...and the horse you rode in on.

These services are ever more important at a time when local laws are making the operation of these clinics difficult or impossible

You apparently missed the part of the article that says (in so many words) that the reason they decided not to offer in-house abortions is because it would be financially detrimental to all the other abortion doctors in the area.

i am a dipped in the oil texas democrat and pro life. while i do understand abortion may be needed in cases of rape,incest or the life of the mother.abortion clinics should be kept separate from planned parenthood.planned parenthood should provide birth control,tubes tied etc,hysterectomies and vasectomies. they should not include abortion. abortion should be in abortion clinics only.

Texas, the name Planned Parenthood is appropriate - covering all facets of planning when to become a parent, whether that's postponing it or preventing it.

Mike in Iraq - Hey boyo, you don't want an abortion? Don't get one. Otherwise stay the h@ll out of womens' business monkeyboy.

Mike, actually the US Supreme Court has guaranteed all women in the US, the RIGHT to have an abortion if they so wish. You don't have to like it, you can have your own personal opinion on the subject, but you do not have the RIGHT to say who should do what with their bodies.

And Mike? Just because you have an opinion doesn't give you the right to enforce it on others, either.

No, they don't. Please do your research. They abide by the same laws any other doctor's office does. Have you ever actually been inside and had an experience with Planned Parenthood? Do you expect them to be an adoption agency? If you are seeking other means then GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. They are medical clinic. They are by no means forcing patients into abortion, and they will often times deny patients one as well. It is frivolous media-hype that has tricked everyone into thinking these places are abortion factories. They aren't. Many clinics DON'T EVEN PERFORM THEM.

And no, I'm sorry...embryos don't have rights. You can't have it both ways.

Brewgeek -

Why should a fetus (not yet a child) have more rights than it's mother (the (host) for a clump of cells that is not viable out of the host?

You are telling me that a living, functioning being has less rights than something that cannot live on it's own?

I don't buy that for one minute - I'm pro-choice but wouldn't have an abortion. That right however should be available to those who may need it. You are not God - only he should judge others.

brewgeekNC - we're not talking about a "child". We're discussing a fetus or embryo, neither of which have any rights that trump a developed, breathing human being.

Lainikai: How wonderful for you and your anecdotal 'evidence' that women abort for convenience. So what if they do? It's none of your business. Furthermore, can you please prove to us that YOUR tax dollars are going towards abortions. Waiting....

goodforgoodnesssake, like so many others here, your intolerance of those whose opinions differ from yours does not help your cause. As far as proving my tax dollars go towards abortions, can you prove to me they don't? When Uncle Sam gives my tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, is there a federal requirement that says those dollars cannot be used for abortions and if there is, is there anyway to see that is being enforced? There is nothing anecdotal about my comment regarding those I know that have had abortions have done so as a matter of convenience. It is fact.

I beg to differ on several things:

You're sir, are the intolerant one, wishing to impose your own sense of morality on others.

The Hyde Amendment proves that your money does not go towards abortions.

As for being anecdotal, just because you demonstrate a few cherry-picked cases does not make it a fact across the board.

Q: How much of Planned Parenthood’s services are dedicated to abortions? Does the federal government fund those procedures?

A: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law.

Planned Parenthood’s chart shows that abortions made up 3 percent of its total services. Another way to measure the group’s abortion services, however, is to divide the total number of abortions by the number of clients. For example, Planned Parenthood said that it “provided nearly 11.4 million medical services for 3 million people” in 2009. Its 2011 fact sheet says it performed 332,278 abortion procedures in 2009. That would mean that roughly one out of every 10 clients received an abortion.

Planned Parenthood’s 2008-2009 annual report states that it received $363.2 million in "Government Grants and Contracts." (See page 29.) That’s about one-third of its total revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009.

However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money.

But Planned Parenthood cannot use the money it receives from the federal government for abortions anyway. According to the Department of Health and Human Service’s website, "by law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning." Medicaid funding is restricted by the Hyde Amendment to only abortion cases involving rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother. Some states use their own funds under Medicaid to go beyond that. Seventeen states and, until recently, the District of Columbia pay for "medically necessary" abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The federal budget deal now bans Washington, D.C., from using its funds to pay for abortions.

w w w.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

Good and factual post Thia!

1.17 PP is audited all the time and there has not been any issues. Do you really think PP would be still around if they violated the Hyde Amendment? The forced birthers would jump right on PP if they failed their audits.

amediamogul..."Just because you have an opinion doesn't give you the right to enforce it on others, either."

Apparently someone does. Read Roe vs Wade. The court said, except under limited circumstances, one cannot have an abortion after a certain point in the pregnancy.

Suzq-1497446

That arguement is lame and old.

A two year old can't live on it's own and we don't kill them do we?

Dumb argument about viability. Which by the way has progressively, with the advancement of the medical industry, gotten earlier and earlier!

To be anti-choice is to be anti-American.

And to the nuts ranting about life, death and murder, follow the bouncing ball; zygote->embryo->fetus->birth->baby. Even a 6th grader knows that.

Aren't we still fighting two Bush wars so we can be more free than the other religious nuts in the Middle East.

We have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world. Apparently, it is god's will that we just Forrest Gump ourselves out of the top performing countries.

Are we on the way to becoming Islam of the West? Ruled by religion - dumber than a bag of hammers?

Rick...your bouncing ball analogy is rather...well....something like a 6th grader would come up with.

What you call a zygote or embryo, another values as a human being or baby.

You can't dictate how someone else values something anymore than they can dictate how you value it.

Values don't make our laws.

As a women who can and has produced a human life with her body, I find it offensive that men have any opinion at all when it comes to abortion. When YOU can get pregnant, that's when YOUR opinions matter. Until then, SHUT UP!

And Yes, we can produce life without you...we do it all the time with sperm banks, invitro fertilization, etc.

You can make up and believe anything you want, "hs", it doesn't change the fact that a zygote is a zygote, not a baby.

Vegas,

you missed Suzq's meaning, or are out right distorting it to fit your opinion (I find thins more likely). Fetuses are parasites in behavior. If you remove a fetus before Week 22 there is next to no chance that the fetus will survive and no chance at all prior to week 16.

Unless the being can breath on its own it is not alive and does not have rights. Simple enough for you?

Oh and for your next leading answer, people on ventilators could breath at some point in time and so where already afforded their rights. Fetuses have no such loophole. They were not alive prior to conception and they are not alive until live birth. What one woman does with her body is of no concern to you. I never get this about pro-lifers, for some reason they think they should be able to crawl up into a woman's areas and take up residence there and tell her what she can't or cannot do. It is the same way with the Gay's.

