To be pro-life, you should be pro-Planned Parenthood?
… I also get the pro-life movement.
If an individual believes that a life is “in being” at the moment of conception, I can well appreciate the distress such a person would feel over such a life being terminated.
What I cannot understand is how [pro-lifers] seem to lose all care, concern and compassion for that life once the child is born into the world….
So, how do the pro-life forces defend their position that Planned Parenthood must go because, on occasion, they perform medical procedures that end what these folks perceive to be lives in being while fully understanding that closing the organization’s doors will result in the loss of lives of women we know are in being?
… Tell your elected representatives to back off on Planned Parenthood. Then, and only then, can you truly be among those who are pro-life.
~ Rick Ungar, Forbes contributor and member of the Association of Health Care Journalists, Forbes.com, June 13
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
What I cannot understand is how [pro-lifers] seem to lose all care, concern and compassion for that life once the child is born into the world…
Rick – How do you know they are real women? How do you know they are alive? What is the basis of your knowing?
Oh wait – you seem to have some understanding… it’s about flesh?
You must mean their flesh that comes into being….when Rick? At the moment of conception? That flesh? – yes, the human zygote that over the course of time develops into a full grown woman? The flesh that is intrinsic to their very lives?
Rick – yes we desire to save the lives of all human beings regardless of whether they passed through a birth, so we don’t go around making groundless accusations using invalid logic.
It’s sad to see someone who is both a lawyer and a journalist be so incapable of presenting a valid argument.
You petitio principii – “beg the question” – assume the point you are trying to make. Those developing in the womb have flesh and are growing – just like the women outside the womb.
If you already know that medical fact – then who’s the real hypocrite?
How does Rick justify the loss of a woman’s life when she does go to Planned Parenthood like the women did in Kermit Gosnell’s center in Philadelphia? How does he justify the death of female babies?
I don’t get this ‘women will lose lives without PP’ thing. PP doesn’t do cancer screenings; they refer the women to other health centers. Every town out there has places women can go to get FREE healthcare that is not Planned Parenthood. And realistically, if you called up a health center, explained your situation, they will help you find funding for your medical tests. Please, don’t give me that crap.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If all Planned Parenthood did was get rid of their Abortion services, we’d be fine with them. Their insistence that they must not only continue that practice, but have it taxpayer funded is unacceptable. They just want the $$$ from these abortions, and don’t care who they hurt in the process. The Philadelphia Planned Parenthood KILLED women and just for the sake of money.
Jennifer,
I agree with your opinion. However, Gosnell’s clinic was not a PP. I dislike PP as much as you do. But we must be sure our facts are accurate, or we will be attacked for inaccurate statements, and our true message will be ignored.
He doesn’t “get” the pro-life movement at all. I can’t follow his logic, because he has none.
We care about ALL people, not just the ones in utero. We don’t “BELIEVE” the babies are persons….we KNOW them to be persons with their own bodily autonomy and right to live. We care about women, and want to help them. Nobody wants women to die from illegal abortions, and we don’t want them to die from legal abortions either–something the pro-abortion movement refuses to acknowledge at all. Science and logic tell us that the babies in utero are babies, who do not deserve to be killed because their mother is “more human” than they are. There is no such thing as being “more human” and “more valuable” ….this is a dangerous construct offered by the pro-abortion community. We are all equal, at every stage of our lives.
Ugh, I can’t even……*rolls eyes so hard they stick to the back of head*
What proof has he that pro-lifers lose all compassion for born children?
It is impossible to do that.
We care about BOTH the baby/babies and the mothers.
“What I cannot understand is how [pro-lifers] seem to lose all care, concern and compassion for that life once the child is born into the world….”
Wow, what a coincidence. I was just thinking about what a worthless and bad argument this is this morning.
Have any proborts stepped into a CPC? Ever?
What do they think all of the free diapers, wipes, strollers, cribs, blankets and formula are for??
