have read that the Chinese have aborted over 150 million girl babies in the last ten years. I wonder what their thoughts would be on this nonsensical forum.

We are, each and every one of us, a unique and special spirit, and we live forever.

Karolyn, I say unto thee, Horse hockey.

hicusdicus says:

“Unwanted children do not usually grow up to be model citizens.”

hicusdicus, your statement makes no sense. By definition, at least since 1973, anyone who is currently living was “wanted” when he/she was born. Otherwise he/she would have been aborted.

SAY What! Not really. Your comment is what proves that human intelligence is the most over rated commodity on the planet.

So, are you saying that the slaughter of 53,310,843 unborn children since 1973 STILL hasn’t cleaned up all those “unwanted” children that you pro-aborts keep ranting about???

I am not pro abort. I really just don’t care what people do to themselves.

If you don’t care what people do to themselves, than why do you care so-much as to what people believe? It seems very apparent that you put great stock into what you believe, so much so in fact, that you wish it would override everyone else’s beliefs! Careful now, one of these days you will, pull your foot out of your mouth, only to discover your missing a toe!

Where did you get the idea that I care what people believe. Just because people believe something does not make it true. The only thing I believe is that someday my existence will end and that will be it. You believe what you want to it won’t change anything. The only thing I know for sure is that human intelligence is the most over rated commodity on this planet and you are no exception. The whole abortion issue just highlights the fact that a stiff prick has no conscience and its going to remain that way until the sun burns out.

hicusdicus says:

“…human intelligence is the most over rated commodity on this planet…”

That’s the second time in the same thread that you’ve used that phrase, in place of a direct response, against someone who opposes you on abortion. Clearly, you’ve just described yourself!

I can’t be opposed on abortion I just really don’t care what people do to themselves. How people treat their unborn or born children is on their conscience. How they treat me or mine is another story.

So do you believe in suicide then Robert.Why not force everyone to kill them selves and pay for it too?To believe in God or not is your choice, and to try to convince everyone here that there is no God is futile on your part,so please stop trying.If your so unhappy with this life that you made for your self then by all means end it and prove to us that there is nothing further than this life.

Dan asks: “So do you believe in suicide then Robert.”

If an adult compitant person wants suicide that is THEIR decision. They will have no interfearence from me. The people of Oregon VOTED on exactly that with assisted suicide in that state so apparently I’m not alone.

“Why not force everyone to kill them selves and pay for it too?”

Awwww, you are trying to say “it’s a babyyyyyy,” Aren’t you! Louzy argument. Even if it is it is NOT able to take care of itself. It must TAKE 100% of its needs (save that one sacred sperm) from the woman. FACT: Anyone who is allegedly “pro-life” should be advocating for universal health care for EVERYONE, not just what you think it is needed for in a situation where one and only one woman can support it, even against her will according to you.

IOW, if you are going to demand that she submit to your version of socialism where you demand of her for someone else, you too should be supporting health care for those who can’t afford it.

More from Dan: “To believe in God or not is your choice, and to try to convince everyone here that there is no God is futile on your part,so please stop trying.”

YOUR god does not impact MY life except as YOU demand it. You can believe all you want. DO NOT obligate me to follow any of his brutal dictates. Clearly: You can believe as you want for yourself, but you do not get to run my life, or the life of any other, in the name of your god. Got it?

“If your so unhappy with this life that you made for your self then by all means end it and prove to us that there is nothing further than this life.”

Fact: I’m not unhappy with this life.
Fact: It’s YOUR claim there is an afterlife. It is up to you to prove it. That’s the way it works. YOU make the claim, you support it with something more than your proclimation.

Rob

If meeting Jesus in the after life is so great what are all the Christians doing hanging out on planet earth? When there is an abortion does not the murdered baby go straight to heaven and sit at the right hand of God for eternity. It gets a free ride and does not have to put up with this crappy life. What more could it ask for.

Some children are forced to lead terrible lives. Isn’t abortion better than that?

