A poll for the ladys out there.
Planned Parenthood claims that only 3% of their services are for abortion. The rest is for cancer screening and other unrelated health services.
So how many of you women out there actually use planned parenthood without the intention of getting an abortion?
I've never used Planned Parenthood. I don't know that they have service anywhere I've ever lived.
My boss was a poor, uninsured university student and got her birth control from them.
And you should take into account that various people who got things like STD treatment or rape survivor counselling there are unlikely to want to post about it on a public forum.
I don't expect things are going to go well for Planned Parenthood selling baby parts, not with the newest congress' investigation that was done. Evidence that was omitted before was not in this investigation.
If only they were! Then at least the lifers would have something to complain about.
I'm not at all sure of what you meant, wilderness.
Back in the 80s, I was a high school and college student who used Planned Parenthood for birth control. They taught me how to take care of myself so that I wouldn't get an STD, and so that I wouldn't get pregnant. On my first visit there as a scared and alone high school student, they were very kind, professional and helpful to me. They kept me from becoming a teen pregnancy statistic, and kept me from even having to consider an abortion. They charged me for birth control and gynecological services on a sliding scale. I continued using them for birth control and gynecology check-ups until I graduated from college and was an adult with a job and insurance.
I finally decided to have kids in my 30s, after establishing my career and after being married for a decade.
I owe Planned Parenthood a great deal.
I found this article online: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics … d-in-texas
According to the article, which was written in 2015, there are 39 Planned Parenthood locations in Texas (my state), and only nine of those perform abortions. What are the other 30 locations doing if they don't even offer abortions, and why are women going there? I can only assume women are going for gynecological healthcare and pregnancy prevention. Surely these clinics are not sitting empty all day?
I would be surprised if the situations in other states are much different; I keep hearing how there are very few abortion clinics left in the US. Yet there are numerous Planned Parenthood locations across the country. It stands to reason that the clinics which do not provide abortions (the majority of clinics) are providing pregnancy prevention and healthcare services.
I really depended on PP back in the day, and the economy was much better back then. I can only imagine there are plenty of poor women who depend on PP today.
"Surely these clinics are not sitting empty all day?"
Apparently they are spending hours and hours with any woman that visits, encouraging an abortion. Or even getting pregnant so they can have an abortion. Intensive counselling so they can convince them to buy an abortion so they can sell off "baby parts" and make a kajillion dollars.
I hear that PP is going under in Texas; that laws are being made that will prevent any funding to the clinics and force their closure. Sad, but when far right idiots get into the act that's what happens.
Very simple then.... just stop offering abortions and their funding is intact, if it's only 3% of their business, just drop the 3% and all is restored.
323,999 abortions were performed in 2014, according to the organization.
So that's what 3% looks like. 324 thousand dead babies, lost lives, missing inventors, scientists, doctors, who knows what, and all for the sake of a eugenics program to (mainly) target black women, which may I say is racist.
Only in the spin of the far right. In reality not a single dead baby happened and not a single step towards a fantasized eugenics program.
Not a single dead baby happened... whew! that's a relief, especially when the 324,000 abortions were PP's own figures... so in effect if not a single baby was killed, and in any case the 324,000 not killed babies only represented 3% of their 2014 turnover, stopping doing the non baby killing abortions would not be a problem, leaving them free to continue their women's work.
Until you stop using your personal definition of what a baby is, and recognize that not everyone agrees that a fertilized egg is a baby, you're going to have the same problem. Anything you say is but gross exaggeration and nothing but empty rhetoric that has no connection to reality.
I have no problem with what anyone else wishes to believe about when life begins, my understanding is based upon pure logic, because until an egg is fertilized, it is just an egg, but once fertilized it is a separate life force, which left alone, can develop into a human being.
That statement has no religious connotation or attachment, it's just fact, and people can accept it or not, it's still fact.
I'm afraid the 'if left alone' statement is as problematic as the 'separate life force' part.
