Planned Parenthood and Abortion

[Paraprakrti]

Paraprakrti, although I certainly don't agree with you...I can at least see consistency in your viewpoint except for the rape scenario.

The only reason I became lenient for that circumstance was because my preceding point had to do with the responsibility the woman should take after deciding to have sex. I even mentioned that I personally believe the woman should keep the child even as a result of rape. This is something many people will disagree with me on, but I follow that we fall into these circumstances ultimately by our own doing. And I don't mean, "she was wearing sexy clothing, etc, etc..." I follow, first of all, that the self is transcendental; that it is not produced by the body. Furthermore, that we fall into these various positions of material life due to our previous activities. I don't want to go to far into that because I know it will be off subject, but I think you see where my reasoning is coming from.

In my eyes, if one is against abortion because they view it as taking a life then there can be no exceptions such as in the case of rape.

Although I hold that all life has equal value (not just human), I also understand that it is impossible to completely abstain from taking part in killing so many living entities all the time. Nevertheless, that does not justify killing unnecessarily. Abortion is blatant killing.

On the other hand, I think your views clearly demonstrate the problem with the abortion issue. It is not a black and white, clearly defined issue without any easy answers and therein lies the problem with legislation of such an issue.

Actually, the answer is very logical and simple. The problem is that people in general are very indulged and undisciplined. And it seems not to matter how much suffering is going on around, people tend to keep making bad choices. So I think the issue is clearly defined. Unfortunately, the solution isn't. Or at least, the solution isn't something that will be accepted by most people. That is why we are having this debate. That is why we have birth control methods and various forms of contraception. It is all just ways to try and fix the problem without actually cutting it at the root. What makes it even harder is that there are people who go out of their way to try and reason abortion as an acceptable option. I think if people formed together to say that abortion is not a good option, then we would make more progress than we are now. What will convince a people whose main endeavor is to rationalize unrestricted sense gratification? It seems almost oblivious.

Your posts indicate that you oppose abortion in most instances except for rape and perhaps (my assumption...I don't recall if you mentioned this exception) in case of the life of the mother. Others would say that abortion should never be allowed regardless of the circumstances.

No, I oppose abortion in all instances. It is just my tactics to sympathize for the hypothetical rape victim. At least enough to slowly allow myself to incorporate my point in that case. Not to imply that I do not honestly sympathize for a rape victim, but I don't limit my sympathy to just the life of the woman, if you know what I mean.

On the other side of the spectrum, there are those who believe that using birth control pills, etc; are okay but clinical abortions are wrong. Then there are those who beleive that birth control and early abortion is ok but never late-term abortion. Then there are still others who think that abortion should be legal under every and all circumstances....and on and on....opinions all differ.

Every single one of these opinions you have given are jumping over the simple and obvious fact that if people took responsibility for their actions then there would be no abortion issue, aside from perhaps the instance of rape. And this is why I originally seemed to be more lenient to that circumstance. Nevertheless, I have already explained my position on it above.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Sorry for the double post but I can't seem to figure out how to get 2 quotes onto one post

When you click "quote", notice the first and last bits of text (for example: "QUOTE=Paraprakrti" surrounded in brackets [ ] instead of quotation marks) of the person you're quoting's post. Copy and paste those around each individual point you would like to address. "QUOTE=Paraprakrti"This would work by replacing the quotation marks with brackets."/QUOTE"

I agree that sex is the vehicle that, as a species, we use to reproduce offspring but I don't agree that procreation is the only important function of sexual activity. If that were so, we would be no different than animals. Sex provides a deep, personal connection and intimacy between 2 people which enhances their relationship with each other and which is not necessarily related to the need to reproduce. I believe the spiritual and emotional benefits a couple experience in love-making is equally important as procreation.

I also don't agree that procreation is the only important function. These other factors you mention are only as important as procreation when procreation is involved. That is my point. Without the intent of procreating the intimacy and emotional connection holds no value. When procreation is the intent everything else has immense value. But not only procreation, also the intent on raising the child nicely.