In other words, abortion is done out of compassion for the one being ripped to shreds. Using this perverted logic, slavery could also be rationalized. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, it could be argued that a person is better off as a well-cared-for slave in America, than slowly starving to death in some filthy AIDS-infested third-world dictatorship.

Also, how do we identify which unborn children will lead these terrible lives so we don’t inadvertently butcher some who might have lived good lives? Should only women who promise to give their children terrible lives be allowed to have them killed?

We also know that a lot of born children already live terrible lives. So why don’t we start killing them as well? After all, if it is compassionate to kill people who might live a terrible life someday in the future, surely it is even more compassionate to kill people who we know are living terrible lives right now.

http://www.deathroe.com/Pro-life_Answers/Answers.cfm?ID=70

If a woman can do anything she wants with her body why is prostitution illegal ?

gunner – Prostitution shouldn’t be illegal! Just think of all the tax money that would come in because men can’t keep it in their pants!

Robert, God did not create pants he created woman and all the niceties that go with her.

There is no such thing as death! We are not physical beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a physical experience. Spirit/soul cannot die!

Well Karolyn based on your beliefs killing the unborn baby is doing it a favor.

Releasing the spirit is not a bad thing. Death is a joyful event. Death is just the beginning of existence in a place of total peace and joy.

Then Karolyn
You then admit that there is a soul in the whom is that right?Then that is murder of the first degree.Don’t try to spin what you just said just look at it and understand what you said.

karolyn,
Then, by all means, release your spirit and let it FLY!!!!!!!!!

jeff your killing me

If there’s no such thing as death, then pray-tell, is there such thing as murder?

Karolyn, How do you know death is a joy full event have you ever experienced it.

Good question, hicusdicus!!!

Karolyn
Let’s have more joyful events by executing all the murderers on death row. Start with Manson, Ramirez, and Chapman. Oh yes, and don’t forget Maj. Nidal “Allahu Akbar!” Hasan.

Palin – Why would you want to release all those horrific people from the hell they live in?

karolyn, At times your handle on things is coming close to genius level.

Robert: actually most law is based upon Judeo-Christian religious teachings. You know, like Thou Shall not Kill, Thou Shall not Steal, ect., ect.

Gunner, that has been the law since the beginning of time. Its called natural law we are born with it.

Please show us where Bush “lied” us into war, and I don’t mean by telling your own string of lies…

Robert S
Are you talking about the war that the Hildebeast voted in favor of as Senator from NY?

And I don’t want to pay for the Bush wars. What can I do about my tax money going to that?

I don’t want to pay for the war on drugs that puts so much of our youth in jail for a simple joint.

Rob

Wo I see you think obummers wars are OK then and you don’t mind giving him our money to do it right?
If they were to stop the war on drugs then the gumnt would go broke and be forced to close down their poppy fields,Why do think the border is still open and they supply them with the guns?makes sense to me!

Bush’s wars have cost us billions while Obama’s wars have cost us millions.Probably none of them should be going on so how many letters did you write to Washington to stop Bush’s wars which has been a far greater sacrifice of our blood and treasury?

President Barack Obama’s new budget, to be released Monday, forecasts two consecutive years of near $160 billion in war funding, far more than he hoped when elected and only modestly less than the last years of the Bush Administration.

In 2011 alone, the revised numbers are triple what the president included in his spending plan a year ago. And the strain shows itself in new deficit projections, already hobbled by lagging revenues due to the weak economy.

The administration appears to be projecting a deficit of near $1.6 trillion for the current year and $1.3 trillion in 2011. That is even more pessimistic than Congressional Budget Office estimates last week, and it’s only in 2012 that the projections drop to the range of $800 billion to $700 billion.

By the end of the decade, the gap again widens, and as a percentage of GDP, the average appears above the 3% target viewed as sustainable.