Not that they will venture beyond fingers stuck in ears, eyes shut tight, mouths babbling LALALALALALALALALALALLALALALA!!
We care about ALL people, not just the ones in utero.
Thanks Mary Lee, I get sooooo tired of hearing that we don’t care about children after they’re born, because this JUST ISN’T TRUE!
Carla, don’t you know? We buy strollers for FETUSES then as soon as they’re born, we sneak into the mother’s apartment in the middle of the night and steal BACK the stroller, clothes, and diapers! Bwahahaha! The abortion fans must have seen me in my ninja gear, skulking down the sidewalk with a bag of Pampers!
LOL!
So that award I received this weekend for my volunteer work with adult people must have been a figment. And the scholarship fund I began that’s been going strong for several years now, that must be a figment of my imagination too. I don’t know who those people in the gowns were last weekend, because I distinctly raised the money for FETUSES to go to college, not their moms!!
Beause prochoice cares so much for struggling single mothers and their BORN children, huh-here’s a list of prochoice charities focused on single mothers who kept their children:
0
I really would have expected a tad more logic and less tripe from a guy with his credentials.
He doesn’t “get” the pro-life movement. He “gets” the straw man he’s erected, and that’s all.
And as for his comment, “on occasion, they perform medical procedures” – well, on occasion, serial killers kill people. This past year, Planned Parenthood, which we pro-lifers apparently “should” be supporting, ended the lives of over 300,000 preborn humans.
So, think of the entire population of Pittsburgh being wiped out every year by a group that is, at its heart, a population control organization (according to documents filed by PP itself). And then see if you can tell pro-lifers with a straight face that we should be supporting it.
Prochoice is, however, quite willing to take food and tax dollars from the mouths of hungry children to support the abortion pig. Cuz they ‘care.’
You can’t really present the charitable actions of a relatively small percentage of people who are pro-life (re: CPC’s) as a counter-point to his argument, when the vast majority of Republicans identify as pro-life and yet oppose most social programs and other domestic spending that does help the disadvantaged. For most “pro-life” Americans, what he said is demonstrably true: the “unborn” must be protected, but they damn well better hope they aren’t born to a family that needs food stamps or other government assistance to make it (in other words, statistically, the vast majority of women who get abortions in the first place), because those things must be severely reduced or eliminated.
I’ll take not getting it for 1000. He doesn’t get the pro-life movement. To prove it, let’s use the example of lives he perceives to be in being. Let’s say there is an organization [We’ll call it operation Wonderful] that provides free health care to all for any medical condition. No one is turned away and all treatments are free. Let’s also say that Operation Wonderful will dismember terminally ill or severely disabled toddlers. They don’t do this very often…..maybe so rare as once or twice a year. It’s less than .01% of what they do. So Mr. Unger….do we let this wonderful charitable organization continue to operate with taxpayer funding? If not “how do you defend your position that Operation Wonderful must go b/c, on occasion they perform medical procedures that end what you tell us are lives in being while fully understanding that closing the organization’s door will result in the loss of lives of other men, women, and children in being.” Have you lost all care and concern for these men, women, and children who are allowed to live and helped by Operation Wonderful?
When you get this, you will “get” the pro-life movement. It’s not that we don’t care about the lives of born people. But we can’t allow some people to receive some marginal benefit from an organization while that same organization summarily executes others.
So then suppose that he is correct and most Republicans are pro-life but don’t care about born people. What follows?
The quote in the opening thread text posted by Jill Stanek is credited to “Rick Ungar, Forbes contributor and member of the Association of Health Care Journalists”
To be pro-life, you should be pro-Planned Murderhood, er, pro-Planned Parenthood, is like saying that to be pro-freedom, one should be pro-slavery, or, in order to be pro-Israel, one should be pro-Hamas, pro-Hizbollah, pro-Iran, pro-al Qaeda, pro-Muslim, and pro-anti-Semitism.
