H
hxcCatholic413
Guest
As a Catholic how can you justify Planned Parenthood? God Bless!
- Status
H
hxcCatholic413
Guest
Eliminate PP and we would still have pro-life pregnancy centers that offer the same sort of services (pro-life ones obviously)
The thing that bugs me the most about PP is its racist roots…and barbaric practices, they can’t be justified.
L
Labarum
Guest
I do not know what statements I made were “attack” statements. I was not attacking any person, I was just stating the facts of what happens at PP in terms of abortion.
PP does provide other services but their main “cash cow” service is to kill babies. Other services can be provided by others, like a Catholic or Christian women’s service which a woman could go to.
P
Personanongrata
Guest
We are all entitled to our opinions. Catholics (myself included) do not have the right to dictate to others as to where they “should” go for reproductive health care issues.
I personally do not believe your “cash cow” statement about PP.
Lots of folk come to these forums “stating facts”. Lots of them are just plain old wrong.
M
mcteague
Guest
This is an often repeated argument. It ignores the central place of pluralism as an American philosophical / political view. There are many things tax dollars go to that one might not approve of. To a great extent that is the price of living in the sort of society we do.
L
Labarum
Guest
Yes everyone is entitled to their own opinions however abortion is wrong since it is the killing of an innocent human being.
You are right, in general we should not dictate what others should do but when there is an injustice being done and a life is at risk we have a moral obligation to speak out about that.
There are many other pregnancy centers out there that provide services to women that do not also kill babies. As Catholics and Christians we are called to uphold life and should avoid supporting places that do evil.
PP was founded by Margaret Sanger who was a Nazi supporter/sympathiser. She was a firm believer in eugenics and the sterilization and abortion of Negros, Jews and other “inferior” races. A company founded on death and Nazi ideals (no matter what other services they provide) should not be supported.
H
hxcCatholic413
Guest
Great post Labarum!!! I for one believe that if one is going the distance to support Planned Parenthood they should support their brother group as well: The White National Socialist Movement
P
Personanongrata
Guest
It didn’t take long to bring up Margaret. <>
T
TimothyH
Guest
I am in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood. I am also in favor of defunding all means of supporting contraception as a means to ending abortion. Why isn’t anyone hammering the root cause of abortion. Why isn’t anyone hammering artificial contraception? I hate to rain on the defund Planned Parenthood parade but it’s clear to me that the the pro-life movement will achieve limited results until it addresses the root cause of abortion and other sexual/social ills - contraception.
It’s an undeniable fact that widespread acceptance and use of artificial contraception, including male sterilization, has turned sex into a recreational activity. The culture of recreational sex, caused and perpetuated by widespread acceptance and use of artificial means of contraception has led to a variety of social ills including the resurgence of STD, homosexuality and the demand for gay marriage, over half of all black children being born into homes without fathers, porn and other sexual addiction and the divorce it causes as well as the market conditions which make abortion on demand a lucrative industry.
Consider that no Protestant denomination taught that contraception was a sin before the 1930’s. The Protestant denominations changed their teaching on contraception in the 1930’s and one generation later in the 1950’s, artificial contraception became widely available. One generation after that, in the 1970’s, butchering unborn infants was legalized in the USA.
This begs the question for those Catholics who use contraception, either openly or under the unspoken “Don’t ask, don’t tell” rules of modern cafeteria Catholicism. Some research states that as many as 96% of Catholics use artificial contraception in direct defiance of Church teaching. How are you contributing to the societal demand for abortion. How is your paying for doctor visits to get pills contributing to the contraceptive/abortive society of recreational sex. Men, what message is your vasectomy sending to your sons?
Your use of contraception contributes directly to the conditions which allow abortion on demand to fourish.
I think Catholics, in so far as we ignore Church teaching on the sinful nature of artificial contraception, bear much of the blame for abortion. The sad part is that as Catholics, we should know better.
-Tim-
It’s an undeniable fact that widespread acceptance and use of artificial contraception, including male sterilization, has turned sex into a recreational activity. The culture of recreational sex, caused and perpetuated by widespread acceptance and use of artificial means of contraception has led to a variety of social ills including the resurgence of STD, homosexuality and the demand for gay marriage, over half of all black children being born into homes without fathers, porn and other sexual addiction and the divorce it causes as well as the market conditions which make abortion on demand a lucrative industry.
Consider that no Protestant denomination taught that contraception was a sin before the 1930’s. The Protestant denominations changed their teaching on contraception in the 1930’s and one generation later in the 1950’s, artificial contraception became widely available. One generation after that, in the 1970’s, butchering unborn infants was legalized in the USA.
This begs the question for those Catholics who use contraception, either openly or under the unspoken “Don’t ask, don’t tell” rules of modern cafeteria Catholicism. Some research states that as many as 96% of Catholics use artificial contraception in direct defiance of Church teaching. How are you contributing to the societal demand for abortion. How is your paying for doctor visits to get pills contributing to the contraceptive/abortive society of recreational sex. Men, what message is your vasectomy sending to your sons?