Obama has responded with a three-year domestic spending freeze impacting about $447 billion in annual appropriations. This leaves him less money to sustain the very rapid growth seen last year in clean water programs or the Great Lakes restoration initiative. The Environmental Protection Agency budget would be cut modestly, and to stretch his dollars, Obama wants to dramatically ramp up the Energy Department’s credit budget, a low-cost way to extend tens of billions in loan guarantees to the nuclear power industry.

But on balance, the president’s plan seems less restrictive in many areas than lawmakers had anticipated. With the Senate having just passed a $1.9 trillion debt ceiling increase last week, fiscal moderates in his own party may insist on even tighter limits.

Obama’s 2010 starting point for the freeze has a built-in cushion since billions in Census spending won’t have to be repeated in 2011. He appears to count expanded Pell Grant funding for low-income college students as a mandatory cost outside the Education Department’s discretionary budget. And both Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security, two of the fastest areas of recent spending, are exempted from the freeze.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32272.html

We agree on something — the war part … so let’s shut it all down! Bring all our troops home to guard and seal our borders, THEN defund Planned Parenthood — racist organization when it was created and still remains!

Get the Federal Government completely out of the “Social Engineering” business … both at home and abroad…

Robert, give it up. The para normal followers are not right in the head. The next thing after outlawing condoms will be to make choking your chicken a capital offense.

Heaven forbid, what then will Robert do with all of his free time?

Dave says: “It’s a BABY, a PERSON – since conception, not a blob of tissue!”

Considering for the sake of argument it is…

So, you throw a party in your home. Everyone is invited. One of your guests decides to stay for 9 months and demands that you give them food and shelter. They DEMAND it, or someone demands it on their behalf. After all, they may not be able to take care of themselves because they stay drunk.

Of course you would send them on your way yourself, and if they didn’t go you would go through due process and have the local law enforcement get them out, as is your right.

In America a woman has the same right to toss a “person” out of her body. Who are you to deny such freedom and keep it for yourself?

Rob

Robert,
Apples and acorns!! That guest is able to take care of its self and was not CREATED by you and your cohost!! If the woman doesn’t want that “uninvited guest” then don’t bring them into your life!!! Writing yet??

Joe is now on SEX patrol and will monitor your bedroom habits. Please take a number and he will deal with you shortly.

Joe says: “not CREATED by you and your cohost!!”

I thought it was that there brutal christian god that CREATED life. After all, the whole thing rests on something like, “Knew you before you were born.”

So again: Who creates “life?”

Rob

One small problem with your analogy … the “woman” involved willingly participated in creating the “resident” in her body. “SEX” is also not a constitutional right, so she can face the consequences of her “CHOICE” without my financial assistance…

One problem with your analogy, Robert. The person you are throwing out of your party, is just being thrown out of your party, he/she is not having their life terminated! Try again!

Well said, Jay!

Here’s yet another problem with your analogy, Robert, as I pointed out to you in a previous post when you brought this up:

Pregnancy is a normal biological process. Someone overstaying his/her welcome at your house is NOT!

As Joe H says: Apples and acorns!

Thank you very much Vagabond.

Sook Young
Wife of the Samurai

The Supreme Court settled this once and for all. They said that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

Although, the word “abortion” does not appear in the Constitution, in Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to privacy encompasses the right to abortion. However, the word “privacy” is not found in the Constitution either. Despite that, the Court said that a right to privacy is found in a “penumbra” (shadow) of the Constitution. That little example of verbal gymnastics is known as “judicial activism” which simply means that the Court started with the conclusion they wanted and twisted the Constitution to make it fit.

After he died, the notes of Harry Blackmun – the Supreme Court Justice who wrote Roe v. Wade – were released and they made it undeniable that Blackmun, and the majority of the Supreme Court, found a right to abortion because that is what they set out to find. When they saw that the Constitution contained no foundation to support their political agenda, they simply manufactured one. This is best exemplified in their assertion that abortion is constitutional because the unborn are not “persons.” That is the modern version of a tactic the Court has used in the past to make certain groups constitutionally invisible. In their 1857 Dred Scott decision, they ruled that slavery was constitutional because black people were not “citizens.”

