Former Abortion Clinic Owner: We Pushed Sex Ed on Kids to Create a Market for Abortion

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Of course they are people. Prove otherwise.

Since the Bible and the Constitution of the United States both prove that a fetus is not considered a person, I don't what other kind of proof would satisfy you.

However, where there is doubt, as to who's really a person and who's rights supercede the others', society should ALWAYS err on the side of the mother, where there is no doubt whatsoever that she is a real, living, breathing and self determined individual.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Of course they are people. Prove otherwise.

Since the Bible and the Constitution of the United States both prove that a fetus is not considered a person, I don't what other kind of proof would satisfy you.

However, where there is doubt, as to who's really a person and who's rights supercede the others', society should ALWAYS err on the side of the mother, where there is no doubt whatsoever that she is a real, living, breathing and self determined individual.

Epic fail there. The Constitution doesn't address the matter at all; it simply states that rights are for all people. No required life stage is given for those rights to be in effect.

The Bible is much more clear on the issue.

Jeremiah 1:5 - "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

Anything valid, or are you ready to concede?

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

Claiming bias with no real evidence is pointless. The article isn't about whether people eventually have sex, either. it's about sex ed being used to drum up abortion business.

But we know this is a lie. There has been less abortion since there has been more sex ed. That's a fact. Sex ed has increased in schools over the last 40 years. Abortion rates have been declining for the last 40 years. Fact. The other fact is that the goal of sex ed has ALWAYS been to avoid STDs, and unwanted pregnancies.

You want to believe that's a lie. I have yet to see any support for your belief. There is less abortion because more are becoming pro-life. I already posted links supporting that fact. Your claims don't match what insiders in the abortion industry state at all.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The Constitution doesn't address the matter at all; it simply states that rights are for all people. No required life stage is given for those rights to be in effect.

Wrong! The US Constitution clearly states that the rights that are outlined within its, and the Bill of Rights, pages apply to "persons born".

The Bible clearly states that man became a living soul when God blew the breath of life into Adam, not a moment before. Additionally, Levitical law treats a fetus as chattel.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

There is less abortion because more are becoming pro-life.

Nonsense! The pro-life community is against contraception. It's contraception, affordable and easy to access, that's responsible for lower abortion rates.

Statistics prove that religious women use "church banned" contraception at an absurdly high percentage.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The Constitution doesn't address the matter at all; it simply states that rights are for all people. No required life stage is given for those rights to be in effect.

Wrong! The US Constitution clearly states that the rights that are outlined within its, and the Bill of Rights, pages apply to "persons born".

The Bible clearly states that man became a living soul when God blew the breath of life into Adam, not a moment before. Additionally, Levitical law treats a fetus as chattel.

"Persons born"? Where in those documents is that stated? That is a modern liberal interpretation, not a fact.

The Bible states that God knew someone before they were even formed in the womb, which fact you seem to want to ignore. Adam wasn't born; he was created from dust. Invalid as an example in this case. Again, fail.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

There is less abortion because more are becoming pro-life.

Nonsense! The pro-life community is against contraception. It's contraception, affordable and easy to access, that's responsible for lower abortion rates.

Statistics prove that religious women use "church banned" contraception at an absurdly high percentage.

Nonsense. The pro-life community is against abortifacient contraception; methods that can remove an already fertilized egg. Other methods are perfectly acceptable. Plus, birth control IS easily available, and cheap, and doesn't need to be paid by a Christian business owner for someone to use it. If someone wants it, they can damn well buy it themselves.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The pro-life community is against abortifacient contraception; methods that can remove an already fertilized egg.

Wrong. The pro-life community is against the PILL.

