It has been a bad month for liberals and their child porn. Lesforlife reported on ProLifeBlogs.com tonight that Sandra Batte, former president of the St. Louis chapter of the Susan G. Komen Foundation, pled guilty Feb. 22 to federal charges of child porn possession. Read more details here.
On Feb. 23, Charles Rust-Tierney, former president of the ACLU of Virginia, was also charged with possessing child pornography.
Mark Foley, anyone?
Or how about this guy...
Both sides have sides they'd rather not let be known. It goes to show how stupid it is to believe in the infallibility of one particular viewpoint.Posted by: Lando the Great at March 11, 2007 9:30 PM
There are no definitive studies linking abortion and breast cancer.
Also, if woman who have abortions are more likely to have breast cancer than woman who have miscarriages would also be.Posted by: Danielle at March 11, 2007 9:34 PM
Also no side is perfect:Posted by: Danielle at March 11, 2007 9:41 PM
And, the fact that she donates to Planned Parenthood means what? A lot of good people who don't look at kiddie porn donate to PP. Get over it, Jill. One bad apple exists in every camp, including yours.Posted by: Jen at March 11, 2007 11:58 PM
Please check out the website:
You will find all the latest research on the abortion/breast cancer link from various sources. You can draw your own conclusions. It cannot be said for certain there is no link and is a grave disservice to women to do so. Women have a right to be thoroughly, honestly, and objectively informed of BOTH sides of the abortion/breast cancer issue and to draw their own conclusions. As of now this is very tragically not the case.
Keep in mind that 50 years ago the tobacco industry was less than anxious to have a tobacco/lung cancer link shown as well. Like the tobacco industry, the abortion industry would have a lot to answer for, and millions of dollars at stake. They, like the tobacco industry, most certainly have their reasons for downplaying any link.
On the subject of miscarriage. Miscarriage and abortion are two entirely different biological processes. The body prepares for miscarriage over days by readjusting hormonal levels, softening of the cervix, and eventually contraction of the uterus. It a natural process. Miscarriage is not instantaneous, unless it is traumatic.
Abortion on the other hand is the forced violation of the body, i.e. cervical dilation. The body of the pregnant woman is making every effort to protect and nurture the pregnancy. Hormonal levels are very intricately controlled in a normal pregnancy and the sudden disruption of this hormonal contol is what is theorized to cause breast cancer.
I encourage all women, for their own sake and safety, to keep an open mind and do their own research.
Could you please explain the link between a person's crimes and the organization they donate to?
And to have it mentioned - "It has been a bad month for liberals and their child porn."?! Excuse me, but not everybody representing liberal views on this matter is in possession of child porn or has paedophile tendencies. For that matter, there have been some rumours about priests as well...
That's gross.Someone on another web site told me about the Susan G. Komen foundation. I found out that they do donate $ to PP. I won't give a dime to any charity like this.Posted by: momof3 at March 12, 2007 11:31 AM
Ingrid, two reason: 1) the mainstream media is by and large silent on failings of liberals, as these two cases exemplify; 2) balance because of #1.
I also believe in the adage, when you lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas; although I'm not sure which are the fleas and which are the dogs in the aforementioned cases.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 12, 2007 11:31 AM
Which still does not link the crimes of individuals to the organization.Posted by: Ingrid at March 12, 2007 11:49 AM
"It has been a bad month for liberals and their child porn."
Liberals don't like child porn any more than conservatives do. Conservatives are not without blame. How disingenous of you to paint all liberals as pedophiles while ignoring the black marks the conservative movement as acquired over the years. Mark Foley, Lou Beres, Bobby Stumbo, Howard Scott Heldreth (an anti-abortion activist who is a convicted child rapist)... the list goes on.Posted by: Joy at March 12, 2007 12:02 PM
Sorry, Joy, but liberals do support both adult and child porn. It is liberal Democrats who fight legislation banning the viewing of illegal porn in libraries. It is the liberal ACLU that battled legislation banning "virtual" child porn on the Internet and also battled legislation restricting children from viewing adult porn.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 12, 2007 12:31 PM
I don't care so much for banning adult porn; if the actors and actresses are overage, let the people have their fun.