As for the claim that the abortion issue was settled by Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has a long history of discovering that some of its prior decisions were wrong. We do not have to accept that abortion is a settled issue because of Roe v. Wade anymore than our ancestors had to accept that slavery was a settled issue because of Dred Scott.

http://www.deathroe.com/Pro-life_Answers/Answers.cfm?ID=20

Jay
I can see that you did not go to school just to eat your lunch ;0

Jay, I agree. Roe v. Wade discovered a new right in the “liberty” of the 14th Amendment, that never before existed. In Lawrence v. Texas, they did likewise with homosexual acts.

Jay, Dred Scott v. Sanford was dismissed for lack of jurisdictiion, not to uphold slavery. Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court, may only hear cases in which a citizen of the United States is a party. Dred Scott wasn’t a citizen, thus he had no standing. While that seems silly to most Americans, the Court was going by the Court limitatiions in Article III, Section 2, which lists the types of cases federal courts may hear. In Dred Scott, the lower courts were so caught up in the issue of slavery, they never considered their jurisdictional limits. Taht’s also true in Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas. all cases beyond the jurisdiction of federal courts. (Both parties were of the same State, a category denied to federal courts.)

Jay, In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court relied on the 14th Amendment’s “All persons born…in the United States…are citizens of the United States.” They held that until one born, s/he is not a ‘person’ with a right to “life, liberty, or property.”
To change that ruling the 14th Amendment would have to read: “All persons conceived by a citizen of the United States are citizens of the United States…” Then an unborn fetus would have the same rights as a ‘person born’ here.

James says:

“They held that until one born, s/he is not a ‘person’…”

James, I think you are confusing “citizenship” with “personhood.” Where in the 14th Ammendment does it explicitly say that one has to be “born” to be a “person?”

The requirement of persons to be born in the United States to be “citizens” has NOTHING to do with having to be born to be a “person.”

It is time to start removing these activists judges…they all need to be elected instead of appointed…no one should be put into a powerful job FOR LIFE and have to answer to no one. It is time for some real changes in this country and we can start by kicking out the socialist,marxist, Mualim in the White House in 2012 along with the RINOS and Demorats…then finish up with changes to the system of apponted judges versus elected officials. It is time.

RS
So you think thats name calling?What then would you call it?That killing babies is OK and not murder?I see you just wanted to attack someone for your miserable life and it dosen’t matter what its about along as you can spin it and attack some one other than your personal mistakes in life.You need help professionally.And the one that denies it proves my point.

From Dan: “That killing babies is OK and not murder?I”

Abortion is NOT murder. It is mostly legal in America. Generally only in the minds of apparent religious zealots does the term “murder” come up.

What is gestating is NOT necessarily a “baby.” It is what the woman calls it. Further, if it is such a “complete” human being then she can toss it out, just as she can toss someone out of her home if she so chooses. Will you not give a woman the same right with her body as you demand with your home? Her very person… You will take that from her for your beliefs. Quite frankly I think that is unAmerican.

Rob

RS you can say what you want and do what you want, but I do not want my tax dollars killing babies and it should not be. What do we have to do to stop this-stop paying taxes to get peoples attention?!!!

I don’t want my taxes going for war.

Fix that first.

Rob

The fis is in the works there robby come 2012 he who has started three more will be gone.There its fixed!

Women who have abortions should be either 1)Sterilized or 2)Euthanized for the good of society. Their irresponsible behavior is causing a financial burden. They shouldn’t never be allowed to reproduce.

Allowing women who have had abortions to reproduce will cause the suicidal genocide of the human race !!! These women will neglect an future offspring to the financial detriment of society as a whole (if they have children after the abortion(s)).

Abort and sterilize ! They should change the law for the good of society.

simian – So you’re a communist?

Robert Smith says:

“…only in the minds of apparent religious zealots does the term ‘murder’ come up.”

Wrong! The abortion issue is a HUMAN LIFE issue, NOT a religious issue. Just because many religions speak out against abortion, that doesn’t make it a religious issue. There are atheists who are pro-life.