The Birth Control Pill is the most popular and widely used method of hormonal contraception. It involves taking a month-long series of pills—three weeks of pills containing hormones, and one without. This allows the woman to have a menstrual period. The Pill contains two synthetic hormones, progestin and ethinyl estradiol and has three mechanisms: 1) it prevents ovulation, 2) thickens the cervical mucus, which makes it harder for sperm to enter the uterus and 3) affects the endometrium or lining of the womb to make it more hostile to implantation. This means the tiny developing baby (embryo) cannot attach to the uterine lining and dies, which is a very early abortion. Even so, they define this as "preventing pregnancy."
www.lifeissues.org...

The above citation is a pro-life lie. There can be no abortion unless a woman is pregnant. A woman is NOT pregnant until implantation. Therefore, the PILL is NOT an abortifacient.

So, you're wrong, again, about less abortions indicating that more people are becoming [pro-life", as that isn't true. The pro-life community is against contraception ie, the PILL, and the PILL is responsible for less unplanned pregnancies and less abortions.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

She says that the programs aim to teach children that talking to their parents about sex is uncomfortable and then they offer to be the people the children turn to for support.

I say bullcrap.

Well .. there is actually truth to that claim.

Grandma may have been a "buttered biscuit" in her day but hearing about it is...awkward. Your birth control method should be awesome, not awkward. Explore all your options at bedsider.org....

They are telling you to not talk to your family, and instead go to them for sex ed.

originally posted by: windword
Wrong. The pro-life community is against the PILL.

How good of you to lump everyone together. Some are against the pill, some are not. I'm not.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

"Persons born"? Where in those documents is that stated? That is a modern liberal interpretation, not a fact.

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A person has to be born in order to enjoy the benefits guaranteed under the US Constitution.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: windword
Wrong. The pro-life community is against the PILL.

How good of you to lump everyone together. Some are against the pill, some are not. I'm not.

Sorry, if you're okay with contraception, including the PILL, you are NOT pro-life, you're pro-choice.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: windword
Wrong. The pro-life community is against the PILL.

How good of you to lump everyone together. Some are against the pill, some are not. I'm not.

Sorry, if you're okay with contraception, including the PILL, you are NOT pro-life, you're pro-choice.

False. Thanks for playing though. The pill prevents pregnancy from occurring, it does not terminate it.

originally posted by: windword
A person has to be born in order to enjoy the benefits guaranteed under the US Constitution.

Quite true. A person must be born in order to be a citizen of the US. All people, citizen or not, do have rights though.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: windword
Wrong. The pro-life community is against the PILL.

How good of you to lump everyone together. Some are against the pill, some are not. I'm not.

Sorry, if you're okay with contraception, including the PILL, you are NOT pro-life, you're pro-choice.

False. Thanks for playing though. The pill prevents pregnancy from occurring, it does not terminate it.

Pro-lifers believe that life, ie., pregnancy, begins at fertilization. As I cited in my above post, the pro-life community insists that the PILL causes abortions.

If you believe that a woman isn't pregnant until implantation, and therefore, has the right to use the PILL or even the Morning After Pill, then you are pro-choice, by definition.

Quite true. A person must be born in order to be a citizen of the US. All people, citizen or not, do have rights though.

Even non-citizens are defined as "born" and have constitutional rights while on US soil.

a reply to: windword

Very good; you found the relevant section. However, does that state that persons not born are not deserving of life? No, it does not. It states that persons born in the United States, or naturalized, are citizens, and subject to the laws of the land and the state in which they reside. It then goes on to tell us that no state shall pass any law that would deprive any person of life, that is within the jurisdiction of the laws. That doesn't say only those born; it says all living within the jurisdiction of the law. That includes the unborn.

Somewhere around 38 states have laws that protect the unborn from acts of violence committed during a crime. These laws clearly consider the unborn a human life. Yet abortion is allowed, which ends that life? In California, the baby is protected at 7-8 weeks gestation, UNLESS it's abortion, in which case the baby is somehow no longer a baby. Basically, it's the whim of the mother that determines if the child is a person or not,and that's simply wrong.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The pro-life community is against abortifacient contraception; methods that can remove an already fertilized egg.