However, it's new to me that child porn was supported by liberals. I'm pretty sure I'm liberal, and I don't support child porn. So the statement that liberals support child porn is wrong.
Thanks for making a sweeping blanket statement while ignoring the bad eggs on the conservative side, Jill.Posted by: Stephanie at March 12, 2007 12:55 PM
Stephanie, you're "pretty sure" you're liberal, but you don't even know what your leaders support. I would suggest you become real sure of what it means to be a liberal before identifying yourself as such. The ACLU is at the forefront of attempting to protect porn in all forms.
Stephanie, the mainstream media does a fine job of exposing conservative bad eggs. I'm part of what is known as balance.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 12, 2007 1:07 PM
There is a HUGE difference between the ACLU's position and supporting child porn. Liberals do not support child porn.
However, i'm a bit troubled by what this article says. Can it really be a crime to receive child porn on your computer if you didn't ask for it, don't want it, and tried to delete it?
I'm probably missing something.Posted by: Hal at March 12, 2007 1:57 PM
Hal, the link to the article I provided said she opened the porn.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 12, 2007 2:05 PM
Thanks, Jill. I saw that. But you don't know what an attachment is until you open it. That can't be a crime. Can it?
She must have done something more, something that's not in the article. Maybe she should have contacted the authorities when it came in? That's what I would have done.Posted by: Hal at March 12, 2007 2:24 PM
"Looky looky, somebody did something baaaaad! That means everyone on their side and everything they stand for is baaaaaad too! WAAAAAAAAHHH!"
That's exactly what this is. Very grade-school, jump-to-conclusions type of thinking.
Child porn, and porn in general, knows no political lines. You might think social conservatives are against it, but only those who are mouthpieces. Go around to red-voting houses, and I think you'll find just as much porn on those computers as in any blue-voting house. I'm liberal, and I don't like porn, and don't watch it. My conservative boyfriend loves adult porn. See? Wouldn't expect that, would you?
Child porn is a crime, and if the ACLU is defending it (which I'm PRETTY sure they're not--you must be misunderstanding something), then there must be some qualifying factor--like it's not real, as in it's animated or something. I don't know, but real child porn is a crime in anyone's eyes (no matter political stance) because it's very clear that no child can consent to that. However, consenting adults is different.
There are always a few bad apples in every arena, no matter the organization, its goals, its affiliations, or anything like that. Are you going to stop going to your doctor just because A doctor, somewhere, has molested a patient or harmed a patient through negligence? You can't just go blindly saying, "OOOOH HOW BAD IT'S CLEARLY LIBERAL!" when this is something that really knows no political bounds.Posted by: Narf at March 12, 2007 4:01 PM
"Sorry, Joy, but liberals do support both adult and child porn. It is liberal Democrats who fight legislation banning the viewing of illegal porn in libraries. It is the liberal ACLU that battled legislation banning "virtual" child porn on the Internet and also battled legislation restricting children from viewing adult porn."
Again, you are being disingenous and not sharing all the facts in a desperate attempt to rake "liberals" over the coals (as if all liberals believe the same things).
From the ACLU's draft on "virtual" child porn (pornography that does NOT use children in any way whatsoever): The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment.
Key phrase here: OPPOSES CHILD PORN. Yet you say liberals support it... Clearly quite the opposite, Jill.
Hey, I guess we could do away with the First Amendment, but it's that very same Amendment that allows you to say horrible things like "real men" hit women and claim that all liberals are pedophiles. You can't have it both ways, Jill. Defending free speech and expression means defending even that which we don't agree with.
If you want to continue spewing forth your ideas on this column, then I guess you'll just have to let other people have their freedoms too. I know it hurts.Posted by: Joy at March 12, 2007 4:42 PM
"Sorry, Joy, but liberals do support both adult and child porn."