Grow up and mind your own business and we can all get along. Start poking around where you do not belong and we are going to have a problem. Religion does not trump our secular laws, not when we were founded, not during the civil war, not in the 1980's, not now, and not ever unless we get turned into a Christian theocratic dictatorship.

So a baby is not a human? It does not matter what you call each stage a human it is still a human. How is this :zygote->embryo->fetus->birth->infant->toddler->preteen->teen->young adult->adult->senior->dead. So none of us are human nor have any rights according to this concept. Sorry but that is not true or real. A zygote is just as much a human as any other stage. It has it's own DNA and it should have it's own future.

Angela, most if not all men are going to have an opinion about abortion. Are you sure it isn't the actual opinion presented by many men that you find offensive, and not merely that they have an opinion?

Good responses to correct the misinformation pushed by MikeSA and HS. LaVall also makes an incorrect assertion about zygotes - legally, the unborn are not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and so they are not as much a human as at any other stage.

hs321...that wasn't enforcing an opinion on anyone. It was a medically sound law. It is dangerous to abort at that point barring a risk to the mother's health.

Sooo....let's review.

When someone says "Abortion is bad, you shouldn't be allowed to have one." = opinion.

"Abortion past the first trimester is dangerous due to risks of xyz..." = medically researched fact. Note the absence of modifiers such as "bad" and "evil" and "baby killer." Those words generally point to an opinion.

See the difference?

LaVall, no one is disputing whether the fetus is human or not. A fetus, has no rights as a "person" under the current constitution. Even strawberries have DNA - that is not a compelling enough argument to force a woman to give birth to an unwanted child, however it was conceived.

Rick, the fact that scientist label a fetus at a certain point during gestation and embryo has absolutely nothing to do with whether any given individual values "it" as an "embryo" or a "baby".

Miscreant..."Values don't make our laws." Demonstrably false.

amediamogul...I'm not sure if you're aware, but there are people who say an abortion should be able to be performed up until the time the woman goes into labor. It's the woman's choice whether it's worth the risk. Not a scientist, the medical community, or the judge using their information to draw a line on a time chart.

I happen to be pro-choice. All I'm trying to point out is the confusion between medical/scientific, whatever facts people use to support their side of what boils down to what any given individual values. Anyone can use science or medical information to either support or not support abortion based on their values. One can say science calls it a zygote, so they don't value it as a human being, while another person says science calls it a zygote, which means genetically it's a human so they value it as human.

See the difference?

To the pro-life activists... If it can't live, or breathe on its own outside of the mother, it isn't a living human being. I don't particularly like that we use abortion so offhandedly, but when it comes to making that decision, a woman has the legal right to abort the pregnancy if she so desires.

We live in a world which is quickly becoming overpopulated. It doesn't make sense to bring more unwanted children into the world... And to those who offer placing the child up for adoption as a solution... I don't see many of you adopting unwanted kids. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and adopt instead of having more of your own kids.

You are on your own merry-go-round, hs. No scientist has ever called a fetus and embryo, they are smarter than that. Miscreant's statement is demonstrably correct; that a law may coincide with your "values" is proof of nothing other than that. People can debate what they will, the fact remains as amediamogul explained it. There is no confusion, merely ignorance of facts, intentional or otherwise, by those who are anti-choice.

VegasDude -

The key word is VIABILITY - is a fetus viable - no it is NOT.

A fetus cannot live outsisde the womb until a certain number of weeks (as Geowil so eloquently put it). My point is: Is a fetus's life more viable and likely to survive than the mother's? The two-year old you spoke of - can occupy space in our world but must be cared for by a living hopefully adult person. Otherwise, left on it's own, like the fetus, it too will perish.

The mother's life is more important at that point than a fetus.

You guys are funny. if you can live with yourselfs after killing your baby because you can control yourself then go right ahead

Suz you are correct, a zygote/fetus/embryo is not viable, it absolutely needs its Mother. It also has no rights under our current law. It's future viabilty is under total control and decision of the mother and hopefully father. When you were a zygote/fetus/embryo what decision would you wished your parents to make? My point is the unborn will never have a say. To say that they are not human yet is deflection. They will be if allowed.

mcbarker

To the pro-life activists... If it can't live, or breathe on its own outside of the mother, it isn't a living human being. I don't particularly like that we use abortion so offhandedly,

If "it" isn't a living human being, why don't you "particularly like" that "we" (whomever "we" is) "so offhandedly?" According to the abortion credo, what's growing inside the mother is not human, not a life, not a being, not a person. It has no more value than fingernails (which are clipped "offhandedly"). The number of abortions anyone has should not matter. If a woman has an abortion, goes out the next day and "whoops it up" and gets pregnant again and has another abortion, and keeps repeating the process ad infinitum, no one should care if they're pro-choice, should they?

I don't get this "safe, legal and rare" stuff. Why should it be rare? If it's a constitutional right, there should be lots more of it, wouldn't you think? One should want more of it. Does anyone say: "I believe in the constitutional right of free speech but I want it rare?"

If a woman has an abortion, goes out the next day and "whoops it up" and gets pregnant again and has another abortion, and keeps repeating the process ad infinitum,

Jerry, let me just stop you right there. Abortion is not fun. Its not easy. Your hormones are out of whack, you feel sick for several days, everything hurts. Its not like getting your nails done, okay? Most women do not want to repeat the experience.

Mandy, you can't speak for everyone. It's not a 'hard' decision for every female who gets an elective abortion, and there are plenty of women who have had multiple abortions, so obviously they did want to repeat the experience.

Just as anti-abortion thinkers can't say that every female that has an abortion does so carelessly, Pro-abortion thinkers can't claim that all abortions are hard decisions that no one would take lightly.

BJ the number of women who have multiple abortions is very low.

But you're right, it is just like anything else. Some people like doing it. Some people are addicted to damaging behaviors. Some people cut, some people drink, some people do danger sports. There are always some. In any situation.

But for the majority of women who get abortions, and stats prove this, it is a difficult decision which is not likely to be repeated.

What 'stats'? The same set of 'stats' that somehow didn't include the (at least) seven born alive babies that Kermit Gosnell killed? The same stats that simply ask someone a question without any real way of knowing if it's true or not?

BJ, your argument just failed. That doctor was breaking the law and killing already BORN babies. That isn't abortion. That is murder. There are procedures when it comes to abortion; he ignored them. And killing born babies isn't his only crime: ran a pill mill, illegally did an abortion on someone who was over 24 weeks, illegally prescribing drugs, and forced an abortion on a teen that changed her mind.

