Planned Parenthood has been cooking their books for years. If they coded services like real healthcare providers then abortions would overwhelmingly be their number 1 seller. But they cant speak the truth, when they have a moment of candor you get these videos that show how inhuman they really are.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You've just summed up, in a roundabout way, why there is no outrage from some circles, even as others scream bloody murder and start lighting torches for the witch hunt. People have different opinions on what constitutes a "human being". Speaking very generally here and without regard for my own thoughts on abortion, your child is someone else's tumor, and they're just as sure that it's a tumor as you are that it's a child.

 

Exactly, and this is why this thread will go nowhere except downhill.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

There are some arguments in life that aren't worth having. Abortion is one of them. People stand around shouting at each other to no end, and by the time the dust settles, no one's mind is changed, but we all hate each other just a little bit more for having had the discussion.

 

 

I agree with this. All the arguing and politicking ends up with nothing changing. It's a non-issue.


 

But this thread is not about whether or not abortion should be legal. It's about PP carving up 2nd and 3rd trimester humans with a full set of internal organs and selling the parts. I would expect that anyone with compassion would be appalled by this, whether or not one is pro choice.


 

My personal opinion is that it's not a person at conception, it's definitely a person at birth, and I don't think anyone can really say exactly when a fetus is developed enough to be considered a person. A religious person might say it becomes a person when the soul enters the body, but when that occurs is still debatable. Considering the doubt there, a person should not be punished for having an abortion, but neither should the government support the practice, even indirectly.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

There are some arguments in life that aren't worth having. Abortion is one of them. People stand around shouting at each other to no end, and by the time the dust settles, no one's mind is changed, but we all hate each other just a little bit more for having had the discussion.

 

Personally, I don't think that any man has a right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body and things contained within it. Please don't misinterpret that as my support of abortion, because it's not. It's simply me recognizing that no matter what I think one way or the other, 50% of the population is going to disagree with me, they're not going to be interested in the science or morality behind my opinion, and nothing I say or do will change that. I have more important things to worry about on a daily basis, like what new way the NSA has dreamed up to spy on me this week, how to prevent us from becoming a police state (yeah, it's happening), why oil companies are allowed to pump hydraulic fluid into my drinking water supply and why GMO foods aren't required to be labeled as such. To be extremely blunt, I think there are far more important things for Americans to worry about than what a woman chooses to do to her own body and things contained within it, and the people behind those bigger problem topics absolutely love it to death when someone selectively edits video, kills a lion or posts a picture of a kitten playing the piano. Every set of eyes fixated on that stuff is one less set of eyes on their activities.

 

Hey, Eric, got room in that bunker for one more? The more I pay attention, the more I'm starting to feel like I'm going to need one of my own before too long here.

 

You are exactly right.  one of the key fundamental aspects of having psychopathic tendencies is that the life of others becomes fundamentally subordinate to your own personal welfare and prosperity.  Incidentally this pretty well sums up why Cecil the lion got so much coverage, another symptom is the irrational idolazation of animals or inanimate objects above that of humans.  

 

I am sure that in the early 19th century there were those who said, "Hey, there's no real point in debating about this whole slavery thing.  I'm white you're white.  It won't be us in the basement of some southern plantation so what does it matter?  So a few of them die off, who cares.  Can you imagine how much a cotton shirt would cost if we didn't have slavery?  Besides, their just (insert whatever racial slur you feel appropriate) its not like their PEOPLE!"  The last thing that anyone would want to do is inconvenience you with being a human being.

 

As for the concept of "You can't tell a woman what to do with her own body."  First off that's B.S. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't give you the right to go into a movie theater and shoot up the place to make yourself feel better, the right to free speech doesn't give you the ability to shout fire in the middle of an airplane ride, the right to freely assemble doesn't give you the ability to click up with your best palls and conspire to blow up buildings and a woman's right to self determination doesn't include indiscriminately destroying any organism that society is too lazy to protect.  

 

Now, I think that there are some very rational people who are pro choice who base their argument on viability.  I would still disagree vehemently with them about the morality of terminating a pregnancy of any age without cause but i can at least understand where they are coming from.  In the case of Planned Parenthood and the extreme Pro Abortion left (not just pro choice pro abortion) they believe that any time any where abortion is the order of the day and even if the poor little tyke is born before the procedure or survives because they have a level of viability outside the womb these people still want to have human sacrifice on the alter of feminism and then profit from the sale of the desecrated vessel.  As Malabar Put it, to anyone who actually does have compassion for the child even those who are pro choice the ACTIONS of planned parenthood are abhorent.  And to anyone who actually takes the time to do the research, the ORIGINS of planned parenthood itself are fundamentally beneath our social conscience and the whole thing should be shuttered.  If you are naive enough to believe that Planned Parenthood is the only organization that can legitimately advise women on birth control and provide health services then i really don't know what to say at this point!