I'd just like to say thank you. It's always entertaining when you get fed up of British politics to step over the Atlantic ocean and realise quite how petty those in America are :-)
DougPosted by: Doug at March 12, 2007 6:21 PM
You mean abortion has been falsely linked to breast cancer since the drugs, which are simply hormones, and the rest of the procedure have absolutely NOTHING to do how DNA is replicated in a cell. Also, last i checked, all the recent outed pedophiles in congress have been republicans. Not to mention the priests.Posted by: Anthony at March 12, 2007 7:00 PM
The 1913 Webster's dictionary defines conscience in the modern sense as
* the faculty power, or inward principle which decides as to the character of one's own actions, purposes, and affections, warning against and condemning that which is wrong, and approving and prompting to that which is right;
* the moral faculty passing judgment on one's self;
The human animal has a set of instincts and drives which enable us to form societies. These drives are a result of natural selection: groups of humans without these drives, or in whom they are insufficiently strong, cannot form cohesive societies and do not reproduce their kind as successfully as those that do. They either cannot survive in nature, or are defeated in conflict with other, more cohesive groups.
A requirement of conscience, then, is the capacity to see ourselves from the point of view of another person. Persons unable to do this (those suffering
from narcissism, sociopathy, psychopathy)
therefore often act in ways which are "evil".
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
# "To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." - A Short History of England, Ch.10 G K Chesterton
# "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." - ILN, 4/19/30 GK Chesterton
# "Most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities." - What's Wrong With the World
Drugs that are "simply hormones" are linked to various kinds of cancer, including breast!
Please refer to www.abortionbreastcancer.com for all the latest research, here and abroad, on the abortion/breast cancer link. Also, please refer to my above posted comment to Danielle.
You absolutely cannot make a claim that all liberals are involved in child porn! That is ludicrous. And PP does several things other than provide abortions. For example, they provide pregnancy testing and counseling to women who need it. Abortions are a minor part of their services and are by no means what they hope to make their cornerstone service.Posted by: Samantha at March 13, 2007 9:00 AM
Abortions are a minor part of their services and are by no means what they hope to make their cornerstone service.
Posted by: MK
at March 13, 2007 8:37 PM
AND THE WORLD IS FLAT...
The American Cancer Society seems to disagree with your assertion that abortion is linked to breast cancer.Posted by: Sarah at March 14, 2007 8:20 PM
I assert nothing. Please check out the site www.abortionbreastcancer.com and draw your own conclusions. This site contains numerous studies from both here and abroad. Its easy to be selective as to who we will listen to. Women deserve to be honestly and objectively informed on both sides of this issue and they are not. That is why its up to each of us to do our own research and to keep an open mind.Posted by: Mary at March 14, 2007 9:17 PM
I just cannot understand the lengths to which people will go to allow themselves to believe or be self-decieved that abortion is not murder.
It's a pathological condition I think and so, so childish.
It's like saying, "no matter how bad this rat poison lollipop of abortion is for me, I will still eat it, I will not listen, I will not be admonished, I will not open my mind to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, abortion is murder, I will not, I will not, I will not. It's all about me, me, me, me, me and my rights. It's my body."
Sorry, it's not your body. You can't give yourself something you did not initially possess. The body you occupy and the baby living in your body belong to God and therefore, since He has title to them, are subject to His will and the consequences for abusing it or another's.
Then they say, "well, there is no God or, my god (which is themselves) says that abortion is OK".
Saying or wishing or believing a lie does not change the truth.
Self-deception, of all human potentials, is so tragic.
Why do I know that in order to participate in abortion one has to be grossly self-deceived? Because we are all made in God's image and share his nature. Intrinsically we have to know in our heart of hearts that abortion is murder. God would not advocate the destruction of the intent of His creation by human choice alone. Since this is considered sin and the payment or wages for sin is death, abortion kills not only the baby, but eventually the mother, if not repented of and the penalty thereby removed and washed away by the blood of Jesus. I am confident that even the "god of science" will even have to bow to altar of this truth.Posted by: His Man at March 15, 2007 1:00 AM
"Sorry, it's not your body. You can't give yourself something you did not initially possess. The body you occupy and the baby living in your body belong to God and therefore, since He has title to them, are subject to His will and the consequences for abusing it or another's."