 

[johnnys4life]

Breaking news: my research has lead me to be strongly convinced that Planned Parenthood, not only was, but IS a front organization for a eugenics movement. My husband and I found this quote from a eugenics leader and co-founder of Planned Parenthood: (You aren't going to believe this)

"I think we have failed to take into account a trait which is almost
universal and is very deep in human nature. People simply are not willing
to accept the idea that the genetic base on which their character was formed
is inferior and should not be repeated in the next generation. We have
asked whole groups of people to accept this idea and we have asked
individuals to accept it. They have constantly refused and we have all but
killed the eugenic movement ... they won't accept the idea that they are in
general second rate. We must rely on other motivation. ... it is surely
possible to build a system of voluntary unconscious selection. But the
reasons advanced must be generally acceptable reasons. Let's stop telling
anyone that they have a generally inferior genetic quality, for they will
never agree. Let's base our proposals on the desirability of having
children born in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible
care, and perhaps our proposals will be accepted." (from "Galton and Mid
Century Eugenics" by Frederick Osborn, Galton Lecture 1956, in Eugenics
Review, vol. 48, 1, 1956)
And this is a quote from the current president of PP, after stating that Margaret Sanger was her "muse" for her current book. She was asked, "What do you mean by Sanger as "muse"?
She replied:
In her 1928 book, Motherhood in Bondage, Margaret Sanger ... elevated the concept of birth control to the higher values of wanted children, healthy mothers, loving couples who can enjoy sexual pleasure without fear, self-realization as "the birthright of every child,"

Sound familiar?

Try looking up Margaret Sanger to find out what she ACTUALLY thought about the poor and her ideas for the purpose of birth controlled eugenics. Do you think Gloria Feldt knows this? I definately do. And I can prove it, and I will when I get a little more time and a little more research done.

Keep in mind what eugenicists actually stand for. Margaret Sanger and other eugenicists thought the world was too overpopulated and wanted to rid the world of "human weeds". She wanted to make black people, the poor, and other "undesirables" exctinct. She was a great admirer of the nazi movement, and she started Planned Parenthood. And if you think they aren't picking up where they she left off, think again. Look up the statistics on how many minority groups are having abortions, then look up the neighborhoods where Planned Parenthood is located.

Is it a coincidence?

 

[Pah]

Breaking news: my research has lead me to be strongly convinced that Planned Parenthood, not only was, but IS a front organization for a eugenics movement. My husband and I found this quote from a eugenics leader and co-founder of Planned Parenthood: (You aren't going to believe this)

Are you doing any research on the formal debate ?

You have yet to answer my PM from the 19th of this month. Are you backing out?

-pah-

 

[civilcynic]

Are you doing any research on the formal debate ?

You have yet to answer my PM from the 19th of this month. Are you backing out?

-pah-

LOL, Pah......seems you quieted down everyone with your challenge!

 

[Melody]

LOL, Pah......seems you quieted down everyone with your challenge!

What challenge?

 

[Pah]

What challenge?

I suggested a formal debate between johnnys4life and myself in an abortion subject of her chosing in a response to her statement (paraphrasing here) "I'll debate this any time" She accepted and we were in the midst of finalizing the protocol. It only lacked her approval and we would have begun.


-pah-

 

[johnnys4life]

No, Pah, I am not backing out of your challenge. I cannot make it top priority in my life right now as my husband, daughter and elderly grandmother fill those spots. I am trying my best to prepare and am ready. Bring it on.

 

[johnnys4life]

By the way, a search on altavista for "Planned Parenthood eugenics" produced 16,000 results. I also found an online version of Margaret Sanger's (the founder and still godess of Planned Parenthood) book "The Pivot of Civilization." You can find it at: http://www.pro-life.net/sanger/pivot_in.htm. Anyone who reads this book can easily refute Planned Parenthood's claims that Margaret Sanger was not a racist, sexist, or eugenicist. She was in fact, all three, but they don't want you to know that. That's why even though they hold the copyright to this book, they are very reluctant to actually publish it themselves.

 

[Bastet]

By the way, a search on altavista for "Planned Parenthood eugenics" produced 16,000 results.

And a search on altavista for "raving lunatic Christian" produced 33,700 results. Your point being....?

 

[johnnys4life]

My point is I have a lot of research to do on this issue yet. I don't appreciate your religious bigotry.

 

[civilcynic]

My point is I have a lot of research to do on this issue yet. I don't appreciate your religious bigotry.

lol...considering some of the statements in your previous posts, this is really humorous.

 

[Bastet]

My point is I have a lot of research to do on this issue yet. I don't appreciate your religious bigotry.

Take it however you want. My point was that you can put any three words you like into a search engine, but the quantity of results you get has no bearing on the quality, or even the subject matter within the websites produced. A search for "my red undies" resulted in over 312,000 hits. Happy searching.

 

[civilcynic]

Take it however you want. My point was that you can put any three words you like into a search engine, but the quantity of results you get has no bearing on the quality, or even the subject matter within the websites produced. A search for "my red undies" resulted in over 312,000 hits. Happy searching.