“Hey, I am for women, therefore I am pro-misogynists,” is absurd, yet that is the same logic that pro-Planned Parenthood nonsense is saying.
“Hey, I am pro-gun rights, therefore I want all guns taken away from gun owners, and the second amendment in the bill of rights to the Constitution revoked
They claim that pro-lifers only care about the baby inside the womb, but then don’t care about human beings who are already born is a flat out lie, a red herring, and a straw man argument all rolled into one.
There is no basis in fact for that claim.
With such lack of logic and lack of reasoning as that, pulling concepts out of the air, tossing them against the wall, and not even doubting they will stick, it can be said that Planned Murderhood doesn’t care about the baby inside the womb, or families, because they are 100% involved in preventing families from starting, and they don’t want any baby to live and be born. Furthermore, they hate human beings because they want all human beings to risk sexually transmitted diseases, violent lives, drug use, suicide, and violent deaths, because statistics show that the more numerous abortions women have, the more likely they are to die at a younger age from violent circumstances, disease, drug use, and suicide.
No, actually, my examples are fact, whereas Rick’s example is just making claims.
How about this, Planned Murderhood doesn’t care about people inside the womb or outside the womb because, if they did care, they would not abort babies, nor would they push people, including children, to engage in risky behavior which gets them sick, or killed, and, furthermore, they would switch from pushing unsafe sex (yes, they do push unsafe sex. They encourage even young people who are not yet responsible, to have sex, believing that they are safe, while, all along, they have a high risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases and other conditions, becoming injured, being abused, and more) to providing food, shelter, clothing, financial assistance, and other help for living human beings, and Planned Murderhood would switch from killing babies via abortion, to helping people, including babies still inside their mothers, to be born, providing them with pre-natal health care, etc.
Nevertheless, the false statement, which basically claims that pro-lifers claim to care so much for what is inside the womb, but then say “F U!” after baby is born, is just pure, unadulterated nonsense, and shows how weak pro-aborts, pro-slaughter of babies really are. They don’t have a leg to stand on.
Joan,
You mistakenly believe that all Pro-Life people are Republicans and that we agree with every position of the Republican party. And in that belief, you are wrong. I agree most of us are probably Repubs since the party does not support the killing of over a million babies in the womb each year. However, I would point out that many of us, if not most of us, also oppose the death penalty. I know that I personally oppose the death penalty even though it is not an equal moral comparison when considering the killing of obviously innocent babies versus the killing of people who are guilty of heinous crimes. Abortion is always and everywhere wrong. Capital punishment and even war can be moral under certain circumstances. So don’t go throwing around stereotypical assumptions of what we do and do not believe.
You also said that it is “demonstrably true” that Pro-Lifers do not support people that need government assistance. I challenge you to show me some actual data to support that statement. If you can show me the data, I will apologize. In the meantime, I call BS on you and your lies. The only good thing I can say about your comment is that you are obviously a good learner. You have the pro-abort talking points down to a T.
Joan obviously ignores all my posts, because I have reiterated (a bazillion times) that I am a liberal gay-rights supporter, a pescatarian, and I am philosophically against the death penalty.
But the thing is, why does it matter? What would it matter if there were 0 pro-life gay rights supporters, 1 pro-life gay rights supporters, 50% of all pro-lifers were gay rights supporters, or 100% of all pro-lifers were gay rights supporters? Would it change people’s opinions about abortion? If I could find 100 people who were pro-life and pro gay marriage, would the unborn suddenly become human persons? If I switched to being pro gay rights, would all of a sudden the bodily autonomy argument in favor of abortion be refuted and those who held it would switch to pro life? This ENTIRE argument is ad hominem. It doesn’t address any pro-life arguments; all it does is make some claim about the behavior/consistency of those who hold a particular view. Can teh author really say that if Republicans supported all these programs then he would switch and become pro-life? I highly doubt it, so what is his point? What is the point of all this? It’s simply a distraction (gee, what a shock) from the real issue of what abortion is and whether or not it is moral.