Care to elucidate?
If left alone it would die simply because it isn't a separate life force. It's survival is completely dependent upon the life force which harbors it.
Better yet. Let's all accept that men have no right to force their opinion on this issue, through legislation or anything else. A woman is the person in the best position to make the most responsible decisions for her own life and her own body.
Kind of a requiem for the Supreme Court of the United States.
?? I'm not following you on that one. Having men accept that a woman's body is her own would trigger the death of the Supreme Court?
I mean your words are a sort of epitaph for the men that decided Roe v. Wade.
"men have no right to force their opinion on this issue, through legislation or anything else. "
If left alone it would die simply because it isn't a separate life force. It's survival is completely dependent upon the life force which harbors it.
Why not just let it die then?
I still don't really get your meaning since Roe vs Wade does support the right to choice. Many, many fetuses do cease to exist naturally. Up to 20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. I would think the number is higher if you factor unknown in.
The point is not why not terminate all pregnancies. It is allowing women control of their own lives and being allowed options to the consequences of the society they exist in. Our society sells sex. Our children are exposed at incredibly young ages. Unless we are going to legislate when a man can unzip his pants, or criminalize the failure to use a condom I find it ludicrous women should pay the price for being preyed upon.
Anyone who thinks a guy won't say anything to convince a woman to sleep with them is an idiot. Anyone who thinks all men will rush to be a part of an unplanned pregnancy is a fool. And anyone who thinks being an unwed mother isn't a severe handicap to success and a possible sentence to life long poverty has their head in the sand. And anyone who thinks a woman having a child when she doesn't want it is somehow in that child's best interest is a selfish twit.
Make it illegal for a man to impregnate a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant, or keep abortion legal. Women have to have some sort of control over their bodies and lives.
Actually making it illegal for men to impregnate a woman who doesn't want to become pregnant won't solve anything, because the woman will still be single and poor and stuck with a child she can't care for properly.
"which left alone, can develop into a human being."
And therein is the answer. It can "develop into a human being". It is not, then, one at that point. What is the objection to destroying a non-human bit of flesh?
If it were a non human bit of flesh then there would be no reason to kill it.
It also depends on ones opinion of what determines what human means. ie your standard is not my standard.
"If it were a non human bit of flesh then there would be no reason to kill it."
Really? My wife just had approximately a pound of colon, human flesh, removed from her body. I've had a few ounces removed myself.
"It also depends on ones opinion of what determines what human means. ie your standard is not my standard."
Exactly! Your "logical" (it can become human with massive help but is already human) definition is not that of everyone. What makes it appropriate to force everyone to accept it as true, then?
Oh so pedantic..... "which left alone, will develop into a human being."
And that is the point.... unless God or man intervenes the created life will progress to the fullness it was destined to achieve.
Life begins at conception.
So, what is it that you people want to do outside of putting a lockbox on a woman's womb? Do you really think that the rightwing antichoice forces are going to get very far beyond the rural, less sophisticated mindset of certain groups of states. It will never happen.
Simple really, preserve human life, especially innocent human life such as a baby, because although it may come as some surprise to people, a woman's womb was created to bear children.
Which PP certainly does. Lots and lots of help in preserving human life.
And not a single instance of taking a human life, a baby, as human life does not begin until after legal abortions can be done. Unless you will claim and prove that they are performing late term abortions?
Although it may come as a surprise to some people, they do not have the right to create definitions for others.
With a philosophy such as that I'm surprised you aren't advocating forcing all of us to continuously bear children during child bearing years.
Life begins at conception, yes. Or even before - is not an egg or a sperm "alive"?
But that again begs the question, as the root is when human life begins.
I read an article maybe a week ago that was saying that scientists will come forth and settle once and for all when life begins. So! I'm waiting and watching for that breaking news.
They may. By coming to a common definition - all of the current ones have problems with one or more "organisms" that we are finding.
But if they do, it will be by common acceptance of a human definition, nothing more. And it will still fail to address what "human" means in the spiritual sense.