Robert Smith says:

“…she can toss it out, just as she can toss someone out of her home if she so chooses. Will you not give a woman the same right with her body as you demand with your home?”

“Toss[ing] someone out of [my] home” does NOT require taking the life of another living human organism, as it would in an abortion, Robert.

Your analogies are sooo lame!

Robert Smith says:

“You will take that from her for your beliefs. Quite frankly I think that is unAmerican.”

My beliefs are firmly grounded in the U.S. Constitution, Robert. One of them is the belief in the RIGHT TO LIFE, and I think that is VERY American!

robert,
Quitcher bitchin!! Just get out your pen and checkbook!!!! It’s the first of the month and time to pay child support!!

Quit lying Joe. I have NEVER been involvde with child support in any way.

Rob

So there’s the facts you wont help out your loved ones is that it robby!

Have you see the latest on contraception? Some conservatives are even against that!

“Rep. Steve King sputtering that preventative medicine really means preventing a generation – like, us! – which means that even as we speak we’re “a dying civilization.” The fact that King has access to and is part of our daily political discourse suggests he may be onto something.”

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/08/03

Contraception is the answer to abortion.

While this may seem logical, in practice it is now clear that pushing contraception increases sexual activity at a greater rate than it increases the use of contraception. This became apparent starting in the 1960s when America’s dramatic increase in contraception use was accompanied by an equally dramatic rise in sexual activity, unplanned pregnancies, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases.

Despite this, the abortion lobby and the pill pushers continue to market contraception as the holy grail of pregnancy prevention. In private, however, they sing a different song. Dr. Robert Hatcher is a widely recognized expert in the field of contraception, a professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and author of the book, Contraception Technology. At a 1995 National Abortion Federation meeting held in New Orleans, Hatcher cited a study conducted at Cornell and the University of Pennsylvania, saying, “…half of the women put on Norplant, and half put on oral contraceptives-now listen to these numbers-at the end of 15 months, all these women not wanting to become pregnant, 38 percent of the pill patients were pregnant! Thirty-eight percent! What are we doing? We’re giving them a fertility pill!”

Hatcher’s observation on the relationship between birth control and pregnancy rates are not new. After a 1958 Planned Parenthood conference, a report was published on its findings which included the following statement: “It was recognized by the conference participants that no scientific evidence has been developed to support the claim that increased availability of contraceptive services will clearly result in a decreased illegal abortion rate.” (The fact that this quote relates to illegal abortion is irrelevant. The question of how contraception use affects pregnancy rates is not influenced by the legal status of abortion.)

This report was edited by Dr. Mary Calderone, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood, and the Chairman of the Statement Committee was Alan Guttmacher for whom Planned Parenthood’s research branch is named. One of the participants in this conference was Dr. Alfred Kinsey. When another of the attendees continued to push contraception as the way to eradicate abortion, Kinsey responded, “At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induc%d abortion in the group which, in general, most frequently uses contraceptives.”

Another problem with this “contraception as a cure for abortion” argument is that many common methods of contraception are, in reality, abortions.

When a woman’s egg is fertilized, a new human life is created. Within 24 hours, cell division begins and a few days later this tiny human being will have traveled to its mother’s womb and attached itself there. This new life is first called a zygote, then a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, an infant, a child, an adolescent, an adult, etc. These labels identify the stages of human development, but no stage is any more or less human than the others.

Anything which prevents this process from beginning could be accurately described as contraception. However, once fertilization has occurred, the only thing that can stop the process is death. The manufacturers of birth control pills, patches, injections, morning after pills, etc., say their products are intended to prevent conception, but admit that when this fails the drugs can also prevent implantation.

In those instances, that means they did not prevent the pregnancy from occurring, they prevented it from continuing. That is abortion, not contraception. Also, even though intra-uterine devices (IUDs) are marketed as contraception, they are designed only to prevent implantation. Again, that is abortion, not contraception.