---

it's fun to build strawmen to knock down...

---

So you would prefer more low income women to have unwanted births?  I mean, have you though through what would happen if the poor had no access to birth control?

 

I'm not sure if you've heard of Freakenomics, but there are some highly regarded economists that have hypothesized that there are some good benefits of lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies--especially of those from a low socio-economic background.  

 

 

Margaret Sanger would be proud. Her goal was to make sure there were less black babies.

 

 

Who cares?  If a person does not wish to go through with pregnancy, it's thier prerogative.  What racists think isn't really anything I care to discuss in regards to Abortion and a woman's right to make up her own choices.

 

I thought you were for freedom and less government in our lives...  

 

 

The strike outs are in response to Anchorman saying that the reason PP was founded is not worth discussing. The reason it was founded was to prevent a higher percentage of black babies being born if only white women could afford abortions. PP would not exist if it weren't for its racist origin.

 

In my mind, bringing up the founder of PP is a way to muddy the waters.  The USA was founded by slave owners, should we hate the USA?

 

Also, I found it interesting that based on my original post, you went directly to the race card, when I did not bring up any race, but economic circumstances.  I know that based on how the media portrays blacks, most people think poor and equate black.  But I was not.  I was speaking soley in terms of economics.  

 

As has been previously posted, this topic can become personal.  I for one do not want to hate anyone based on this discussion.  But at the end of the day, it's clear that my thoughts on life and person-hood is different than those that disagree with me.  

 

I am not for the murder of babies.  Just FYI.  I think ALL those that are pro-choice are also anti-murder of babies.  It's the definition of what one ordains a baby to be that appears to be the issue that causes such high tempers.

---

Sanger was a eugenics supporter, believed in inferiority of races, and wanted the so called less useful culled out...I wonder what organization she founded....hmmmm

he already said "who cares?". you know what kind of guy he is.

---

These werent personal views she held in secret, it was the reason she founded the institution. Youre not defending a nation dedicated to growing freedom founded by men who at the time owned slaves and envisioned slaveries end, you are defending the institution of slavery itself.

---

Oh noes!  PP is set to kill all blacks!!!  Run for the hills!  Grab your pitchforks!!!   So silly...

 

 

"As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit."^[94] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.^[95]

<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-familyans-serif;">In “The Morality of Birth Control,” a 1921 speech, she divided society into three groups: the educated and informed class that regulated the size of their families, the intelligent and responsible who desired to control their families however did not have the means or the knowledge and the irresponsible and reckless people whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” Sanger concludes “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”^[96]

<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-familyans-serif;">Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planningautonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the "profoundly [BLEEP]".^[97]^[98] In her book <i>The Pivot of Civilization</i>, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating.^[99]

<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-familyans-serif;">Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals.^[100]^[101]^[102]

<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-familyans-serif;">In contrast with eugenicist William Robinson, who advocated euthanasia for the unfit,^{[note 8]} Sanger wrote, "we [do not] believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding."^[103]Similarly, Sanger denounced the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program.^[98] In addition, Sanger believed the responsibility for birth control should remain in the hands of able-minded individual parents rather than the state, and that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment.^[100]^[104]

<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-familyans-serif;">Sanger also supported restrictive immigration policies. In "A Plan for Peace", a 1932 essay, she proposed a congressional department to address population problems. She also recommended that immigration exclude those "whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race," and that sterilization and segregation be applied to those with incurable, hereditary disabilities.^[97]^[98]^[105]"

 

Again, the purpose of PP is not wipe out one race.  But yeah, go ahead and try to demonize the founder in order to further your agenda.  Again, it doesn't matter what Sanger's philosophies are in terms of PP.  Unless your goal is to muddy the waters...  Which it's clear some's are.

 

If you disagree with abortion, so be it.  But don't try and tell me that the reason PP should go away is because the founder (and thus the organization now) has some racist purpose of killing blacks.

---

In my mind, bringing up the founder of PP is a way to muddy the waters.  The USA was founded by slave owners, should we hate the USA?

 

 

I knew this would be the argument. The USA was not founded to further slavery, the fact that some of the founders owned slaves was incidental to the reason. If Margaret Sanger founded (say) Starbucks, your analogy might be appropriate. But PP was founded specifically to further her racist goals.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Silly argument. Of course states can't override Federal Law.


But Congress can. They'd need the POTUS to sign the bill or enough votes to override the veto, which makes it unlikely to pass. However, it would be an unpopular vote in most districts, so maybe there would be enough Dem votes fearing their support of 'selling baby parts' would end up costing them re-election.

It would be unpopular. But from the other side. You are proposing blocking women from things like HPV vaccinations, health screenings, access to contraception.