I know people who had abortions and there are procedures that are followed. A woman can change her mind before the surgery or before she has to take medication and the doctors just surrender then. They ask constantly if you are sure with the decision. They check how far along you are; if you are too far, they WON'T perform an abortion unless the mother's life is in danger or if there is something really wrong with the fetus. Because if they did, they will go to prison.

BJ a little bit of research will show you all of the stats you need to know. 60% of women who have an abortion already have children. A small number of women have more than one. Why are you talking about someone who was killing babies?

Mandy, I was using as an example that stats aren't always accurate. The point I was trying to make was that I doubt that he wrote down the things he did for his reported stats.

You couldn't have made your point more succinctly.

only bad part about this one is scooter tramp when an ole gal decides to jump your bones in the middle of the night you cant run back to the girls dorm... ha ha.

But, if politicians actually SOLVE our problems, NO one would vote for them...but, these social issues gin up the base on both sides...this country is in a heap of trouble and the politicians are doing nothing but trying to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies

when you start a post with name calling or buzz words do you really expect to be taken seriously? just wondered..

azindy

I wish the Teabags and Xtians would get out of women's health.

A thoughtful, well-reasoned and persuasive argument ...... to some.

And judging by your name "sheshouldbekilled" we should all take you seriously, right?

True that, goodforgoodnessake! If these pro-life MEN (notice how it's always MEN leading these anti-abortion crusades?) would perhaps apply the smallest amount of rationality to their arguments, do a bit of research, they would find that when women have access to education and birth control, the number of abortions goes down. Since's it takes too much effort to try to bring about change, I suppose it's just easier for a bunch of Bully Boys to stand outside of clinics hurling insults, after all, it's more fun to bully and pick on 'little women' than to actually take the reasonable course of action which has proven to be effective.

I couldn't care less if you take me seriously based on my moniker, you didn't have any sensical rebuttal to my comments, so you attack my name, typical liberal. I made that name from an article years ago where a woman threw her granddaughter off a walkway, killing the child.

Years later, it still says I'm a new user and that I can't change my name. Oh well.

Oh, please let me explain using more simple terminology for you, 'sheshouldbekilled.' YOU DO NOT HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE TO TRY TO SOLVE THE ISSUE TO CUT DOWN ON THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS. You've made blanket arguments to try to justify your religious brainwashing that "KILLING BABYS BAD" stance.

You've NEVER walked a woman's shoes who's been forced to make this decision. Perhaps if one of your baby girls gets raped & pregnant, you can explain that her experience is really a "blessing."

Want to help end abortion? PROMOTE education. PROMOTE access to birth control. Leave off your bully boys rants outside the clinics - BULLY

NO AMY, You promote MORALS, then you won't have unwanted pregnancies and baby killing.............

sheshouldbekilled,

You keep talking about babies and children in wombs. I know you're doing it for the emotional power it brings to the argument, but just so you know: No baby or child could survive inside a womb, they would suffocate.

It is also called personal responsibility. Contraceptives are also over the counter, but then again so are self-implemented toys. If you do not want GET pregnant then take the necessary measures to help that prevention.

Poor little defenseless women that just don't know any better. We Bully Boys are so out of line, not wanting unborn children to be dismembered from the womb."

How about this? Instead of being a bully and going after women, why don't you teach your fellow men about safe sex? It takes two to tango...and just because women have to pay the consequences doesn't mean you get to gang up on them after the fact. Members of your own sex are just as responsible...and maybe if folks like you spent more time educating and less time whining and whipping up overly-provocative posters....something would change.

sheshould:

I couldn't care less if you take me seriously based on my moniker, you didn't have any sensical rebuttal to my comments, so you attack my name, typical liberal.

For the dim-witted, this is not an attack against women,

You once again, prove that it's pointless to attempt a serious discussion with anyone that resorts to name calling.

It is also called personal responsibility. Contraceptives are also over the counter, but then again so are self-implemented toys. If you do not want GET pregnant then take the necessary measures to help that prevention

Contraceptives' being available OTC doesn't help if kids don't know how to use them. A car is available without a prescription, but you still have to take a driver's ed course. There are teenagers out there who think that you only have to use a condom "the first time", that wearing two condoms gives you twice the protection, or that various foods lower your sperm count enough that you don't need a condom. All of these are false, but someone who's only been given abstinence-only education won't find that out until it's too late.

Marilee, rape, date rape, incest, spousal rape, gang rape is IMMORAL! Those that engage in that sort of activity are AMORAL, your blanket statement is pointless.

Marilee, we have been taught morals since the bible was invented. How's that working for ya?

To you folks arguing education and access to birth control. How stupid do you think we are. Education is everywhere, and how hard is it to stop by a 7-11 before you drop your pants?

MyJohnson, You are correct. Education is everywhere. And if you took advantage of that education, you would know that birth control, especially condoms, are not 100% at preventing pregnancy. You would also know that it is not just single women who have abortions, but many women who already have families also have abortions. You would also know that sometimes carrying a child is dangerous to the mother's health and life and an abortion is sometimes unavoidable. You would also know that sometimes there is no way that a developing fetus will survive outside of the womb.

Amy.....you are not worth responding to, especially after the message you sent me. I deleted your two replies just as I said I would, I always get the last word.

Hambone...you're quite the wise guy aren't you. You too are right.....you are only alive and a human being the day you're born. You're not ignorant or uneducated at all (sarcasm).

Good for goodness......still haven't brought a valid argument to the table. Try bringing up a valid point.

Amed.....how exactly am I being a bully? Elaborate in details, please. You clearly use the term loosely and apply it to someone who speaks the truth. People like you and hambone like to pretend they're not babies, but we all know they are.

People are so afraid to hear the truth, which is why they are collapsing my comments. How dare I say the truth??

sheshouldbekilled,

You really have a superiority complex that has no place here. Your phrase that "You always get the last word" proves that.

People are so afraid to hear the truth, which is why they are collapsing my comments. How dare I say the truth??

Because what you say is not the truth. Women who have abortions aren't just irresponsible whores. An abortion is a responsible choice for many. Many women with families have abortions. There is more to having a child than getting pregnant and birthing it 9 months later. You have 3 children, you should know this.

Mandy......you have no idea what you're talking about. If you saw the vile message Amy sent me personally you would know what I'm talking about. And your presumptions have no place here.