Mary Lee – pescatarian – good word – I had to look that one up, and that does not happen all that often – thanks for the education – and for further (and better than me) refuting that baloney that all pro-lifers are conservative Republican jerks who don’t care about the poor
Hmmm, so I’m the complete opposite of a pescatarian; I eat all meats except anything that is fish. When I was a child, I used to say that “I’m a vegetarian to fish.” Is there a word for that, I wonder…
My question is, if women are going to die without Planned Parenthood how is it that those among my female relatives, friends (and myself) who do NOT use PP for help/aid with healthcare survived all these years without it? Somehow we’ve managed to find doctors and OB/GYNs and help WITHOUT the aid of PP.
I’m still laughing to myself about the pro-abortion faulty logic.
So let me get this straight: if I’m against war, I should enlist. If I’m against the death penalty, I should write my congressman to make sure to support capital punishment. If I’m a vegetarian, I should donate Harris Ranch since my diet deprives them of their livelihood. Yeah, that sounds right.
Oh please. This is such a lazy “argument.” What private organization in this country donates more money and time to the born poor than the pro-life Catholic Church? Also, it is well established that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals (although of course pro-lifers can be liberal).
You mistakenly believe that all Pro-Life people are Republicans and that we agree with every position of the Republican party. And in that belief, you are wrong.
Amen, I am going to get it tattoed on my head: I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, BUT I AM PRO-LIFE!
Also, it is well established that conservatives donate more to charity than liberals (although of course pro-lifers can be liberal).
And atheists donate less to charity than people of faith.
Joan, even if it were true that all pro-lifers are conservatives in all areas of their political philosophies, you’re argument is still faulty. Conservatives actually give more of their own money to charities than liberals (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/t/story?id=2682730&page=1). Conservatives don’t oppose charities or helping the needy…they oppose the government controlling what money goes to whom. It’s not helping people that conservatives oppose; it’s being forced to give their money to causes they disagree with, like Planned Parenthood.
So do any of the “so totally not Republican” pro-life people here actually vote, on a regular basis, for Democratic political candidates? Or really, anyone who isn’t Republican?
I am not a Republican. And I think MaryLee mentioned that she isn’t either.
But suppose I was. What follows about the morality of abortion?
How many of us would have to post here that we’re registered Democrats but we’re pro-life (and very disappointed with our party)? I am, but you’re sure to say, ‘oh it’s only a couple people, blah blah blah.’
You abortion advocates don’t want to know the truth. You want to believe your fiction so very badly, that I can only conclude that being pro-abortion is some kind of mental illness. The moon is not made of green cheese and all pro-lifers do not belong to the same political party. We represent a cross section of cultures, religions, and politics. You keep beating up your strawmen while we continue to chip away at Roe V Wade. Keep it up. Watch the birdie!!
I usually try to vote third-party as opposed to Republican. I’d be willing to vote Democrat if I could find one who wasn’t 100% committed to abortion. However, in my opinion, anyone who can’t defend the rights of the most vulnerable and defenseless among us — the unborn — can’t be trusted to defend my rights, either.
“But suppose I was. What follows about the morality of abortion?”
Nothing at all, but I’m genuinely curious to see if any of the people here who insist that they are not Republican, are, in practice, anything but. What’s the point of going out of your way to identify as Democratic (or, at least, not Republican), as some people here do, if you are basically a de facto Republican?
See? Just as I predicted: we answered Joan the Troll, but she doesn’t like it and must try and keep her strawman upright. LOL!!
Joan, even if you claim not to be a troll, you are in fact a de facto Troll. LOL!
You could use some of your energy to create a new political party, y’know. Since the Dem’s obviously have pro-lifers infiltrating their ranks, doesn’t that make the party impure for you abortion fans? Maybe you can start the Abortion Party and see if Cecile will give you a donation!