The Republicans can make the election about women's rights again. That's one reason they lost in 2012.

---

It would be unpopular. But from the other side. You are proposing blocking women from things like HPV vaccinations, health screenings, access to contraception.

 

 

Yes, because in the minds of the left only PP can provide those things.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I knew this would be the argument. The USA was not founded to further slavery, the fact that some of the founders owned slaves was incidental to the reason. If Margaret Sanger founded (say) Starbucks, your analogy might be appropriate. But PP was founded specifically to further her racist goals.

 

The point is that it doesn't matter what her point of view was.  PP is beneficial to the society.  And it's not because PP is trying to kill blacks...  

 

For you to bring up the past founder's political views as a reason to get rid of the organization is silly.  That's all.  That's why I said, "who cares?".  Because in terms of PP and what it does for women in tough economic situations is bigger than some lady that has long since passed from this mortal coil.

---

Yes, because in the minds of the left only PP can provide those things.

 

Typical tactic---  But nice deflection, anyways.  Kudos to you.  This thread is about PP!

---

Typical tactic--- But nice deflection, anyways. Kudos to you. This thread is about PP!

So the fact that federal funds support an unnecessary entity is irrelevant?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So the fact that federal funds support an unnecessary entity is irrelevant?

 

Whether you think PP unnecessary is worth a discussion.  Obviously this thread is discussing this topic.

 

Sorry, I might have mis-read what Malabar was saying to Shack.  It sounded to me like he was trying to move the topic off of PP to a discussion of free-market funding of other programs.   

---

Typical tactic---  But nice deflection, anyways.  Kudos to you.  This thread is about PP! 

 

Deflection? My comment was about PP.


 

There is no reason PP can't give up the 2% (if you believe that number) of it's services that anger roughly half the people in this country and concentrate on the other 98% that you deem beneficial to society.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Again, I really don't think there is any relavance regarding Sanger's views and PP, but I thought I'd add this Wiki about it.  (I've bolded some parts I think are important):  

 

<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-familyans-serif;">Sanger's writings echoed her ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races. In one "What Every Girl Should Know" commentary, she references popular opinion that Aboriginal Australians were "just a step higher than the chimpanzee" with "little sexual control," as compared to the "normal man and Woman."^[80] Elsewhere she bemoaned that traditional sexual ethics "... have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted."^[104]

<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-familyans-serif;">Such attitudes did not keep her from collaborating with <a class="" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American' title="African-American">African-American</a> leaders and professionals who saw a need for birth control in their communities. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and leader of New York's <a class="" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_League' title="Urban League">Urban League</a>, asked Sanger to open a clinic inHarlem.^[107] Sanger secured funding from the <a class="" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Rosenwald_Fund' title="Julius Rosenwald Fund">Julius Rosenwald Fund</a> and opened the clinic, staffed with black doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a 15-member advisory board consisting of black doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press and in black churches, and it received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, founder of the <a class="" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP' title="NAACP">NAACP</a>.^[108] Sanger did not toleratebigotry among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects.^[109] Sanger's work with minorities earned praise fromMartin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.^[110]

<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-familyans-serif;">From 1939 to 1942 Sanger was an honorary delegate of the Birth Control Federation of America, which included a supervisory role—alongsideMary Lasker and Clarence Gamble—in the Negro Project, an effort to deliver birth control to poor black people.^[111] Sanger wanted the Negro Project to include black ministers in leadership roles, but other supervisors did not. To emphasize the benefits of involving black community leaders, she wrote to Gamble "we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." While New York University's <i>Margaret Sanger Papers Project</i>, argues that in writing that letter, "Sanger recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the <a class="" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow' title="Jim Crow">Jim Crow</a> South;"^[112] Angela Davis uses the quote to support claims that Sanger intended to exterminate the black population.^[113]

---

Deflection? My comment was about PP.


 

There is no reason PP can't give up the 2% (if you believe that number) of it's services that anger roughly half the people in this country and concentrate on the other 98% that you deem beneficial to society.

 

 

Apologies.  I think I mis-read your point.  

 

This discussion regarding the portion of work that PP does you disagree with is valid.  I just disagree with it.

---

Apologies.  I think I mis-read your point.  

 

This discussion regarding the portion of work that PP does you disagree with is valid.  I just disagree with it.

 

I have no problem with early term abortion. I do have a problem with aborting fully formed* humans and selling the body parts. I also have a problem with the government funding an entity that does that.


 

* in most cases some more development is necessary before the fetus is truly fully formed. But the ones for which PP is carving up and selling the parts have all of the internal organs in a reasonable state of development. That's close enough to fully formed to be appalling, and some would even survive if delivered intact. I'm surprised there are so many here who aren't appalled by this.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"