What I say is EXACTLY the truth, you just change the wording to make yourself feel better about killing unborn babies. The fact that you say killing babies in the womb is a responsible choice for many, just shows that you have no true understanding of what abortion actually is. It's not the removal of a lump or something stuck on your body, it's a HUMAN BEING!! Having 3 children, I do know they are human beings in the womb, and just because they are a lot of work, doesn't mean you can kill them. You should know that.

Actually I DO know what I am talking about. I have had an abortion. You just change the wording to make yourself feel righteous and condemn others.

agreed without lawsuits to the contrary.

Even if they are unconstitutional?

States rights and laws should ALWAYS trump the federal government.

You don't really understand the concept of pre-emption and federalism, do you?

We tried that. It didn't work. If that were so, there would be no real point in having a federal government and each state would be its own independent nation.

What a topic ..... and most of the major positions regarding it contained in the preceding comments .... and without the usual vituperation. I'm impressed.(Not to mention shocked and astounded.)

The duties and rights of the states and of the federal government are clearly defined in the Constitution, and constantly re-defined in the courts. It's a sloppy system, prone to error. But it's better than any other, in my opinion. Neither the states (who pass things like voter qualification laws) nor the fed (who upheld the Fugitive Slave Act) do (or should) dominate the system.

Denver,

I don't think I quite agree, although I do about the part where they both have screwed up royally. The supremacy clause and preemption, as well as incorporation through the 14th Amendment make it pretty clear that federal trumps and dominates state law. If in conflict the feds win every time.

Sarah-3043284

If that were so, there would be no real point in having a federal government and each state would be its own independent nation.

Which, in fact, they were until the Confederation of States became the United States. Most the people who decry the bicameral legislature, the electoral college and the provision making a slave the population equivalent of 3/5 of a free person fail to realize that without these provisions there probably would not have been a United States.

Sarah-3043284

The supremacy clause and preemption, as well as incorporation through the 14th Amendment make it pretty clear that federal trumps and dominates state law.

I disagree with this premise. The Constitution addresses the limitations on both state and federal government much more than it does their rights.

If in conflict the feds win every time.

As much as I disagree with your premise. I can't argue with your conclusion. However, I acribe it more to the states abrogating their responsibilities than rights inherent to the feds.

Denver Sarah EngEsq And the Horse... and Scooter

Perhaps the IX Amendment to US Constitution can assist here - even though it is hardly recognized.

"The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Jack,

I think that was more about them making sure that they recognized that enumerating ALL rights regarding everything was impossible and making sure the Constitution remained relevant throughout the years and fluid.

I also think it could be used as authority to uphold a right to privacy which is applicable to the abortion question.

However, I acribe it more to the states abrogating their responsibilities than rights inherent to the feds.

Oh, no, the states - particularly the Southern states - tried. And failed. And have continued to fail.

This whole issue - reproductive rights - is just an attempt of the minority to assert their tyranny on those who disagree with them. I'm not a woman - I'm a man - I have no right to tell a woman what she should do with her body. I may have an opinion, but that doesn't mean my opinion means jack-crap to her when it comes to personal health decisions.

Sarah-3043284

I also think it could be used as authority to uphold a right to privacy which is applicable to the abortion question.

I believe that any rational adult should be able to make their own decisions and live with their own consequences. And I agree that personal decisions should be covered by the right to privacy .... until those decisions affect people other than the decision maker. When someone wants their decisions to be paid for with public funds, the public has a right to know how their funds are being spent, and to argue that the expenditure is unwarranted.

Denver,

Except the Hyde Amendment prohibits any and all public funds from being used on abortion. And before you give me the, "Money is fungible" argument, think of it this way...

When you deposit and withdrawal $100 from the bank, they don't give you the same bill back, but the loss to the bank is the equivalent. Money is fungible, math is not.

Sarah-3043284

Except the Hyde Amendment prohibits any and all public funds from being used on abortion.

All sorts of things are prohibited by law, but they still happen.

And before you give me the, "Money is fungible" argument, think of it this way... When you deposit and withdrawal $100 from the bank, they don't give you the same bill back, but the loss to the bank is the equivalent. Money is fungible, math is not.

What you say is true, but not germane to the "money is fungible" argument. That argument is better characterized as follows: Suppose I have $1,000 in my pocket and I need $1,000 for the down payment on a car. Suppose also that me and my friends want to buy $500 worth of illegal drugs. If I borrow $500 from you, I can do both. You have facilitated my drug purchase by increasing my money supply, regardless of how many of your dollars are spent on the drug purchase ..... because money is fungible.

denver bill 2: " ... because money is fungible."

This is what upset me about the argument from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce after the Citizens United ruling. Republicans argued that, because money is fungible, tax money to Planned Parenthood helps pay for abortion services. However, they agreed (somehow) that money given to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was not fungible (couldn't be used to influence our elections). Money is fungible, as you say, despite legal and accounting definitions which obscure that fact.

abortion clinics should be legally seperated from planned parenthood they should never ever be together. two totally seperate entities.

Please explain how both forms of family planning is different.

Good thing a child can't be a child until it's born then, huh?

"Unborn child" is like saying an "ungrown tree" or an "unhatched chicken" or an "unbuilt chair". I know these things as an acorn, eggs and wood. I should go into a restaurant and order three scrambled unhatched chickens and see if they look at me like I'm crazy...

Pro Life? That's a LIE! They don't care if women DIE - which is exactly what went on before Roe vs Wade. Some 'people' like to pretend that before abortion was legalized, women NEVER went to backroom clinics, NEVER died from the procedure. I bet those men protesting outside clinics probably go home to beat their wives (if they even have one!)

Beautiful and intellegent analogy EngEsq.

Misscreant...not really. Maybe on the surface.

There may be some people, but I would think they would be rare, that assign the same value to a an acorn, a chicken or a piece of wood that they do to what some value as a baby or human potential set in motion.

This debate is far more complex than EngEsq's simple-minded analogies.

If they are UNBORN, then by their very nature, they are NOT children, but fetuses or zygotes....but, if the IRS doesn't let you claim them as deductions, then they are NOT children...period

EngEsq, how beautifully put!! LOL

portia...the IRS determines your values? Very interesting!

portia, the that one is the most delusional comments I have ever read. You are letting one of the most corrupt organizations in the world determine your morality. How low we have sunk. Is that what they teach in our public schools these days?

They only kill unborn children.

You have to first be born to be a child.

This debate is far more complex than EngEsq's simple-minded analogies.

Not really. Simply put, abortion is a valid and legal medical procedure, which is also a woman's constitutional right to choose.

First, I have a friend who works for Planned Parenthood and the salaries are not very bloated (she worked in accounting, she knew a lot of the salaries).