Wrong. The pro-life community is against the PILL.

Birth control pills can be abortifacient. They can prevent implantation, which means if one believes life begins at conception, then such pills end that life. Other methods are perfectly acceptable, as I stated. The pill isn't the only method, you know. Ever hear of condoms? Diaphragms? With any of these, I still think the person should pay for them themselves, and not expect someone else to.

originally posted by: windword

The Birth Control Pill is the most popular and widely used method of hormonal contraception. It involves taking a month-long series of pills—three weeks of pills containing hormones, and one without. This allows the woman to have a menstrual period. The Pill contains two synthetic hormones, progestin and ethinyl estradiol and has three mechanisms: 1) it prevents ovulation, 2) thickens the cervical mucus, which makes it harder for sperm to enter the uterus and 3) affects the endometrium or lining of the womb to make it more hostile to implantation. This means the tiny developing baby (embryo) cannot attach to the uterine lining and dies, which is a very early abortion. Even so, they define this as "preventing pregnancy."
www.lifeissues.org...

The above citation is a pro-life lie. There can be no abortion unless a woman is pregnant. A woman is NOT pregnant until implantation. Therefore, the PILL is NOT an abortifacient.

If the egg is fertilized, an embryo is formed. Whether it's implanted or not doesn't change that reality. Claiming implantation is required means you actually know it's a life at fertilization, and simply want to obscure that. Otherwise, that argument wouldn't be necessary, because you would simply claim it isn't a baby till birth, so it didn't matter. When an argument depends on bending the facts, it's already failed.

originally posted by: windword
So, you're wrong, again, about less abortions indicating that more people are becoming [pro-life", as that isn't true. The pro-life community is against contraception ie, the PILL, and the PILL is responsible for less unplanned pregnancies and less abortions.

Not according to a lot of researchers. Your pro-abortion sources are biased, and you have to look at both sides for the whole picture.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

That doesn't say only those born; it says all living within the jurisdiction of the law. That includes the unborn.

No it doesn't. You're only deceiving yourself now. There is no constitutional protection for the unborn, at least not yet. "Fetal Personhood" is a proposed constitutional amendment that can't gain support even in the most pro-life of states.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Birth control pills can be abortifacient.

Wrong. Birth control pills, including the Morning After Pill prevent implantation. The AMA and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have defined "pregnancy" as occurring upon implantation. That's a fact.

No implantation, no pregnancy, no abortion. It's that simple.

Your pro-abortion sources are biased

The only source that I've cited in this thread is from a pro-life web site, proving that the pro-life stance is anti birth control pills, in fact, any hormonal birth control method is "abortion" in the pro-life book.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: windword
Wrong. The pro-life community is against the PILL.

How good of you to lump everyone together. Some are against the pill, some are not. I'm not.

Sorry, if you're okay with contraception, including the PILL, you are NOT pro-life, you're pro-choice.

False. Thanks for playing though. The pill prevents pregnancy from occurring, it does not terminate it.

Pro-lifers believe that life, ie., pregnancy, begins at fertilization. As I cited in my above post, the pro-life community insists that the PILL causes abortions.

If you believe that a woman isn't pregnant until implantation, and therefore, has the right to use the PILL or even the Morning After Pill, then you are pro-choice, by definition.

Quite true. A person must be born in order to be a citizen of the US. All people, citizen or not, do have rights though.

Even non-citizens are defined as "born" and have constitutional rights while on US soil.

False. You can lump everyone together all you like it still does not make it true. Many pro-lifers are fine with the pill as it prevents pregnancy and does not terminate it. As for the religious angle the pill still allows for pregnancy, it's possible, therefor God's hand may still move a woman to become implanted if He so chooses. Please show me this definition of pro-life and pro-choice you speak of.

Source it. What you are suggesting is a human being made in a lab and never born would have no rights. Quite silly of you.