As a matter of fact, it IS my body and therefore my decision. If I believed in God (which I don't - at least not the way you prefer), I would tell you now that God gave me this body. And he gave me the freedom to decide what happens to it. Period. If he didn't agree to it, he wouldn't have given me the freedom of CHOICE.Posted by: Ingrid at March 15, 2007 9:12 AM
Ingrid,What God do you believe in that says it's ok to kill children? Which religion is this?Posted by: momof3 at March 15, 2007 9:29 AM
Yes you have freedom of choice. You have the freedom to kill yourself but you know this is a wrong choice so you don't do it. While you were given the freedom of choice, however, you were also given a brain, an intellect, a heart and a mind that could at least hear and process God's plea to not make the wrong choice. Based on your comments though it does not appear that despite hearing, you do not listen because of the hardness of your heart, that is, self-deception. With regards to suicide, at least, you have chosen not to do that. But somehow, abortion is OK? Why does this logic seem absolutely ludicrous and stupid.
Because you have a choice, you were also given liability. You are liable and responsible for the choices you make for or against a holy, consuming fire God, who, while he loves you without limit will not have fellowship with you under your terms. You are not God Ingrid, you are a created being who is excruciatingly self-deceived.Posted by: His Man at March 15, 2007 11:38 AM
"You have the freedom to kill yourself but you know this is a wrong choice so you don't do it."
I do? Wow. I always thought I'm capable of thinking on my own. Thank you for correcting that mistake.
I've been through times when I seriously considered taking a knife. I had the chance and I didn't do it, because I was scared. It had nothing to do with seeing it as a "wrong choice".
"You are not God Ingrid, you are a created being who is excruciatingly self-deceived." Well... yeah. If it makes you feel better, I freely admit: I'm not God. And if I were, you wouldn't want to believe in me, because my views are kinda not okay for you.
Mary, you wrote: "Please check out the site www.abortionbreastcancer.com and draw your own conclusions. "
The site admits that the AMA and ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) see no connection between induced abortion and subsequent breast cancer.
If you look at the studies the site cites you will notice that all the studies whose data indicate a connection between induced abortion and subsequent breast cancer are small studies which look at a small number of women.
That's called statistical noise. There are probably also small studies out there you could find if you looked hard enough in the published literature, whose data would indicate a weak protective effect--that abortion PREVENTS breast cancer. They don't prove anything either, it's just statistical noise.
The big studies, that look at numbers of women big enough to be statistically significant indicate no connection between induced abortion and breast cancer.
This is not controvercial. If you doubt me ask your gynecologist.Posted by: SpiritofMartinGardner at March 15, 2007 10:17 PM
"Ingrid,What God do you believe in that says it's ok to kill children? Which religion is this?
Posted by: momof3 at March 15, 2007 09:29 AM"
Posted by: SamanthaT
at March 16, 2007 3:21 PM
Momof3, as I asked His Man, although he has yet to reply, don't you serve YaHWeH? He is the very same God who ordered Joshua to put every man, woman, and *child* to death in the cities he conquered. Read the book of Joshua.
"That's gross.Someone on another web site told me about the Susan G. Komen foundation. I found out that they do donate $ to PP. I won't give a dime to any charity like this.
Posted by: momof3 at March 12, 2007 11:31 AM"
Are you aware of the vast breast cancer research funded by SGKF? They do for breast cancer what St Jude's does for childhood cancers. I sincerely hope you are never in the position to know anyone who needs the information their research has provided and made accessible to doctors internationally.
God is sovereign. God is Holy.
If His desire at the time of Joshua was to keep paganism from spreading, that was His right and will. You make yourself god by questioning it.
Be very thankful then that the same God, because of Christ, gives you the grace to post such questions on the internet in front of the world. Many times when people sinned in the OT before Christ, they were killed immediately.
This is not child's play and your arrogance and ignorance of God is very, very dangerous to your soul.
Also, if you think God was wrong in telling Joshua to kill people, why are you pro-abortion? I mean if you think this was wrong of God, why are your "pro-choice". Again, none of the pro-death arguments make any sense?Posted by: His Man at March 19, 2007 1:57 AM
"Be very thankful then that the same God, because of Christ, gives you the grace to post such questions on the internet in front of the world. Many times when people sinned in the OT before Christ, they were killed immediately."
I find this opinion intriguing. You believe that the coming of Christ stopped people killing those who question the existence of God?