Second, I've not seen any Planned Parenthood office that was especially nice. They're usually neat and clean, but not upscale or anything.

Third, how can an organization that does exactly what it's name implies be off purpose? Are you suggesting PP is off its purpose because they also provide health care for women, along side the family planning?

Welp, might as well start boycotting every doctor's office and hospital. They're bureaucracies too. With a rationality like that, I hope you don't need healthcare sometime soon.

By the way, your inexperience speaks for you. Most PP offices are off the beaten path....often in unsavory areas of the city....and far from plush. I love when people don't research before they try to argue.

amediamogul - why should they research when they have groups like The Heritage Foundation and Focus on the Family to tell them what to think?

Don't you know, thinking is for the DEVIL!

/sarcasm

@digitalnoise--There should be more men in the world like you. It refreshing to hear your standpoint.

Also. It made my morning that you brought up Focus on the Family. Made me remember that as a teen girl I used to receive their magazine BRIO....until I realized it was 30 pages of subjugation and brainwashing. Focus on the Family played a big role in my decision to be educated, so for that I thank them. Thanks for the morning laugh over my coffee. :-)

Hambones and the rest of you. Get real. It is a non profit whose focus is to provide services. PP rakes in tons more cash every year from private donors and third party payments than it puts out in client services. It has no reason to keep spending millions a year to keep fighting with the federal government over grant funding other than they know that spending 20 million on propaganda to keep the 500 + million in government grants to line their pockets more, just makes sense. And hamboney, what the hell... "i know an accountant, and they know the salaries". Man/woman, at least think of a good bunch of spew to try and fool people. Anyone who has worked for any corporation knows that no "accountant" knows everyones salaries. Just make them restructure and get back to their mission. Why argue and try to defend their corrupt beaurocratic practices? No matter which side of the fence, thats just a no brainer.

Oh, and hamboney, you haven't seen money spent on really nice care facilities... go google up some of their main offices and other things. Of course, most of the waste is hidden away as they don't have to report like a public organization. Get real.

Okay so maybe you're right. Let's say you are. Why are you picking on only this organization? Put on your cape and fight all bureaucracies!

You can start with big pharma....then move on to our own government.

Or you can take off your aluminum cap and realize you're feeding into propaganda just as much as those you accuse of doing likewise.

Gofigureit,

First, can you do me a favor and call me by my name? This doesn't need to be some mud-flinging cockfight.

Second, I didn't say she knew all of the salaries, but she knew many at fairly high levels. Of course the figureheads and head honchos always make more than they should.

And third, they are still following their mission: Family Planning (i.e. Planned Parenthood)!

Sorry, I was almost sure the little name that pops up on the screen was hamdome or something. Is that really your name? Wow, parents sent you through life with a tough one.

I think if you look back, it was you who started slinging mud. Pretty sure. I think I just typed in a fairly rational comment from either side of the aisle.

And of course you have now backed off your comment that you knew an "accountant" who told you "the salaries", to something less, but obviously still not the truth. Want me to go through the list of circumstance and reasoning as to why you made that statement up out of thin air?

Last, I didn't type they stopped following their mission, just that they need to get back to it as being their primary concern.

Now, as all good liberals do when they have to logical recourse, you made crap up to sound more intelligent than you are, you went off without thinking first, and then when cornered you went on the attack like a cornered wild animal. Yep, now I am getting into the cockfight here.

PP is a bloated fundraising pocket padding monster. Bottom line. And that has nothing do do with Pro-life or Pro-abortion.

Oh, and the person who pointed out all the other budget bloated organizations out there and asked why I wasn't picking on them. Well, because the article was about PP. Thinking people stay on point. Simple people of a childlike protectionist mentality try to shift focus as you did. And had you had just a bit of cognitive ability, you would have recognized that you marginalized your defense of PPs bloated budget admitting it to be fact via your comment, and then tossing it into a bag with a bunch of other wasteful programs. And I was not "picking" on anything. I stated in the first part of my comment I didn't care about taking sides, but simply made a reasonable observation about PP.

No, simple people with childlike mentalities resort to name calling and mud-slinging instead of having a debate like an adult. But since you chose that path...

I do have cognitive ability thank you, because I was somehow able to make sense of your mis-punctuated drivel. However, you still don't deny that your logic can be used against colleges and hospitals...to name a few other bureaucracies. So if those are "useless programs"...don't use them! I think I can already name one institution you've failed to take advantage of ;-)

I'm sorry I pointed out a flaw in your logic and used an example you didn't like it and had to throw a tantrum. These things happen sometimes.

she worked in accounting, she knew a lot of the salaries

I didn't say she knew all of the salaries, but she knew many at fairly high levels.

Feels weird to be quoting myself, but in what way is that backing down? She knew a lot vs. she knew many. Almost the same exact wording.

And just so you know, where I work, I'm somewhere in the middle of the salary scale, but even though I'm not an accountant, I actually know almost all of the salaries because of my position, including the top boss. It's not that rare. She happened to be an accountant (no longer, she works in some other capacity now, not sure what) and because of her position, she knew a lot (i.e. many) of the salaries.

Also, I went back to look: Where did I sling mud?

it is so far off purpose

That's a quote from you. A mission is the organization's purpose; they are synonymous. You said they are off mission. But they aren't, unless you count the fact that they not only help plan for parenthood, but also provide preventive health care for women.

Want me to go through the list of circumstance and reasoning as to why you made that statement up out of thin air?

Please.

Now, as all good liberals do when they have to logical recourse, you made crap up to sound more intelligent than you are, you went off without thinking first, and then when cornered you went on the attack like a cornered wild animal. Yep, now I am getting into the cockfight here.

The sign of someone who cannot complete his argument, so, by transference, accused his opponent of same. Congratulations.

And seriously, what is it with making fun of my name? I guess that is in keeping with partisan hacks (my first actual mud-sling) trying to be witty. It's Hambone.

You people are just way too fun to play with. You all need to go back and read the hypocracy of your comments. I know you are trying to sound as though you have some level of reasoning, but it just isn't working. Good to try though, I comend you for that. So fun, how you all end up breaking down and start leaking your schoolyard nonsense as you run out of off point and get frustrated not being able to piece together a simple and well thought argument. Hambrome, I said I was sorry for thinking the little username on a comment page was silly. I had no idea anyones parents would put their child through life with that hanging over them. But, if you are proud of being Hambram, then I apologize again for the second time. Back to tossing the ball for my doggy to go fetch. Have a nice and less anger filled evening all.

So, essentially, you're aware that you're wrong and have given up, but you need to make yourself feel better by convincing yourself that you are just "playing" with us.