In an effort to hide all this from American women, the abortion lobby uses the concocted term “pre-embryo” to describe the stage of human life from fertilization to implantation. Then they claim that since the woman is not pregnant until implantation occurs, destroying this “pre-embryo” or preventing it from implanting is not an abortion. That is pure jibberish. There is no such thing as a “pre-embryo” and even if there were it would be irrelevant. You could invent the term “pre-adult” to describe teenagers, but that wouldn’t mean that they are not human beings.

Jay – It would be nice if you published your sources for everything you’re posting here.

Planned Parenthood Doesn’t Prevent Abortions
DODD · SATURDAY, MARCH 5, 2011 · 76 COMMENTS

Planned Parenthood has been pushing pretty hard to keep federal dollars rolling in lately. Despite the fact that the battle is largely symbolic–the defunding measure won’t pass the Senate and the House will bargain it away for other, more pressing cuts–the PR effort has been intense. Planned Parenthood has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars promoting itself a key part of keeping abortions rare, most especially by providing low-cost contraception.

Kirsten Powers committed some journalism and discovered that the facts don’t support the myth:
During the recent debate over whether to cut off government funding to Planned Parenthood, the organization claimed that its contraceptive services prevent a half-million abortions a year. Without their services, the group’s officials insist, more women will get abortions.
I’ll admit I bought the argument—it makes intuitive sense—and initially opposed cutting off funding for precisely that reason.

Then I did a little research.

Turns out, a 2009 study by the journal Contraception found, in a 10-year study of women in Spain, that as overall contraceptive use increased from around 49 percent to 80 percent, the elective abortion rate more than doubled. This doesn’t mean that access to contraception causes more abortion—though some believe that—but that it doesn’t necessarily reduce it.

In the U.S., the story isn’t much different. A January 2011 fact sheet by the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute listed all the reasons that women who have had an abortion give for their unexpected pregnancy, and not one of them is lack of access to contraception….

It’s unclear whether Planned Parenthood officials simply don’t understand statistics or are so accustomed to having their claims unquestioned that they think if they repeat them often enough, the facts will disappear. Obviously, you can complain of struggling with the cost of prescription birth control and also face an unwanted pregnancy for reasons that have nothing to do with lack of access to birth control. (By the way, Guttmacher was founded by Planned Parenthood; these are the numbers the group views as the most reliable….

To preserve its federal subsidy, Planned Parenthood continues to claim that without its contraception services the abortion rate will go up. This deception smacks of a fleecing of taxpayers in an effort to promote an ideological agenda, rather than a sincere effort to help women plan families.

Superficially, it seems perfectly logical that more access to contraception would lower the abortion rate. But the statistics make more sense on further reflection. I’ll be the first to admit I am entirely fine with the… sexual permissiveness of our culture. But it’s patently obvious that that a more promiscuous society is going to generate more unplanned pregnancies whether we make contraception hard to get or hand it out on every street corner.

The mistake I think a lot of people make is in thinking that promoting access to contraception promotes promiscuity. There’s definitely a positive feedback loop here, but the causal connection runs in the opposite direction. As we’ve become more sexually “liberated,” we’ve demanded (and gotten) greater access to contraception. And more access to abortion, which also contributes to the positive feedback loop. In this, I disagree with my friend Stacy McCain, who believes that “contraception involves a rejection of God.”

Continued:http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/planned-parenthood-doesnt-prevent-abortions/

““contraception involves a rejection of God.”

Depends on your concept of God. Bottom line is it all depends on one’s beliefs. We should all have the freedom to make our own choices according to how we believe-PERIOD.

First, abortion is not about reproduction. When a woman is pregnant, reproduction has already taken place. Abortion is about killing the child that has been produced. Second, what kind of perverted mind sees the right to kill one’s own offspring as a symbol of freedom? As pro-life feminist Frederica Mathewes-Green once observed, a woman killing her child through abortion is like an animal gnawing off its own leg to get out of a trap. Abortion, she said, is not a sign that women are free, but that they are desperate.