May I remind you of such events as the Spanish Inquisition? The idea that Christ solved this is very ignorant and makes use of the age old technique of forgetting that which is inconvenient.
(I'm pro-choice if you feel my post needs something else to rant about)Posted by: Doug at March 19, 2007 6:57 PM
I was pointing out that God DID condone the killing of innocent children, according to the Bible. I wasnt questioning it--its right there in black and white, not much to question. You people asked for an example of God's condoning killing children. I gave one, and you called me ignorant. Kind of hypocritical, dont you think?Posted by: SamanthaT at March 19, 2007 9:12 PM
It's not an opinion, it is written. God allowed the killing, i.e. Pharoah, Haman, prophets of Baal, etc., etc. Ananias and Sapphira were killed when they conspired to lie against the Holy Spirit. These two were supposed Christians and the Lord decided to make an example of them. It worked because the believers were filled with the fear of the Lord. God is not someone you want to mess with or take lightly.
Where did God condone the killing of innocent children? Are you calling God a murderer? That's blasphemy so you better understand the context of the passage you are referring to before you so flippantly do that out of great and utter ignorance. In case you didn't know what blasphemy is, it's attributing evil to a Holy God. Chapter and verse please.
SOMG, Two of my co-workers are deceased from breast CA. Both were women, and both had confided to me that abortions were in their past.I draw my own conclusions here. However,I will ask my OBGYN next time I see him.Posted by: momof3 at March 20, 2007 9:02 AM
I would think that you could find these passages yourself. Here you go.
"However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites--as the Lord your God has commanded you."
"The LORD listened to Israel's plea and gave the Canaanites over to them. They completely destroyed them and their towns; so the place was named Hormah."
"At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed themómen, women and children. We left no survivors."
"We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every cityómen, women and children."
"You must destroy all the peoples the LORD your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you."
"You must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock."
"They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in itómen and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys."
And quoting the Bible is not blasphemy. Pretending to be knowledgable about scripture when you have no understanding of it is blasphemy.Posted by: SamanthaT at March 20, 2007 9:30 AM
"It's not an opinion, it is written. God allowed the killing, i.e. Pharoah, Haman, prophets of Baal, etc., etc. Ananias and Sapphira were killed when they conspired to lie against the Holy Spirit. These two were supposed Christians and the Lord decided to make an example of them. It worked because the believers were filled with the fear of the Lord. God is not someone you want to mess with or take lightly."
Aye, it may well be written. That doesn't however make it any less of an opinion. Unless of course you're going to take every single thing that is said in the Bible completely literally which given the fact that some of it contradicts itself (admittedly nothing particularly central to the faith does this).
What you have quoted however has no relevance on what I was saying. I was saying that the coming of Christ did not stop those being killed for questioning God's non-existance.Posted by: Doug at March 20, 2007 12:24 PM
The Jews were chosen as the people through which the Savior came. God's choice was to bring the knowledge of the law through the Jews which required that no pagans be allowed to corrupt His word or His Savior. If that meant wiping out whole populations of pagans to serve His purposes than so it was. We have no right to question God's motives or choices. You make yourself God by judging God. Go ahead, save yourself then.
What about the flood? Didn't God cause it to rain for 40 days and 40 nights resulting in the death of every human being on earth except Noah and his family who was the only man and father and husband who God considered faithful? Noah warned people for years. They didn't listen. Same thing happens today as you so illustrously demonstrate with your ignorance by spewing common cliches and lies about the Bible resulting in leading others to hell. Why did God allow the flood? It says that He regretted creating man because man had grown so corrupt. Now that's a hurting thought to think that a Holy God regretted His own decision to make man. Now don't think God didn't know this was going to happen. Keep in mind that we view things from a temporal persepctive. His pespective is eternal, a time frame we cannot begin to comprehend.
Besides, God is holy, we are not, and our death is deserved which is merely eternal separation from a Holy God. What amazes me is that He allows any of us to live in order to possibly come to a knowledge of the truth, which is Jesus Christ who paid the vengeful demands agsint sin of a Holy God.