I believe that advanced technologies are going to be unlocked, technologies that we already have and Trump has been briefed on are about to be released to the public.
Its a new millennium!
The difference is that a sperm or egg alone cannot form anything, but ONCE they are conjoined, connected, conceived, then they will produce a living breathing human being UNLESS man or God intervenes to stop the birth.
Life begins, commences, is started, is possible at conception.
3rd person present: begins
perform or undergo the first part of (an action or activity).
"Peter had just begun a life sentence for murder"
synonyms: start, set about, go about, embark on, launch into, get down to, take up, turn one's hand to, undertake, tackle; initiate, set in motion, institute, inaugurate, get ahead with; informal get cracking on, get going on; formalcommence
"he must begin work first thing in the morning"
Well, let's see here.
An zygote, provided with somewhere around 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen etc. arranged in the needed configurations, may develop into a human being.
An ovum, provided with somewhere around 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,001,000 atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen etc. arranged in the needed configurations, may develop into a human being.
Are you really being that picky? That the need for an additional few thousands of chemicals is the difference between living and non-living when we're already talking trillions upon trillions?
But you're still side-stepping that all important addition of "human" in front of life. It is human life that is being discussed, not life in general.
So when do YOU say a conceived babe becomes human? .... and what the heck are they before they become human?
The medical term is "fetus", which I'm sure you know. It is also a "chunk of meat", a "parasite", "tumor", "growth" or "a piece of flesh".
My determination of that point? I really struggle with that question. A fertilized egg is NOT a person (human being). A fetus just prior to delivery IS a person. So somewhere in between "humaness" takes place - that egg has acquired whatever it means to be a person.
It's not a detectable heartbeat, it's not the first breath, it's not even brainwaves. It has to do with intelligence, with individuality, with responsiveness and with personality. It is when the fetus has developed a "soul", but not the religious concept of some supernatural thing a God inserts. The quote "I think therefore I am" is germane but far from definitive to the question.
And as a result of that amorphous, cloudy idea of when it occurs or what it even is I am willing to take legal definitions as to when an abortion is permissible. I like something after 3 months, demand something before 6 months gestation.
I am certainly not willing to try and force 300 million people to accept whatever point I might choose, recognizing that anything I can come up with is arbitrary, that not only is there no definition but that we as a people cannot even decide what properties the answer should entail.
We are finding, for instance, that some animals are so much more capable than we thought, and have far more "feelings" and "spirituality" than we ever thought possible. One day "person" may well include other species - be more of a spiritual answer than the genetic or physical definition we strive for today.
But whether we do or not, we as a group are simply not capable of giving a definitive answer. Because of that it must, within fairly wide limits, be left to the individual. No one person has the answer for everyone.
Great reply, and succinct, and not totally out of line with my position.
Yes it's a distinctively personal decision, relative to the particular circumstances, and nobody has the right to judge anyone else for the decision they take.
Yes I am Pro Life if I need to be categorized, and that is for stated personal reasons and for spiritual reasons, and I make my position clear in order that others may consider theirs and be sure about what they do.
The choices we make do have effects, all actions have cause and effect, and if I were starving, stealing food would seem perfectly correct conceptually, unless my theft then cause the death of another, when it would become a moral choice between my survival or theirs.
OK I am out of here again, too much to do to chase the forums!
1) Prohibiting abortions will only stop legal abortions. It will not stop unsafe illegal abortions.
2) The main causes cited for having an abortion can be categorized as unplanned pregnancy (Google it). By providing services and information related to sex, reproductive health care, and family planning, Planned Parenthood (the clue is in the name) is reducing unplanned pregnancies and therefore reducing the number of abortions.
3) People should not have to live according to your personal religious beliefs about when life begins. If your religious belief leads you to believe life starts at conception, then you can certainly choose to live by that standard. Others should not be forced to.