So you don't believe anything you wrote? You just wanted to get us riled up, is it?

Alright. Congratulations. Well played.

Also, your entire post is a perfect example of:

leaking your schoolyard nonsense as you run out of off point and get frustrated not being able to piece together a simple and well thought argument.

P.S. I'm right. Any you're wrong. nah nah

No, I was never wrong. I made an initial observational statement which related to the article and was very much factual. I also mentioned quite clearly that I was not supporting either side of the abortion issue so no one would start hammering away on that subject. I was commenting on their business practices. You folks started doing what you always do. Flying off point, making no arguments of your own, not supporting your statements, name calling, and all the rest. After the second comment that went off into a world of space aliens and moon rocks, I started having fun. Knowing that you all were sitting at your little computers with steam coming from your ears and your blood boiling, I would spend about 2 minutes typing a nice little response and get a good laugh. This has not been taking up any of my time but a few seconds when I clicked back every hour or so, and I was not being insulted by your name calling. It was just funny to watch you keep digging in over nothing. I even let you know what I was doing many comments ago, and yet... here you come again. Just too amusing for words. Can't you people think at all? Oh, I made my point in my very first comment. I was finished there. Good luck Hamboon.

Please. You never made a point and you started the mud-slinging. I love that you keep calling out some sort of name calling, but you've failed to treat me with any respect regarding my name.

Enjoy feeling superior you sad, sad person.

Nice attempt at logic, care to try again? How 'bout this one:

If a woman needs to terminate a pregnancy to save her own life, she depends on the ability to have a choice. Rober34 is anti choice. Therefore Rober34 is pro-death.

You clearly don't have the capacity to think rationally. A fetus isn't a person legally, medically or in the common sense of the term.

Secondly, abortions are not ever done indiscriminately. The vast majority of abortions are done after very serious contemplation, and are not entered into lightly.

Therefore, go back and take your SAT's again. Your syllogisms are completely illogical.

EngEsq - Interesting.....so if you're pregnant (assuming you have a uterous for this example), and somebody gives you a good smack in the belly, and the baby dies, the person should only be charged with assault on you, yes?

What do you call Stanley Ann Dunham's lack of "choice" or planned parenthood helping her with her choice? A damn shame!!

@rober - That's the kind of logic that drives a guy like Scott Roeder, a domestic terrorist. Might want to rethink your position before you reinforce your entry into the FBI Watch List.

rober34 YOU ARE AN IDIOT

If only Stanley Ann Dunham had access. If she did, I'd support her decision to abort 100%!

Oh what a wonderful world it would have been, and we wouldn't even know why!

troll^

William Demuth: why do you thinkmurder is a solution to crime and poverty? And please, don't give me the bullcrap that we don't know when life begins.

You barely touched on the depth of this simple truth.

In truth, our breeding is NOT neutral, and our irresponsible behaviors and religious madness has brought us right to the brink of destroying ourselves.

I am not a young man, and for every decade of my life I have heard the appeal to "Feed The Children"

We do, and then they make more, and then the more make more squared. We pollute this planet and mutate ourselves and our destiny in the process.

The Chinese are correct. One child per person, or less.

Any more than that, and we will bake this planet and everyone on it.

We need policies both at home and abroad that reject religion and use science to chart our course. Incentives designed to STOP this madness while we still can.

Well said.

Jeff:

I agree with everything except happily married husband. He has a bone in the fire. Normal man can chose to expect a child in his marriage. If woman feels so strong to ignore husband then she should come to agreement and take proper steps to prevent pregnancy. Howeve one does have a right to do what one wants andbe careless and create metal situation for other party of susbtantive interest.

Of course ourside people do not have any rights in the matter.

Nope. Sorry. a wife is nto a slave. A wife is not a cow. This is completely her decision, and he damn well better be grateful if she decides to go through the pregenancy.

A husband has NO right to expect anything.

Actually, a civil charge, perhaps a fine levied against a woman who aborts a child than was concieved by a man who formally wishes to assume full responsibility at birth might ALSO reduce abortions.

I am in favor of choice, but choices also have consequences.

Abortions are not a form of birth control we should promote. It must always be available, but I reject the idea of de-stigmatizing it.

Furthermore, a woman should be required to identify paternity in ALL cases.

Identify the irresponsible so we can take actions to change behavioral patterns

Demuth - I'm liking your posts on this subject. I've been involved in three abortions, one a rape of a child, one with my wife when the fetus had no chance of normal development, and one as a single Marine. The mother was the wife of a good friend, mother of two children, and her husband deployed for a very long period. Not proud of that one, but they had a wonderful life together and raised great kids - their own.

2liberal-- I'm sorry, but in essence a child (oops...sorry....a FETUS) was killed so you and the wife of your "good friend" and mother of the now deceased could hide your sexual sin?

Wow-- 2cold for words.

With friends like you..... You can finish the adage, yes??

Marla, whether you are right or wrong...you have no right to judge 2liberal. And that's the problem with this entire issue...there's too much judgement and not enough education and logic.

I'm sorry, but I obviously totally disagree. You asked in another thread if I'm a Christian....yes. I am perfectly within my right to judge something that I believe God has judged. He definitely judges murder, and adultery.

Story of David and Bathsheba....she gets pregnant with his child. She is already married. Rather than admit guilt, David sends her husband to the front lines of war to be slaughtered. Covering up sexual sin with the shedding of innocent blood....sounds somewhat familiar.

David was judged very harshly as a result by God. Fairy tale? Some say. And that's fine. Me? I say life's lessons, and model for the rest of us and a standard by which we all should live...obviously, in my opinion. I can absolutely judge what God judges.

I am not without sin. My sin is no less heinous in God's eyes than 2liberal's. My sarcasm above in my first reply was inappropriate and unkind.... for that I apologize. But not for the judgment that the sin upon sin mentioned is wrong.

Marla, you have ever right to have your religious faith and convictions. You can believe that God will judge those sins. What you do not have the right to do is forbid others to do what they think is best for themselves or try and pass laws that do that.

yes. I am perfectly within my right to judge something that I believe God has judged.

Talk about your sanctimonious arogance, and all because you believe you can.

Fairy tale? Some say

Yes, i say so too.

I can absolutely judge what God judges.

Then you'll see what your god thinks about that.

Yes, I will, Gordy. And I'm unafraid.

Hope you can say the same. One of us will be in for quite a shock.

Marla... if God intended for all conceived babies to be born, then why do one third of pregnancies end in miscarriage?

Wow, it's a good thing the US isn't a theocracy. With all this god talk, you'd think we were though.