“What’s the point of going out of your way to identify as Democratic (or, at least, not Republican), as some people here do, if you are basically a de facto Republican? ”
I don’t know! That’s exactly what I’m saying. What is the upshot of this whole argument? What does who people vote for supposed to prove? There’s ever only two dudes who have any chance. I have a couple times voted for the Republican, but if one candidate supports rape to be legal and refers to himself as pro-decision (to rape), I”m sorry, but I’m just not voting for that guy, I don’t care how good his stance on school vouchers is. And I think it’s justifiable for anyone to de facto vote for the other guy who isn’t pro-decision.
Anyway, the point is that the argument given by the author quoted here is only an attempt to distract from the real issue of abortion. In that respect, he has been successful, as usual.
You can’t really present the charitable actions of a relatively small percentage of people who are pro-life (re: CPC’s) as a counter-point to his argument, when the vast majority of Republicans identify as pro-life and yet oppose most social programs and other domestic spending that does help the disadvantaged.
Erm, given that there are over 3000 CPCs in the US (literally outnumbering the amount of abortion mills in the country by more than 4-to-1), then yes, we actually can present those charitable actions as a counter-point to his argument. Clearly that “small percentage” of pro-lifers is doing vastly more to help born children than abortion defenders, Republicans or Democrats notwithstanding.
Good one, Ninek!
The Abortion Party. Now why didn’t THEY think of that?
I turned this lame argument back on a pro-abort once. The pro-abort was essentially (it’s been a couple years, so I can’t recall the exact wording) saying that I can’t really care about children after they are born because there are children that still need adopted and injustices are being done against born children and I must not care about women because women are being raped and abused… something like that. So I turned it back on them and said that they must not care either because these things are still happening! But the person was arguing basically the same thing… that since I’m pro-life and care about unborn children and I want to see them be born and not slaughtered in their mothers’ wombs, I don’t care about them after they are born and I don’t care about women. The injustices that go on in the world against women and (born) children was supposedly their “proof.” Puh-lease! It’s not like I have a magic wand that I can wave to make all the evil in the world disappear (though, that would be nice!). Why is it so difficult for pro-aborts to understand that you can care for more than one group of people (at different ages/stages of life, as this case may be) and care about more than one issue at a time?
It’s difficult for them, Julie P, because once you pull on that one thread, the whole sweater unravels.
What I cannot understand is how [pro-lifers] seem to lose all care, concern and compassion for that life once the child is born into the world….
He cannot understand it because it is not true. This is a pro-abortion lie. It seems outrageous because it is a lie.
So, how do the pro-life forces defend their position that Planned Parenthood must go because, on occasion, they perform medical procedures that end what these folks perceive to be lives in being while fully understanding that closing the organization’s doors will result in the loss of lives of women we know are in being?
In the United States, I found just now on a website called Nationmaster.com, the maternal mortality rate is less than .008%. So, who are all these women that will die if they don’t abort? Surely he’s not referring to women experiencing ectopic pregnancy because Planned Parenthood doesn’t help women who have an ectopic pregnancy. Planned Parenthood’s specialty is killing healthy children developing in healthy mothers.
Looking at Guttmacher’s website, they list abortion mortality rates for women who abort at 8 weeks or less, and rates for women who abort at 16-20 weeks, and rates for women who abort 21 weeks or later. Notice something missing? I do: The mortality rate for abortions performed at 9-15 weeks. A great percentage are performed at this time, but what happened to their numbers? Oh, magically there must not be any mortality for abortions performed at 9-15 weeks, that must be it. Silly me.
To Pamela et al. — Actually, there is an abortion party. They’re called Democrats.
Now now phillymiss, that’s a bit extreme. Some Republican’s are pro-choice and some Democrats are anti-choice. I don’t recall Gerorge W. making abortion illegal.
Responding to “Reality,”
Reality says: June 14, 2011 at 9:38 pm
“Now now phillymiss, that’s a bit extreme. Some Republican’s are pro-choice and some Democrats are anti-choice. I don’t recall Gerorge W. making abortion illegal.”