Well said. Personal beliefs and definitions are exactly that; personal beliefs and definitions. They do not necessarily apply to anyone else.
1. Abortions are legal, nobody is forcing anybody to go to illegal operators, it's just that PP will need to stop doing them to continue to get funding.
2. Unplanned pregnancy is another way of admitting that PP are failing in their quest to providing services and information related to sex, reproductive health care, and family planning, if they stop doing abortions, they will have more funding to apply to find a solution.
3. It's not religious belief that convinces me life begins at conception, it's pure logic.
It's not really that simple, even if you had all of the population using birth control correctly you would still have unwanted pregnancies as birth control is not 100% effective. Truly the only way to guarantee that no unwanted pregnancy happens is to remain abstinent. Can you imagine telling a married couple who doesn't want children that they must remain abstinent if they don't want to be forced to have a child? I don't think that's going to be terribly effective.
1) Stopping PP from providing abortions simply reduces the number of places women can get safe abortions.
2) Conversely, the fact that the number of abortions is not much higher than it is, could be because places like PP are providing effective information, health care, and family planning. Also, unplanned pregnancy is the main reason, but not the only reason women have abortions.
3) Your "logic" is not supported by science. It's your personal belief.
Logic and common sense suggest that abortions are morally acceptable in the first trimester when the fetus is far from fully human and immoral in the third trimester when the fetus has a chance at life.
Do you agree or not?
In terms of ethics, I think there is clearly a difference between an abortion in the first trimester and one in the third trimester. At exactly which point does that difference come into play? I don't know.
I think science can inform the discussion to some degree, but it's ultimately something society has to determine through public discourse.
However, I think it's very clear that making all abortion illegal, or using legislative tactics to restrict necessary health care because of religious belief about when "human life" begins, would not be justified or reasonable.
"In terms of ethics, I think there is clearly a difference between an abortion in the first trimester and one in the third trimester. At exactly which point does that difference come into play? I don't know. "
Could have written this myself (or the rest of your post). But I am unable to provide a coherent "why" for it - can you explain yourself any better than I can? I'd love to see someone put into words what I feel.
Have any Right to Lifers considered how many women will die if abortion is again made illegal? Women in desperate situations (medical, social, or economic mostly due to no father around once the pregnancy is discovered) will find a way to get an abortion. Babies will still die, but then women will also. What about their lives?
Actually, I'd have to say that that is irrelevant. People choose to participate in all kinds of risky, life threatening behavior - allowing abortions because a woman might make the choice to go the back alley route is not a good reason. And I'm a "choice" guy.
That makes it seem like a free choice, smoking or not, speeding or not. Illegal abortions represent someone in a situation with little or no free choice. They are not getting them recreationally. Opting out of parenthood as a free choice only for the male of the species, it seems.
Girls may be faced deciding with "do I keep my stepfathers baby", "do I keep my rapist's baby", "do I keep my baby and lose my husband", or "do I keep my baby and end up homeless on the street after my parents throw me out" or other fun filled free choice options.
If you are a utilitarian (as most people are) you take into account the net outcome of a decision being made for the community, not just the outcomes for people deemed morally worthy, important... or "good choice makers"--which amounts to the same thing.
The same goes for "abstinence only" sex ed with demonstrably increases pregnancy in children. But only "bad choice making" children, whether they really made a choice at all, who are apparently not worthy of consideration.
Using identical reasoning it becomes fine to "abort" an infant or even a teenager. It is a choice - do I lose my husband or my 1 year old child? To preserve my sanity I must get rid of this nasty teen.
Which is why I reject that reasoning. Abortion is ONLY available for early fetal stages, or to save a mothers life. And the choice need be no more than "I don't want it" in those cases.
aquasilver: You left out "in my opinion" because no one can prove that idea definitively. How many children would there be in the world if every sperm and egg were "left alone"? If people didn't use pills,or diaphrams, or condoms, or all the other means of interference we've invented instead of letting things be left alone to develop? I'm always suspicious of the person who is so certain they are right on this subject. It's easy to be absolute on a subject that is probably going to cost you nothing because you will never be in the situation where a decision/choice has to be made.