The bible does not now or ever have, had a place in our government. We are a secular nation and if a theocracy is what you'd like, there are plenty of other countries to consider. If you'd like to have a rational discussion about science, then I'm all for it. Otherwise, what you gleen from your chosen deity is irrelevant.

Misscreant-- who said I forbid anyone anything? As if it were my place? Last I checked, abortion is legal. Any one of these women is free to have any procedure they want. Personally, I'd just prefer taxpayers (like me) not have to foot the bill through PP.

Mandy, is that a serious question?

Marla, the Hyde Amendment keeps your tax dollars from funding abortions.

goodnesssake....I'm sure there are plenty of places you can talk science.... Why pop into this particular thread?

The federal government continues to support PP, Misscreant, who are continuing to provide abortions.

Thanks for the debate.... Need to run pick up kidlets. Have a great day.

Marla, I'm sure there are plenty of places for you to proselytize, why come here?

Yes. It is. Not every conception is meant for birth. And not every would-be mother can have a child.

Hope you can say the same.

of course. Why should i fear an imaginary being?

One of us will be in for quite a shock.

No, not really.

Personally, I'd just prefer taxpayers (like me) not have to foot the bill through PP.

You don't, per the Hyde Admendment.

The federal government continues to support PP, Misscreant, who are continuing to provide abortions

PP provides other services besides abortion. Those services may be funded.Buty none is allocated towards abortion.

Not to mention...some people just shouldn't be mothers.

I'm not judging you. I'm merely saying...as a Christian, we are called to love. And your posts...well...not the greatest examples. That's all.

Out of love, I'm called to discipline my child. That discipline might be a swat to his behind. I would submit that our society has a warped view of "love" as some warm and fuzzy slippers we put on as we tiptoe around folks we disagree with so they don't get offended.

Personally, I've never seen the "love" I just described towards any positions I've held in this forum. The enlightened and tolerant left routinely slam me up one side and down the other-- and not just attacking the positions I've held or words I've used. I've had my child in the photo attacked. I've had my appearance attacked...because I disagree. Hey-- it is what it is. But, pardon me if I don't shed a tear that I don't measure up to some misguided view of love that you may hold.

Having said that, generally speaking, I refrain from firing from the hip. Today, I guess you just caught me on a cranky day. Maybe it's 'cause I have laryngitis-- ha, legit-- this is the only "talking" I can do.

Seriously-- in any event.... In general, I try to state my position respectfully. I will agree that my mocking tone towards the original posts of 2liberal were not at all appropriate, or respectful...and again will apologize. He did mention his actions were not something he was proud of. It was wrong to knock him further. Sincere apologies to him.

abortion is sometimes determined to be better than the other options

Like having to admit to a "good friend" that you knocked up his wife??

2disgusting.

Marla, again you are confusing one person's circumstances with the facts at hand. You didn't even take his other examples into account (he gave 2) , you just jumped on this one because it gave you fuel for your cause.

I am assuming you are a Christian. I could be very wrong, and I apologize if that is the truth. But if so , you should know it is not your place to judge others.

2liberal actually has made a very good and well-written point....and last I checked, this debate was about a political issue, not someone's morals.

Oh but that's where it always goes, right amdediamogul? Right to people's morals.

If a girl wants an abortion, she must be an irresponsible slut who should have kept her legs closed. And anyone who supports the choice must have no morals and be totally for the slaughter of toddlers.

They never want to take into account real and difficult decisions. They act like people get abortions between their pedicure and afternoon shopping.

Mandy-- I have nine children. At some point in the obstetrician's office while waiting for my doctor, the receptionist fielded a call from a patient. I overheard her call over to the nurse...."Can you take this call? The woman on the line just had her 12th abortion and is bleeding heavily. She says she needs a nurse."

True Story. It happens. Can't tell whether she had a pedicure or not, but it seems to this citizen that the "mother" was an "irresponsible slut who should have kept her legs closed" at least 12 times.

You do realize Marla how extremely rare that situation is. Very few women have more than one abortion, let alone twelve.

If she has had twelve abortions, may guess is she has no children and therefore would not be called a "mother."

How would you know, Misscreant how rare it is? You have no idea. Nor do I. And I would respectfully correct that she became a mother 12 times.

You know what else is rare? Having 9 children. I mean good for you and all, but you can't judge all women who have had abortions based on this one phone call.

And we know because there is statistical data on how many abortions women have had.

Studies have shown how rare it is. Scientists and various groups keep track of this sort of thing.

That is your opinion, about her becoming a mother. Otherwis, why do we say a woman is a mother-to-be when she is pregnant? Unless a a fetus/baby is born into the world alive, the woman who carried her does not become a mother.

PP has never claimed to only provide mammograms. They offer an array of women's health services. Abortion falls into that category. I don't care if you don't like it so don't bother arguing; that's just the way that it is.

Also, if you do further research, you'll realize that not every location provides abortions as is commonly believed. As a young adult, I have taken a few of my friends to a PP clinic and no, it wasn't for an abortion. However, they did provide confidential medical service for a nominal fee that they couldn't have received elsewhere. For that I am thankful.

You need to realize you've been brainwashed just as those on the far left of this issue have been. I have not seen a single fact or source in your post to support anything you've said.

While I am not saying PP is squeaky clean, Komen has some questionable practices as well.

Speaking of liars Marla... what you just said is definitely an outright lie. I have never heard PP claim that they only provide mammograms. They have always supplied a great list of things they provide. And yes, the services to low income women are important too.

Aren't you a little old for this kind of behavior? Can't you discuss this like an adult?

It was a use of sarcasm, guys-- I'm simply referring to the liberal outrage about the scores of "underprivileged women who would go without a mammogram" at the sainted Planned Parenthood because of Komen's cutting their financial support.

I get the bulk of my "news" for lack of a better word from this site, mediamogul-- so if I'm being brainwashed, it's from this site. I love how condescending liberals are....have a different viewpoint? You're brainwashed by "Faux News." (a standard insult from the liberals here....)

I did, however, get a certain amount of info on PP years ago from Carol Everett, who owned several abortion clinics, but had a "spiritual conversion..." In short, became a "born again Christian." (a term I detest) As part of her repentance, she felt it important to expose the abortion industry for the money-grubbing butchers they are, and exposed PP along the way. The Scarlet Lady: Confessions of a Successful Abortionist, is her tale....and Blood Money.

Might PP do some good work for some underprivileged women? Sure. So what?

Might PP do some good work for some underprivileged women? Sure. So what?