Reality,
In reality phillymiss is accurate, and correct, that the Democrat Party is the Abortion Party, and the Abortion Party is the Democrat Party.
Abortion is one of the mainstays of the Democrat Party, while it is not on the platform for Republicans.
It does not matter if you guess, or estimate, drawing out of thin air your imaginary Republicans who are pro-abortion, or the imaginary Democrats who are “pro-life.”
What is the fact is that the Republican Party itself is pro-life, anti-abortion, while the Democrat Party is not only supportive of abortion, they push abortion as some wonderful right that makes the Democrat party so special.
“Abortion is one of the mainstays of the Democrat Party” and is making abortion totally illegal ‘on the platform’ for the Republicans?
“imaginary Republicans who are pro-abortion, or the imaginary Democrats who are “pro-life.” – imaginery? You wish!
What the democrats push is equal rights and choice. So yes, it is special.
So I guess the republican party is the Death Penalty Party. And the ‘fend for yourself’ party. Truly barbaric compared to the enlightened world.
My index finger has a callus from all the “likes”. :)
“To be or not to be, that is the question.” How can this guy say the soon-to-be-born are not in a state of being? No matter how smart someone is, if they are tolerant of abortion they are shallow thinkers.
So what if next to no one supported those who did not have their offspring killed? How does that affect the right and wrong of the situation? Must we personally guard and financially support every “almost-a-victim” we come across?
More to the point, why doesn’t Ungar hold Planned Unparenthood accountable to follow up all their abortion customers with counseling?
What’s with the crap of women will die if we don’t fund Planned Parenthood? No, they won’t! Planned Parenthood has a very limited number of medical services. Most of the things that threaten a woman’s life, Planned Parnthood is not equiped to deal with. The woman would have to go to some other medical center to have her problems treated. What little good PP does do, can also be done at the other medical centers where the woman goes to get her other problems treated. So no, women won’t die if Planned Parenthood funding is cut. (Although fewer of them will be fear mongered into abortions they don’t really want.)
As a matter of fact, back in the early 80’s, one of my close friends almost died because she went to Planned Parenthood, and they put an IUD in her when she hadn’t given birth to any children. It turns out that you aren’t supposed to put IUDs in women who’ve never given birth. It’s dangerous. Why didn’t PP know this? Or maybe they did, but they just didn’t care. She got a bad infection and almost died. She would have been a lot safer if PP hadn’t been available. (Just an aside: she was a brown skinned, black haired Iranian woman. I wonder if being brown skinned had anything to do with the poor quality of care she received from them. PP has a racist history, and Margaret Sanger was a eugenic racist.)
So don’t give me any hysterical crap about how women will die if we don’t fund PP. I know better. Women will most certainly NOT die if PP funding is cut off. Some of them will be safer and less likely to die.
I’m genuinely curious to see if any of the people here who insist that they are not Republican, are, in practice, anything but. What’s the point of going out of your way to identify as Democratic (or, at least, not Republican), as some people here do, if you are basically a de facto Republican?
Joan, don’t make assumptions you know nothing about. Let me tell you a little of my history. I came of voting age in 1976, three years after Roe v. Wade. I came from a family that had been working-class Democrats for generations. We are also Catholic and of course apalled by the Supreme Court decision legalizing the slaughter of unborn children.
My first time voting I was faced with a choice between Jimmy Carter, the supposed evangelical Christian who was “personally apposed” to abortion but nevertheless supported the pro-abortion of his party and Gerald Ford.
This certainly didnt endear Carter to me. But still the thing that got to me was how as the presumptive nominee-to-be he used his weight to keep the alternate pro-life delegates from being seated at the convention. I watched the whole thing on TV. A few people were crushing the will of the party members, the majority of whom were still pro-life. It was with great reluctance that I pushed down the lever for Ford, mainly out of anger at Carter.