Hey, this sounds like a great (off-topic) thread/contest...who can find the the three word combo that creates the most hits!

Sorry, I know its off the topic but just couldn't resist.

 

[Pah]

... I also found an online version of Margaret Sanger's (the founder and still godess of Planned Parenthood) book "The Pivot of Civilization." You can find it at: http://www.pro-life.net/sanger/pivot_in.htm. Anyone who reads this book can easily refute Planned Parenthood's claims that Margaret Sanger was not a racist, sexist, or eugenicist. She was in fact, all three, but they don't want you to know that. That's why even though they hold the copyright to this book, they are very reluctant to actually publish it themselves.

Seems to me like copyright infringment. I hope pro-life.net doesn't mind paying for its "civil disobedience" if the copyright holder decides to sue.

-pah-

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I'm kinda liking civilcynics' idea! A Google search for "Holy Hobbit Hottentots!" produces... three hits. Curses, I think I'm going to be coming in last in this game.

Johnnys4life, I know it's hard to deal with such a heated subject (or at least it is for me). You seem like a good soul, which is why I worry about you getting overly concerned about this thread. The reason why is that people don't usually accuse another person of something without being subconsiously aware that they, themselves, are guilty on some level of the same action. (For example, a liar might accuse others of untruths, because they know that they, themselves, in the same situation, would lie, and it is the only concievable action they can think of.) Whenever I'm about to call someone a bigot, I try to make sure that my own actions aren't precedating it.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Alright, let's try to get the ball rolling here again. I have what think to be an uncrackable case AGAINST abortion. Come on people, prove me wrong.

There are four things that differentiate an embryo from a four year old child. They are as follows: Level of dependency, size, environment, and degree of development. Interestingly enough, these are the same four things which differentiate a four year old from a 14 year old, and a 14 year old from a 24 year old. The day we allow four year olds and 14 year olds to be killed, is the day that abortion will become slightly more acceptable in mmy mind.

 

[Sunstone]

Alright, let's try to get the ball rolling here again. I have what think to be an uncrackable case AGAINST abortion. Come on people, prove me wrong.

There are four things that differentiate an embryo from a four year old child. They are as follows: Level of dependency, size, environment, and degree of development. Interestingly enough, these are the same four things which differentiate a four year old from a 14 year old, and a 14 year old from a 24 year old. The day we allow four year olds and 14 year olds to be killed, is the day that abortion will become slightly more acceptable in mmy mind.

If taken by itself, that line of reasoning would prohibit abortions in the circumstances of rape, incest, or when the mother's life were imperiled. Do you see any problem with that?

 

[civilcynic]

Alright, let's try to get the ball rolling here again. I have what think to be an uncrackable case AGAINST abortion. Come on people, prove me wrong.

There are four things that differentiate an embryo from a four year old child. They are as follows: Level of dependency, size, environment, and degree of development. Interestingly enough, these are the same four things which differentiate a four year old from a 14 year old, and a 14 year old from a 24 year old. The day we allow four year olds and 14 year olds to be killed, is the day that abortion will become slightly more acceptable in mmy mind.

Regarding this definition:
1. If the life of a 4 yr. old is equally as important as a 14 yr. old, a 24 yr. old then when does a woman's life become less important...at what age?

2. "The day we allow 4 yr. olds and 14 yr. olds to be killed.......Have you watched televison lately...how many children has the US killed in Iraq in the name of 'liberation'? What about the troops....some as young as 18 yrs. old?
What makes it so acceptible for them to die?

3. Your definition lacks specifics in re: dependency. A 4 yr. old's body is independent of its mother and can survive on its own. A fertilized egg, embryo, fetus is dependent and, in fact, attached to the mother's body. IMO, this is a big difference.

If the anti-choice movement was really concerned with children and value life as much as they purport:
1. Why aren't they spending any of their time and energy promoting expanding pre-natal health care including testing for treatable genetic problems which could save the lives of children. It is a known fact that good pre-natal health benefits both women and the unborn. Did you know that there are tests available to treat certain genetic diseases that if given over the course of a pregnancy or immediately after the child is born can save lives but most are not required by the state to do and thus never done?

2. How many individuals in the anti-choice movement are willing to adopt a child with disabilities or problems....No, wait...what percentage of the anti-choice movement actually adopts children? It would be interesting if that percentage could be found and then compared to pro-choice individuals? Personally I doubt there would be much of a statistical difference.

The simple fact is that I have found the anti-choice movement very hypocritical...There is no attempt on their part to improve the lives of those already brought into this world. They are very interested in the prospect of the human life that might be but hold no interest,value or respect for existing human life.