I guess it doesn't matter to someone who has never needed the services they provide at low cost. Lucky you. Some of us, are not so lucky, and sometimes our only option for a doctor is the health center at the school we go to, and when that school is in the Bible Belt, they don't provide physicals. So sometimes just to get a stupid Pap, we rely on PP. So lucky you have had a privileged life and can say "So what" to the rest of us who it means something to.

My third child was born in a clinic, Mandy.... Guess it's not just "me" who doesn't know what I'm talking about....huh? My "so what" refers to giving them a pass to kill babies just because they might do some good stuff other places.

In any event-- I'm outta here. Thanks for the debate-- need to pick up some kids.

I love how you assume I'm a liberal because of my stance on one issue. Please stop making all religious folks and consesrvatives look like biggots .

I myself would never get an abortion. I support everyone else's right to and it is nobody's right to dictate what other folks do with their bodies or their babies. I have seen some pretty nasty situations that made it a necessity that I'd rather not go into on here. I'm happy for you that you never have been exposed to that type of struggle.

There are folks who'd say you're actually being selfish by bringing 9 kids into this world. While being a mother is a noble task....there's logic on both sides.

Also, I'd like to point out: just because you get pregnant, it does not make you a mother.

mediamogul-- some people might say "I'm being selfish by bringing 9 kids." They'd be the ones, no doubt, who support China's forced abortion policy....population control and all that jazz.

I'll simply say to that, I have one authority-- and I'm told in scripture that children are a blessing from Him. We decided long ago that we'd take what he'd give us. (and this is after I told my husband after child #2 I was done having kids, and was getting my tubes tied...and that he had no say in the matter because 'it's my body.' Yes, I'm a reformed feminist)

Abortion is legal. I don't protest in front of clinics. I don't chain myself to cars. I don't honestly even "pray" for the women who do it. I vote pro-life when I have the choice. I teach my children what I believe. And I engage in usually civil "debate" via these forums.

All in all-- I'm satisfied.

It's just you.

meh-- it's not just you, Dawg...

Seems pretty obvious PP is in the business of convincing people morals don't matter and anything they "choose" should be OK with the rest of the world.

For those folks who continue to spout off about the right to choose, the choice was made when people had unprotected sex and a baby was conceived. What follows then is called Responsibility for the child conceived as a result of your Choice.

It's a shame when those who wish to protect the unborn are vilified.

anniegh, Planned Parenthood would be correct if they were in fact expounding that your morals don't matter to anyone but you.

The reason people who wish to protect the unborn are villified is that they espouse removing Constitutionally protected Individual Liberty of citizens and giving government power it does not have.

If she cannot get father of the child

Hold everything-- but I thought it wasn't a child.....it's a fetus. Right?

Beyond that-- I have no idea what you're trying to say. Your post makes no sense.

Marla:

I am saying do not dump on the society. Manup or womanup.

Those who beleive in a cause should not dump cost on society but stand up and take care of cost. This applied for both liberals and conservatives.

Obama has moral obligation to raise money for the Organization.

What you do not understand?

Marla, if you are anti abortion then first make sure you and your supporters have guts and galls to create enough resources to take care of those kids happily and healthily. You should visit orphanages where mentally retarded born-ed and physically handicapped borne are warehoused like animals and treated as such

So, Obama has a "moral obligation" to drum up dough for an organization that makes the bulk of their money killing babies....does he have equal responsibility to drum up equal dough for the orphanages you mentioned?

Wouldn't you think that would be a better and kinder expenditure? Aren't you liberals all about "taking care of those we have." So why don't I hear rallying cries about that-- gee, this is the first I've heard about this plight....the animal treatment of retarded and physically handicapped in orphanages. So, why don't you start bitching about Obama not raising dough for the poor mentally retarded waifs in these abusive orphanages and maybe expect, like some people like me, expect a modicum of personal responsibility on the part of women to NOT get pregnant if they don't want their BABY.

Only three percent of what PP does are abortions. This would lead one to conclude the bulk of their money does not come from doing them. Government audits bear this out.

You expect "personal responsibility" from women who get pregnant, but what about teenage girls?

Marla:

Control your hormones.

All I am saying is those who have cause and they believe as you do and Obama does, then Womanup and manup and just don't exploit others to satisfy your perverted sense of morality.

If you do not have capacity to improve the life of those you want to be bourned and dump them in gutter and ride a high horse of being pro life, you should be ashamed of your self.

Even as you speak in the name of Lord your real commiment is to Devil.

Do you understand, Slow down and think. Just think. Love your husband and lover your kids and make babies only when you can love them and take care of them.

I can only speak for those I know, but I knew a few women who, when in high school, got pregnant too young. The ones that had abortions never regretted their decision, and came to appreciate their lives and children they had later a great deal. Did they sometimes wonder about what might have been? Sure, but it didn't make them suicidal or give them mental illness, as some believe. The ones I know who had their children, while expressing great love for said children, often expressed regret over having them so young, and the missed opportunities in their lives, and how hard it was on their children to have them so young.

Day:

because guys like you we have problem. You through your Government do not want to take care of the poor. Catholic church needs more unwanted babies so they can do their dirty things behind the gates of the church. You clean up your act, get rid of poverty and take care of children so they do not grow up where even cockroaches should not and things will be fine. Help out and open your heart and home to those women who are in unfortunate situation. When society will take care of all such women, men and children we will not have to worry about this issue.

But you love your money so much that you will not part for what you believe in, spare us your goodness.

Day, read a friggin grade-school science book. Zygote->Embryo->Fetus->Birth->Child. There is no life other than the pregnant womans involved in an abortion.

I mean, wouldn't a woman wonder the rest of her life who that child would have been? What would they be like? Wouldn't the mother love that child? If a human being's life was not convenient, what was it that was deemed more convenient or more important, so much so that an abortion was necessary?

I can answer these for you.

No, I don't wonder who that child would have been or what they would be like. No I don't love it because there was never a chance for anything to love.

Nothing was deemed "More convenient" And it was not deemed "inconvenient" That is over simplifying the issue.

What deemed abortion necessary was reality. Being a year into college, not having a stable job or income, not having a support system, wanting bigger things out of life than being a mom, never wanting kids in the first place, not even having a house in which to raise it. they don't even let you bring fish into a dorm room, do you really think an infant is an option?

Sam298381: you stuff it, baby, cause no matter how you cut it, an abortion kills a baby and is legalized murder. Just because the Supreme Cpourt says something is legal does not make it right! And all of you great thinkers can get the rightmto kill out of the First amendment then you are more full of bull@!$%# than the Court!! Be glad your momdid not believe in abortion!