Your use of contraception contributes directly to the conditions which allow abortion on demand to fourish.
I think Catholics, in so far as we ignore Church teaching on the sinful nature of artificial contraception, bear much of the blame for abortion. The sad part is that as Catholics, we should know better.
-Tim-
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
It’s a myth that contraception “leads to” abortion. (Contraceptive failure among married copules in this country results infrequently in abortion.) Rather, the correlation is between consistent fornication, coupled with inconsistent contraception, coupled with easy availability of, + no financial or other liability for, abortion, including no liability for the male. The consequences are logical and predictable. The “contraceptive use” one reads of is something I posted a link about in another thread. The females who get abortions are among those who least effectively, least consistently use contraception, regardless of their reporting that they “use” it. Either you are abundantly self-protective (and that is two-way), or you leave your very fertile bodies in very high risk of pregnancy. Intermittent use has minuscule advantage over zero use.
What we have here in this country is a perfect storm: in addition to all I named above, we have an exceptionally casual and dismissive attitude about marriage, and particularly marriage as the environment for pregnancy. In a not-so-distant time, out-of-wedlock pregnancy was practically an emergency, virtually mandating a marriage. Further, that sex tended to occur more frequently among already serious couples, whereas today, the Hook-Up culture participates in sex with virtual strangers with rarely any even distant interest in marriage.
The Netherlands has a very low abortion rate, less than 1/3 of the rate of the U.S. The country takes contraception very seriously, educates about it as a matter of public policy, and insists that both partners need to be responsible for such choices. (Males are considered equally responsible as females for their decisions and any results.) That is a very different contraception behavior than what one sees in the U.S. That’s fine that the RCC doesn’t want to promote that (I understand that, and I do not approve of the virtual encouragement of teenage sex in the Netherlands), but in that case one has to stop being silent about casual fornication in the U.S. and its logical results, because the statistics do not lie.
What we have here in this country is a perfect storm: in addition to all I named above, we have an exceptionally casual and dismissive attitude about marriage, and particularly marriage as the environment for pregnancy. In a not-so-distant time, out-of-wedlock pregnancy was practically an emergency, virtually mandating a marriage. Further, that sex tended to occur more frequently among already serious couples, whereas today, the Hook-Up culture participates in sex with virtual strangers with rarely any even distant interest in marriage.
The Netherlands has a very low abortion rate, less than 1/3 of the rate of the U.S. The country takes contraception very seriously, educates about it as a matter of public policy, and insists that both partners need to be responsible for such choices. (Males are considered equally responsible as females for their decisions and any results.) That is a very different contraception behavior than what one sees in the U.S. That’s fine that the RCC doesn’t want to promote that (I understand that, and I do not approve of the virtual encouragement of teenage sex in the Netherlands), but in that case one has to stop being silent about casual fornication in the U.S. and its logical results, because the statistics do not lie.
L
Labarum
Guest
If you have some good points as to why we should support PP I would like to know since you haven’t specified what services we should be supporting PP for.
I bring up Margaret Sanger since she is the founder of PP and because of that PP holds her values.
I have provided some reasons not to support PP. I am interest in hearing your points as to why we should be supporting PP.
L
Labarum
Guest
Since contraception was introduced and accepted en-mass it has increased abortion rates since now sex is viewed as separate from getting pregnant.
Also, the pill is an abortifacient since it has been scientifically proven that you can still ovulate and have a fertilized egg but it does not attach itself. Also, many women conceive on the pill and choose to have an abortion since they were not planning or ready to have a child.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
That is a correlation in time, not a correlation in cause.
It’s not about a contraceptive mentality as the primary cause; it’s about a fornication physicality and a promiscuity physicality (and mentality) as the primary cause. The separation is between sex and marriage (or commitment to marry), between sex and genuine, committed, permanent love with responsibility (i.e., marriage).And again, your statement above is not supported by statistics showing an opposite relationship between contraception and abortion in countries or clusters where contraception is heavily & consistently applied.
There is no social unit being envisioned, so i.m.o. you’re right in a very indirect or tangential way, in that there is no intertwined connectivity: sex/committed love/ intended marriage choice /logical reproduction proceeding from those intertwined bonds/ commitment to society, i.e., the social unit (man-woman-child). Sex is dislocated from that entire holistic dynamic of that and is nothing more than any other physical pleasure, disconnected from relationship (man to woman, woman to child, parents plural to child).
Yes, indeed, sex is seen as separate from childbearing, but that is true among the unmarried. The same age groups most likely to have abortions (age 20-24, then age 25-29, then age < 20) do so dramatically less when married but still using contraceptives. Therefore, contraception per se cannot be seen as the pivotal “reason” for abortion.
That has nothing to do with “leads to” abortion. That has to do with is an abortifacient, as opposed to “leading to” (or “causing”) a surgical procedure by a third party.
They don’t do that with any greater frequency than do women who were relying only on barrier methods. If they’re in no position to raise a child single-handedly, which is expensive in this country, they are very likely to seek an abortion, no matter what method of contraception they have been using.