Ceridwen, please note that when I speak about the anti-choice movement....I speak in generalities and do not mean it as a personal attack of your views...Although I obviously disagree, I respect your feelings/belief re: abortion and I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

 

[Ceridwen018]

If taken by itself, that line of reasoning would prohibit abortions in the circumstances of rape, incest, or when the mother's life were imperiled. Do you see any problem with that?

I see a problem with rape and incest, but not with the child conceived because of it. If a woman who is victim of rape or incest decides to carry her child to term and then keep it, is she allowed to terminate her child's life sometime after it is born because she changed her mind? My point here, is that the embryo is just as human as the fully formed baby, who is just as human as the fully formed adult.

As far as the mother's life being at risk, I consider that to be in a different category. The reason why I am against abortion, is because I believe it takes human life. In this case, human life will be taken in either course of action (either the mother or the baby). I would say that in this situation, the decision should be up to the mother and the father, with guidance from their doctor, etc.

1. If the life of a 4 yr. old is equally as important as a 14 yr. old, a 24 yr. old then when does a woman's life become less important...at what age?

A woman's (or man's) life is never 'less important'....I don't think I'm understanding what you're getting at here.

2. "The day we allow 4 yr. olds and 14 yr. olds to be killed.......Have you watched televison lately...how many children has the US killed in Iraq in the name of 'liberation'? What about the troops....some as young as 18 yrs. old?
What makes it so acceptible for them to die?

Absolutely nothing. I don't believe it is acceptable for them to die.

3. Your definition lacks specifics in re: dependency. A 4 yr. old's body is independent of its mother and can survive on its own. A fertilized egg, embryo, fetus is dependent and, in fact, attached to the mother's body. IMO, this is a big difference.

I see what you're saying here, but I still disagree. A 4 yr. old may be independent of it's mother's body, but it is not independent of a mother's care. A four year old cannot survive in this world without the care of a guardian. In my opinion, the only difference between the dependency of a 4 yr. old and the dependency of an embryo, is that an embryo requires direct support, whereas a 4 yr. old requires indirect, ie., a 4 yr. old's stomach can function on it's own, dependent only upon it's own body, yet that 4 yr. old still requires someone to provide food for them.

If the anti-choice movement was really concerned with children and value life as much as they purport:
1. Why aren't they spending any of their time and energy promoting expanding pre-natal health care including testing for treatable genetic problems which could save the lives of children. It is a known fact that good pre-natal health benefits both women and the unborn. Did you know that there are tests available to treat certain genetic diseases that if given over the course of a pregnancy or immediately after the child is born can save lives but most are not required by the state to do and thus never done?

First of all, I'm not sure I like it being called 'anti-choice'. I am not anti-choice, merely pro-life. Then again, I would have to say that if taking away the choice to terminate human life means that I am eligible to be grouped in the rather generalized field of 'anti-choice', then so be it. Think of it this way--do you think it would be applicable for me to call you anti-life?

Second of all, I would like to clarify that I'm not here to speak for the entire pro-life movement. I would argue that they do try to improve pre natal care, as well as offer support for mothers-to-be who cannot support themselves. That, however, is beside the point I think. What the pro-life and pro-choice organizations do to help or hinder society does not decide wether or not abortion is wrong or right.

2. How many individuals in the anti-choice movement are willing to adopt a child with disabilities or problems....No, wait...what percentage of the anti-choice movement actually adopts children? It would be interesting if that percentage could be found and then compared to pro-choice individuals? Personally I doubt there would be much of a statistical difference.

Perhaps not. Personally I've never seen such stats, although you've sparked my interest so I plan to look it up later. Again though, you are straying from the topic, I think. What pro-life and pro-choice people do does not decide whether abortion is wrong or right. If Hilter participated in community service out the yahoo, would the Holocaust be forgiveable? Likewise, just because a bunch of Catholic preists screwed up, does that mean that the entire bible is crap and worthy of complete disregard? Absolutely not. The Holocaust was bad no matter what Hitler did, and the bible presents a good message no matter how many of it's 'followers' are shown to be hypocrites.

Ceridwen, please note that when I speak about the anti-choice movement....I speak in generalities and do not mean it as a personal attack of your views...Although I obviously disagree, I respect your feelings/belief re: abortion and I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

Thank you, civilcynic, I appreciate that. I'd like to express the same to you. I'm glad that you (and Sunstone too!) replied to my post, because knowing the both of you, I am sure we can have a friendly and informative debate that won't turn immature and bloody as these things often do!