In fact I am sure only because I have been involved in such a situation, twice a woman has decided to abort my child, and I myself was recommended to be aborted, thankfully my mother declined, so I do have a credible opinion, and a right to express it.
I take it as read that people will understand that everything I say is only in my opinion, and equally they they will accept that the same is true for their assertions.
U.S. House Passes “No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act” in Bipartisan Vote.
Earlier this week, in a 238-183 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 7 – the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act.
* https://aclj.org/pro-life/us-house-pass … 52212935=1
Apparently, you do - from a man's point of view. Whatever happened to those two women you got pregnant?
Interference is interference at whatever point it happens.
I've used every form of birth control on the market except IUD and abortion. All I'm saying is that the form I chose is not somehow more acceptable than the form someone else chooses. It all interferes with the natural process of procreation - just at different points.
When I aged out of foster care and shortly before that while in independent living, PP was where I went to get my yearly check up, my birth control, and my yearly STD check.
When I got pregnant with my oldest they are where I went to get my confirmation pregnancy test. They are also who pointed me in the right direction to local parenting classes.
They certainly served their purpose for me.
I used planned parenthood for years while in college and grad school. Yearly check-ups, birth control, std testing.... It was at planned parenthood where I found out I had cervical cancer. They truly were a life saver for me.
The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network estimates that 250,000 women of childbearing age are raped in the United States every year. That's quite a large number. Rape can happen to any woman at any time. Women deserve a full range of options, whether they've been raped or not.
Yes! +1 It is estimated that somewhere around 30,000 women are impregnated each year because of rape. They should have options!
And of course some of these raped, impregnated women are just young girls who are not yet legal adults. Girls as young as nine or ten can become pregnant. They deserve choices as well. All women and girls deserve options, whether they have been raped or not. Women carry the burden of pregnancy and childbirth, as well as the burden of the baby itself. Every woman should be able to decide what is right for her without interference of others. I think if men were the ones that got pregnant, abortion would be legal, no question.
1) A human, "ovum," is a single cell; however, an ovum possesses characteristics which make it a unique type of cell produced by the human body. These distinguishing characteristics include the following:
- Ova cells occur only within females.
- A human female is born with ALL of the ova cells which she will ever have. After an infant female is born, her body will never produce new ova cells (a human female is born, on average, with about 500 ova cells within her ovaries).
- ALL types of human cells contain the Entire Genome of the human to which the cells belong, EXCEPT for ova cells. In other words, every cell, generated by one human's body, contains a copy of ALL of that one person's DNA- with one exception to this rule. An ovum contains only 1/2 of a woman's DNA (which of her genes are excluded is entirely up to chance; different ova cells carry different combinations of 1/2 of a woman's genes).
- An ovum is the only human cell which is visible to the naked eye (but only just barely).
- An ovum's maximum potential lifespan= the lifespan of the woman to whom the ovum belongs; however most ova cell lifespans are around 60 years (an ovum's minimum lifespan= about 8 years; usually an ovum remains viable for upwards of 12 years).
2) Similarly, a "sperm" is a single cell with unique characteristics:
- Sperm cells are ONLY produced by males.
- Sperm cells are produced by the billions by a male human body, which can continue to produce billions sperm cells for the (large) portion of the male's lifetime during which he is reproductively capable.
- One sperm cell contains only 1/2 of a male's DNA. Each sperm cell has a random representation of 50% of one male's genome.
- The maximum potential lifespan of a sperm cell= about 3 days. A single sperm cell's minimum lifespan is a tiny fraction of a second (a sperm cell typically lasts about a few minutes, depending on environmental conditions; unlike an ovum, a sperm cell expires when exposed to gaseous oxygen).