I wouldn’t vote for another Republican for 32 years. In the meantime, I refused to vote for any of the pro-abortion Democrats, even though in 1980, my mother and I got elected to our county Democratic convention and tried to send a message to the leaders at the state level that we the people of the party were opposed to abortion. They paid no attention to any of this.
My parents eventually began registering as Republicans and regularly voted that way, declaring that the Democrats were no longer for the concerns of working people like them. Year after year, I skipped the main candidates and wrote in protest votes for pro-life candidates. Twice I wrote in the name of Gov. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, a staunch Catholic pro-life Democratic, a man of integrity who never could have run for President in his party because he wouldn’t accept abortion.
Yes, I did press down that lever for McCain in 2008 as a totally useless protest against Obama’s extreme pro-abortion policies — useless because I live in an electoral district in New York that went something like 98% for Obama anyway.
So does this make me a “de facto” Republican? What do you think? And if you are upset that there are so many pro-life Republican votes, try blaming the people who are really responsible – the Demcratic party leaders themselves. THEY are the ones who alienated so much of the base of their party.
Your question is so typical of the pro-abort mentality – the Democrats send their rank-and-file running in horror by their ghoulish pro-death mentality – and then you complain that there are so man pro-life Republicans!
The Democrats could have had my votes for all their social programs for poor women all these years, but they evidently didn’t want them. They did nothing to listen to the rank and file and continued on their merry way supporting the slaughter of the innocent. There is NO WAY I will support this. Why are you pro-aborts surprised? You’re evidently not surprised when people on principle against the death penalty. Plenty of people will do so on principle (so would I). Plenty of people understand when a voter cateogrically rejects any candidate who supports “enhanced interrogation” (as would I). Why do you evidently find it so difficult to believe that people refuse to vote for pro-abortion candidates without attributing some nefarious motive to us?
I still hold out some hope for old Democratic party to be resurrected, though the party itself will undoubtedly have to die in its present form for that to happen.
So there you are, joan. I do give you some credit for at least asking the question, which is more than most pro-aborts would do. But the answer you just automatically and arrogantly assumed is wrong.
“… Tell your elected representatives to back off on Planned Parenthood. Then, and only then, can you truly be among those who are pro-life.”
Then, but not only then, can you truly be a wolf among those who are pro-life. Here are two attempts of mine to correct Rick Ungar’s conclusion:
“… Tell your elected representatives to back true planned parenthood. There, and only there, can you truly be among those who are pro-life.”
After all, God’s plan of lifelong marriage for a man and his wife demonstrates “all care, concern and compassion for… life once the child is born into the world.” It also protects the “lives of women.”
“… Tell your elected children to back Planned Parenthood. Then, as once or twice before, can you truly continue among those who are pro-abortion.”
Joan:
CPCs are not government-funded.
Here are some things that the pro-aborts need to back up their argument:
a list of women whose lives were saved by Planned Parenthood
a list of Republicans who disagree with allowing people to give their own money to private charity
a list of ways Planned Parenthood helps born children
a list of ways Planned Parenthood supports the choice to adopt or the choice to give birth
proof that Planned Parenthood supports the choice to remain abstinent and/or not use birth control
By the way, at the last primary I voted for a Democrat in the Democratic primary. Had she won, I would have voted for her as my state rep. She was 100% pro-life. Many of her other positions leaned more to the democratic side, but honestly I did not care. Had she won the primary, I would have voted for in the general election for state rep in my state capitol, because she was more pro-life than the Republican candidate, even though my father-in-law was running the Republican candidate’s campaign. I voted for the Republican and he won by fiftysome votes. I am an independent.
“So does this make me a “de facto” Republican? What do you think? And if you are upset that there are so many pro-life Republican votes, try blaming the people who are really responsible – the Demcratic party leaders themselves. THEY are the ones who alienated so much of the base of their party.”
