Planned Parenthood is Encouraging Black Women To Abort Rather Than Give Birth!.

a reply to: carewemust

Planned Parenthood is Encouraging Black Women To Abort Rather Than Give Birth!

Well yeah. Isn't that like, pretty much their mission statement? It's the reason they were created, that's what I thought...

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Anyway, there should be something like Planned Parenthood that isn't just a liberal front.

Planned Parenthood is liberal, and progressive, by its very nature. PP has always been on the front lines in the "war" for women's reproductive rights. They were there when married women wanted the legal right to use birth control. They were there when unmarried women fought for the right to use birth control. They were there when women were dying in back allies, so desperate they were giving themselves to dirty and dangerous procedures.

They are there now as regressive religious RWNJ try to chip away at women's autonomy and question their ability to make rational decisions for themselves and their families. They are there to fight for rights of living autonomous women over her embryo's/fetus' fetus rights.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Anyway, there should be something like Planned Parenthood that isn't just a liberal front.

They are there now as regressive religious RWNJ try to chip away at women's autonomy and question their ability to make rational decisions for themselves and their families. They are there to fight for rights of living autonomous women over her embryo's/fetus' fetus rights.

What is rational about having your own offspring exterminated because you find them to be inconvenient at the moment?

a reply to: MRinder


Are you saying that all women who choose to terminate their pregnancies are irrational?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

He didn't say that at all. Why are you putting words in his mouth?

Why throw the baby out with the bath water?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: MRinder


Are you saying that all women who choose to terminate their pregnancies are irrational?

Yes I am! Unless the pregnancy is a threat to the woman and the child's life, meaning most likely the woman and child would die.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
The key word here is planned, now say after me "planned parenthood" , repeat it 3 times if it still doesn't make sense....

Yes, one would think that planned would be key wouldn't one. Of course, for most thinking people, part of the planning is not getting pregnant if you aren't ready to be pregnant.

If you're needing an abortion, then it would seem you failed that first step of planning.

And don't fire back about rape and incest they're less than 5% of all unplanned pregnancies in this country among all women and are therefore just a convenient excuse to hide behind when you get called on the planning bit.

a reply to: MRinder


Are men who pay for their mistresses', wives' and girl friends' abortions also victims of irrational thought?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: MRinder


Are men who pay for their mistresses', wives' and girl friends' abortions also victims of irrational thought?

Yes they are! Even more irrational than the women.

For example, let's say one day I wake up and decide one of my kids are inconvenient or I cannot afford to feed them. Should I be able to kill them? Wouldn't I be irrational if I were to kill them?

I never understood why they called this organization "planned" parenthood.

Shouldn't it be called "unplanned parenthood"?

a reply to: MRinder


Most rational people don't equate an unwanted pregnancy with a living, breathing, autonomous child.

a reply to: MRinder

well, you could pack up your things, move out of the family home, disappear and get a job under the table... there's plenty of men who have seemed to get away with that one!!
you don't have to kill the kid...

now, what about the women who is the sole caretaker of a two year old, ya know husband is away, maybe on business trips, whatever, most husbands can't stay home 24/7 can they? and many families are rather cash strapped wouldn't be able to hire a nanny to care for the kid... what if there's good reason to believe that a pregnancy would cause a long period of hospitalization, leaving the child with no one to care for them? it's not like the women can run away from the responsibility, she can't even take a break from any discomfort being caused by the pregnancy, can she? is that a good enough "inconvenience" for you, or would you prefer that the two year old end up being cared for by a foster family?

a reply to: Bluntone22

their goal is and always was to give women the knowledge and ability to plan when they would have their children...
birth control!! and giving women that ability and allowing them to make those choices IS NOT EUGENICS!!!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: MRinder


Most rational people don't equate an unwanted pregnancy with a living, breathing, autonomous child.

That's hard to believe since a rational person would accept the fact that every human pregnancy that ends in success has resulted in a living, breathing child. Have you ever heard of a human pregnancy that produced something other than a human child? Even in the case of still birth or when the child dies right after birth, it still was a human child. That is why the parent mourn for the death of that child. Even most rational people where the couple has a miscarriage mourn the loss of the child, because they knew without a doubt that had their not been a miscarriage the result would have been a child, there child.

a reply to: dawnstar

Where the hell did I say anything about eugenics?

a reply to: MRinder


When did I ever say that human women weren't pregnant with human enbryos/fetuses? But, an embryo isn't a person, it's a potential person. A fetus isn't a person, it's a potential person. On the other hand, the woman is a person, and she has the right to decide when to and whether to become a mother.

Usually considered to have been rational, the Founding Fathers explicitly stated that constitutional rights extend to "persons born", not to person unborn. Also, usually considered to a rational body of individuals is the US Supreme Court, that ruled that abortion would be a decision exclusiviely made between a woman and her doctor, until "viability", when the states have an option to regulate the procudure to protect the developing life.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: MRinder

well, you could pack up your things, move out of the family home, disappear and get a job under the table... there's plenty of men who have seemed to get away with that one!!
you don't have to kill the kid...

now, what about the women who is the sole caretaker of a two year old, ya know husband is away, maybe on business trips, whatever, most husbands can't stay home 24/7 can they? and many families are rather cash strapped wouldn't be able to hire a nanny to care for the kid... what if there's good reason to believe that a pregnancy would cause a long period of hospitalization, leaving the child with no one to care for them? it's not like the women can run away from the responsibility, she can't even take a break from any discomfort being caused by the pregnancy, can she? is that a good enough "inconvenience" for you, or would you prefer that the two year old end up being cared for by a foster family?

First, I would never abandon my children. I have had hard times while raising them, but I never even for a second considered leaving them. I have raised them by myself since they were very young and there are times when it has been very tough, but you find solutions and do the best you can. It's not like I ever feared starving to death since i live in a country that, if needed, would have provided food for me and the children.

In your scenario, I don't have the answer because i don't know what other resources were available, as in friends, family, etc to help out. It sounds rough. I don't see any reason the husband couldn't have quit his job or cut back his travel to help out. Priorities. So maybe you loose all your stuff for a time, but at least you have your children.

If this was something you personally went through, I feel for you. That's rough and I would say the man should have and could have done more to help. Men suck some times. Also, its important to remember that we all make huge mistakes at times but our past doesn't define us. The best thing we can do is forgive ourselves and each other and carry on.

Makes sense that if you want to eliminate a race through attrition, give them free abortion and birth control. Is it moral ? Absolutely not, abortion is murder any way you slice it. Birth control, what about it ? It is a far better solution for unwanted pregnancy. Not behaving in a certain manner might go miles in stopping unwanted pregnancies as well, but that seems too inconvenient for most.

a reply to: MRinder

Though US officials have long denied any link between their bombs and the alarming increase in health problems among Micronesians, they have yet to offer a satisfactory explanation as to why hundreds of jellyfish babies are born to Micronesian mothers. Literally, these babies look like blobs of jelly. These babies are born with no eyes, no heads and do not resemble human beings at all. They are twisted things that breathe for only a few hours. After death, they are buried right away. Mothers are not shown their mutated bodies; it would be too inhumane.

www.wiseinternational.org...

guess it would depend on what you consider to be human??
but hey, I guess that if any are born in the states, you will have no problem with your taxmoney being used to do everything medically possible to keep them alive, heck can can even invest a ton of money into ways to make these little tykes productive citizens of our society if we do manage to keep them alive.. even if it means rebuilding an entire skeletal system for them!!

a reply to: Plotus


Who says abortion is immoral?