3) A "zygote" is an ovum which has been infiltrated by a viable sperm specimen. As each component of a zygote (the sperm cell and the ovum) only contains 50% of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of a human genome, a zygote thus has exactly 100% of the DNA- in terms of quantity of genes- for a human genome.
- HOWEVER, the combination of genes contributed by the ovum and the sperm cell may NOT RESULT in the creation of a viable human genome. In these cases, the zygote is inert, and is expelled during a woman's menstrual cycle.
4) The term, "conception," as it relates to the formation of a zygote, is generally used to refer to the moment at which a viable ovum-which has already moved into a woman's uterus- is infiltrated by a sperm specimen.
- In other words, the moment of "conception" is exactly the same moment in which a zygote is formed. THEREFORE, a zygote exists ONLY after it has been, "conceived."
5) The MAJORITY of zygotes (the sperm+ovum combo), even those possessing a viable human genome, NEVER even begin cellular replication & multiplication. In order to begin cellular replication, a zygote must FIRST attach itself to the woman's uterine wall.
- Most zygotes fail to do so and are subsequently expelled from the woman's body during her menstrual cycle.
- It follows then, that if one considers the beginning of a human life to occur at the moment of conception, and, that a zygote is synonymous with a human child, then one wishing to "save" such "children," may find them by rooting through the used, discarded, feminine hygiene products which are used by women during their menstrual periods, and then examining each item thoroughly with a microscope- if one is in fact capable of identifying a single cell human zygote. This task would most likely be, obviously, an unpleasant exercise in futility- but if one is TRULY committed to the belief that a zygote is a human life which must be preserved, is one not, then, bound by such belief, to begin rummaging through used menstrual pads, forthwith?
Or, perhaps, one might instead reconsider one's meaning of the terms, "conception," "human," and "life."
A woman, on the other hand, IS a living human being.
Is the skull which is within a living woman's body, not her own?
Is the stomach, which exists within a living woman's body, not her own personal possession?
Are the eyes, with which a woman sees, the belongings of another person, and not hers?
Does a liver, within a woman's body, and without which she could not survive, belong to someone other than herself, who could thus remove the liver from the woman's body- killing her- based on a claim of property rights over the liver?
Does a man own, as his personal property- property which he may thus destroy if he so desires, or treat in whatever manner he may choose- any uterus within a woman's body?
If he does, than so too is he responsible- as owner- for the sanitary disposal of menstrual blood and uterine tissue, which, "his uterus," expells, for several days, in cycles of approximately (yet still varying from) 28 days...
Is an ovum, which a woman has possessed her entire life, suddenly become the physical property of a man, should it become a zygote?
The zygote is 50% composed of the woman's ovum, and 50% composed of the man's sperm cell- but the zygote is LOCATED within the physical body of the woman. What right has a man to claim the zygote as HIS property, and not belonging to the woman?
Furthermore, what claim has ANY man, over the INSIDES of the BODIES of all women, even the countless women, of whose existence he is not even aware?
A woman is a whole person; a man cannot claim ownership of PARTS of a woman's body, but only the woman's body as a whole- which is an atrocity known as human enslavement, and, officially:
- a Crime Against Humanity, and,
- the crime of human trafficking, and,
- Criminal Oppression of Girls & Women.
These are charges handled by the likes of the ICC, in Geneva, Switzerland.
Finally: if a man claims all rights over all zygotes (whether or not he had any involvement of their creation), AND claims that zygotes are human children; that man has thus deemed zygotes, and therefore, human beings like himself, as pieces of property- and has thereby relinquished his own rights, and, though likely inadvertently, renounced his own humanity.
This claim is fundamentally at odds with reality however, because
Women Are Humans, Too;
and as such,
Women Are Not Things.
"In order to begin cellular replication, a zygote must FIRST attach itself to the woman's uterine wall.
- Most zygotes fail to do so and are subsequently expelled from the woman's body during her menstrual cycle. "
On that definition, any zygote that DOES attach itself to the woman's uterine wall, will proceed to produce a human being unless it is terminated by God (miscarriage) or the abortionist.