I’ll remind you that the Democratic Party’s position on abortion is and always has been reactive; before Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign, abortion was not a partisan issue at all. Reagan, in order to increase his appeal to evangelical Christians, turned the party sharply to the right on that issue and others. Of course the natural reaction of those who support legal abortion was to throw their support behind the Democratic Party and in so doing, become a key constituency: what else would they do? Just sit back and let the GOP, with the newly-empowered evangelicals in the driver’s seat, drag the country back 100 years? If a large subsection of either party’s rank-and-file voters should be bitter about their party suddenly dumping them by radically altering its platform on a certain issue or issues, it’s pro-choice Republicans and former Republicans. Who really alienated who here?
So if the Republican Party tries to prevent murder, then the Democratic Party has no choice other than to promote murder? I don’t believe the Democratic Party tolerates Klu Klux Klan membership anymore (some guy named Byrd might have been an exception).
@Joan — actually I am an Independent. to me, both parties leave much to be desired. At the local level I have voted for Democrats — I live in a section of the city (the Northeast) that has some good Democratic representatives. On the state and national level, I try to vote prolife, but sometimes both candidates are just so lousy I have to stay home.
Joan, nice selective memory. Nice ignoring of what I said. As I already stated, both Jimmy Carter and the Democratic party platform supported abortion in 1976. The Dems did start asking for federal funding for abortion in 1980, but their position of protecting Roe v. Wade at all costs was already clear in 1976. I was there! So if evangelical Christians and Catholics fled and began supporting Reagan in 1980, where do you imagine this support came from?
Alright, I’ve done a little surfing on the CDC’s website and Guttmacher’s.
For the sake of argument, let’s round our numbers down to even millions & thousands, shall we?
CDC lists the annual birthrate at approximately 4,100,000 (give or take some thousands each year) for the last few years.
Guttmacher lists the abortion stats as 1,021,000 for 2008.
CDC lists United State’s maternal mortality as about .008%. Notice how much less than one percent that is.
If abortion advocates think they are “saving lives” by aborting children, let’s see how that math works out:
If approx. 4,100,000 babies were born in 2008, we can approximate at a rate of .008% that up to 328 mothers in the US died in childbirth.
If approx. 1,021,000 abortions were performed in 2008 (Guttmacher), then abortionists killed at least 1,020,672 more children than was ”necessary” to avoid maternal death.
If Planned Parenthood alone is really responsible for over 300,000 abortions in 2008, then PP is killing 914 children for every 1 potential maternal death that might have been averted. Nationwide, approximately 3,113 children are killed for every potential 1 maternal death that might have been averted.
In other words, abortion is far, far more deadly and toxic for human beings than childbirth.
So, who’s saving whose lives?
Even if we are to believe Guttmacher’s statistics (lies, damn lies, and statistics -Mark Twain), then over a million children a year in the US die for nothing, even by abortion advocate standards.
My math doesn’t include twins or triplets that are aborted which would make these numbers even more loathsome.
the numbers do not lie. Thanks for the mathematical gymnastics Ninek!
Also – this presupposes that killing the child would insure that the woman would live. But there is no correlation between abortion and certainty of maternal alive-ness.
The only correlation (95-99%) is between abortion and the child’s death. Abortion is incredibly effective, unfortunately.
If I worked at a pet hospital, and I decided that killing healthy dogs was a great way to save 3 one hundredths of 1 percent of them from contracting Parvo, you’d all agree that I should be reported to the police for animal cruelty.
Well, that’s it for me for a while. See y’all when I get back!
Sorry, Ninek, but I don’t like your analogy. I think your pet worker should go back to college and take a logic course, but I wouldn’t report him for cruelty. (Perhaps he should be fired, though.) Killing animals is neither intrinsically cruel nor wrong. It’s okay for us to kill animals in as merciful a way as possible, but it’s very wrong for us to kill people.
My analogy is: would you destroy more than 3000 healthy dogs because 1 of them MIGHT die of Parvo?
My analogy wasn’t about whether dogs are more valuable than people. Logic course indeed.