And I vehemently oppose your satanic suggestion that the Bible contradicts itself. If the Bible contradicts itself, none of it can be believed and Christ is a lie. Therfore, by definition any that believe that the Bible contradicts itslf is of the antiChrist. Choose whom you will believe. Rather, you would do well and it should be said that we are too inane to understand such an infinite, divinely inspired book of God's Word. This "Bible contradicts itself crap" is simply a lie from hell and you would be wise to stop believing lies that will separate you from God forever.
Abortion is murder and abortionists are murderers.Posted by: His Man at March 21, 2007 3:11 AM
Heeeeeey! Calm :-P
My satanic suggestion that the Bible contradicts itself? It's not satanic, it's using your eyes.
"If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left."
"...you are to give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn."
Contradicting messages, don't you think? There's a slight difference between turning the other cheek and advocating revenge.
"Same thing happens today as you so illustrously demonstrate with your ignorance by spewing common cliches and lies about the Bible resulting in leading others to hell."
My conscience is burning with guilt.
Oh, and I'm not judging God. I'm judging you admittedly, but I'm not judging something that doesn't exist. It would be fairly pointless don't you think?Posted by: Doug at March 21, 2007 12:32 PM
My, my, my..............
"If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left."
This is a quote of Jesus during his three year ministry knowing full well that becasue we could not possibly live up to this standard He soon would be crucified on a cross four your and my sins. It's a good thing that God takes this view in this present time of history where grace prevails. If He held to the other view of vengeance you and I would have no chance of salvation. Your sins and mine deserve the death penalty, i.e., separation from a Holy God forever. Physical death is the separation of our souls from our body. That's not he bad part....spiritual death or the second death is the separation of our souls from God forever with no hope of recovery. In fact, the reason Christ died was so that your and my sin was paid for not by your eternal separation from God, but by a loving Savior who committed no sin and therefore was the only sacrifice that God could accept as payment for your sin.
"...you are to give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn."
This does not advocate revenge. This is a quote in the OT that tempered the degree of retribution. If someone took your eye you were not to kill him, for example. This also means that sin, or missing the mark of God's glory, is death or separation from a Holy God forever, payment for sin. You've heard it, "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." That's what hell is and it is described to our puny minds in the form of a burning fire forever. It will be much worse than we can imagine. God takes sin very seriously and it is an affront to His Holiness. If God accepted sin, then the universe would collape and implode for it is His Holiness and Integrity that sustains its very existence. Sin must be punished.
There is no contradiction, just a failure on your part to understand God's Word and therefore God. It's very dangerous to lift passages out of the Bible and construct your version of faith, i.e., that the Bible contradicts itself, based on this. I assume you don't do this with other areas of your life so why do you do it with the Bible? You fly in airplanes don't you? Why, doesn't the law of gravity say that objects attract based on their mass, i.e., fall out of the sky. But because you understand the principle of lift you don't hesitate to make that morning flight to your mistress' hotel room when you're on a business trip do you? You don't say to yourself, "gravity exists therefore, I will not fly". No you take the time to leatn the principles of gravity and the principles of flight which on the surface appear to be contradictory and you make an INTELLIGENT decision. (Personally, I don't like to fly because I used to design avionics for airplaces and spacecraft and understand the conflicting design philosohy of redundancy v. reliabilty.....anyway...back to your claim that the Bible is contradictory).
Your assumed touchet is nothing more than a clear demonstration of your misunderstanding of God's Word. This is extremely dangerous and you would do well to not think of yourself as being so wise.
The Bible was written over 6,000 years in 66 books and it points to the One, Jesus Christ.
Abortion is murder and abortionists are murderers.Posted by: His Man at March 22, 2007 8:52 PM
You guys do know that planned parenthood mostly helps people with things other than abortion, right? It helps women to get help for when they choose not to have an abortion and they also provide pap smears and std testing for those with no money. Planned Parenthood has many centers that just do not do abortions anyways.
Planned Parenthood is not a bad thing and I don't know why so many people think that women are getting breast cancer from abortions. Nothing has been proven yet. There haven't been studies conducted for long enough or of enough women to even try to accurately say one way or the other.Posted by: Denise at March 27, 2007 8:25 PM