Nobody is arguing about searching for zygotes in your characteristically gruesome explanation, people just argue that ONCE the zygote begins cellular replication, it should be able to fulfill it's destiny.
And all humans do have eternal destinies.
People can believe whatever they may, but God tells us that when we get married, the wife 'owns' the husbands body, and the husband 'owns' the wife's, because in marriage two people become one body.
God is immune from man made regulations.
For unmarried people it is different, although all sexual couplings enter the couple into 'soul ties', and do (at least temporarily) become 'one body' - they are not married, so their coupling is simply fornication, and I guess if you are already guilty of that sin, aborting the outcome is just building the sin pile higher.
The more 'partners' you have, the larger the number of soul ties you accumulate, which accounts for why some more promiscuous folk get sexual confusion, it's like compound interest on a loan you never pay off.
Fortunately, speaking from personal and ministry experience, we have a way to escape these things.
You see there are spiritual aspects to be considered, not just physical ones, we can ignore the spiritual effects of our actions, but we will still account for them, whether we believe in God or not.
Does a Human require access to free gaseous oxygen, in order to survive?
Must a Human being breathe air?
If a Human is deprived of gaseous oxygen for a number of minutes- such as if a Human became stuck underwater, for 20 minutes, without a scuba tank & mask- will the Human die?
Is it not a matter of life and death, when a Human ceases to intake and output air through the lungs, using the diaphragm muscle? If emergency medical care is not provided quickly enough, so that the Human's lungs do not restart their natural inhalation-exhalation contractions, will the Human remain a living person?
A child is a living, breathing human being.
A fetus does not even breathe. Ever.
The answer to all your questions is "No". Not all humans need gaseous air to breathe - those in the womb are the notable exceptions.
I used planned parenthood for health screenings during college. It was the only medical facility in the area. That is still true today You can see the effect of defunding Planned Parenthood in Scott County Indiana. We have a growing aids epidemic because there is no reproductive/STD help low income people. Planned Parenthood already does not use Federal or State money to pay for abortions.
Planned Parenthood also provides birth control for men and dwomen. If you want to do away with abortion you need to teach about and provide birth control, just say no doesn't work either for youngsters or families.
Amen Smart and Fun. Amen.
So a question about the viability of an unborn child; If I were to hit a noticeably pregnant woman in the stomach with a baseball bat, (obviously I should go to jail), but what should I be charged with?
In other words, should the attempted murder of an unborn child come with the same penalties as the attempted murder of somebody who is already born?
Don't know about the attempted part, but if the fetus dies you can be charged with murder in some states. Without regard (as far as I know) to the age of the fetus.
by myvoternation 11 years ago
Let's debate this issue!
by Josh Ratzburg 7 years ago
Should we stop funding Planned parenthood?The House has passed a bill to cease funding for Planned Parenthood. I personally think this is a huge mistake... what are your thoughts?
by emdi 11 years ago
I am interested to know the general public opinion about planned parenthood. It is a hot topic as the government shut down is very much connected to this topic. Just one more thing to add: I found out that planned parent hood is more about funding millions for early and late term abortion...
by Asa Schneidermann 7 years ago
Before, it was all kind of fuzzy. We knew that abortions took place in Planned Parenthood facilities and fought against it, but other activities were unclear. Now, we have clear, undeniable evidence of the evil - and I mean evil - practices taking place using our own tax dollars. It is not an...
by American View 9 years ago
The President of the United States Asks God to Bless an Abortion FactoryOBAMA: Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere. It's not going anywhere today. It's not going anywhere tomorrow. (applause) As long as we've got a fight to make sure women have access to quality...
by Sharlee 17 months ago
I don't want to pay for your choice, that's what I choose. So if you choose, you have to pay for your choice. Biden reverses Trump's ban on federal funds for abortion-referring clinics.The Biden administration has been very busy --- Today Biden rescinded a 2018 Trump-era regulation...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|