This is a country which discards relationships, and sadly sees that as “freedom.” It’s really a selfish “freedom” (without responsibility), a freedom from attachment. Without a unifed national policy & promotion of effective and comprehensive contraceptive use (which I’m not advocating!), the natural result of discarding such relationships is to discard the biological product as well: that is just one more logical detachment from relationship.
L
Labarum
Guest
I would argue that it is because of contraception that has brought on this mentality.That is a correlation in time, not a correlation in cause.
Where do you get this information from?
Contraception leads to a mentality of “sex without consequences”. If pregancy happens with that mentality then abortion is more likely since the person/ couple was not ready for a child. Also the pill (which is a contraceptive) causes abortions without people knowing since it is possible to release and egg and for it to become fertilized.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Here’s the result of actual statistical investigations of the dynamics. There are many other studies as well. I have posted some others on earlier threads. Please search for these on CAF. It is just not as simplistic as that. The main connection within the U.S. is between unwed status and abortion, not between occasional/inconsistent/ignorant use of contraception and abortion. Married women in the U.S. who use contraception (which most do) have a low rate of abortion compared to those who are unmarried and sometimes or usually use contraception. Therefore, it cannot be contraception which is the common factor. Mathematically, that is contraindicated.
guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2900603.html
guttmacher.com/pubs/journals/2300497.html
Again, as I said on an earlier thread just today, that is a contraception which does not lead to a surgical abortion; it is in itself an abortifacient. That’s not a “connection”; that’s an equivalency in the case of that particular choice of contraceptive.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Married women on contraception having less abortions would be obvious. If they get pregnant it’s not quite as much of a shocker. My wife and I couldn’t afford another child right now, but if she got pregnant, we’d make a way.
However, unmarried women/girls on contraception I would think have a higher chance of being promiscuous, and not paying attention to a certain antibiotic or whatever have sex and get pregnant. The contraception itself does give a somewhat false sense of security.
I’m just rambling, but I have been following the MTV shows. And there was a girl who went through an abortion on TV. Then they brough two other girls that had abortions and made comments about not listening to the public that there was nothing wrong with an abortion.
I think through contraception and this reality tv sensation that has many teens/tweens wanting to be on tv at all costs is damaging to our society and has an impact on the number of abortions as well.
S
spunjalebi
Guest
I don’t think it’ll pass because Planned Parenthood also conducts services such as gynecological screenings and exams, tests, etc. I was actually once told to go to a Planned Parenthood to get a pap smear and a pelvic exam because at the time I didn’t have health insurance (I didn’t go, it was too weird).
I have to wonder-- how do we weigh what is more important-- not funding abortions, or not funding someone else’s gynecological screenings? I have no issues with my tax money going to help prevent a lower-income woman from getting cancer and getting proper reproductive health care, but paying for an abortion is something else.
I have to wonder-- how do we weigh what is more important-- not funding abortions, or not funding someone else’s gynecological screenings? I have no issues with my tax money going to help prevent a lower-income woman from getting cancer and getting proper reproductive health care, but paying for an abortion is something else.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Here’s an additional study, even more technical, but it does show how it can be deceptive in the rise and fall of the interrelationship. IOW, it is neither entirely positively proportional, not completely inversely proportional.
Some of the information here may overlap with what is above. In fact, from the item # and the title, I’m pretty sure it is duplicative, but much more of the complete research, as opposed to a summary.
alanguttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2900603.pdf
I get your point, Labarum and others; I understand that what you’re really saying is that the sheer availability of contraception enables a promiscuous pattern of sexual behavior. But again, note that contraception among married women in the U.S. is not a similar isolating factor correlated with abortion statistics. And it is also does not explain why, when contraception is never/rarely used in certain other countries, abortion statistics can still remain high.
Further, let’s take your theory at face value (although it is not backed up by research). What, then, would you plan to do with such an assumption? Prohibit contraception? You’re right that contraception by its nature implies the discretion to decide which pregnancies are intended and which are unintended, and implies further a permission to “do something” about a pregnancy which is not intended (given the assumption that it is the woman whose privilege it is be the decider). However, I hate to break it to you, but control over the reproductive process is a concept that most modern American women buy into. It’s just that they much more radically accept that option and that privilege when they are not married. They are far more willing to allow nature to take its course when they are married: established household, established marriage, more likely financial stability, an actual unit. Reasons why married women sometimes procure abortions is (1) serious trouble in the relationship, such as looming dissolution of it; (2) additional financial circumstances compromising a newly single mother’s ability to feed another mouth; (3) for an older mother, a medical problem with the growing fetus.
Again, in this country, the largest percentage of women who obtain abortions are unmarried women – both those who intermittently use (at the rate of 54% of that population) and those who do not use contraception. So it’s the unmarried that is the group most responsible. One could try to make it incredibly high-risk for such women to conceive, by prohibiting the sale of contraceptives to all but the married, but such laws would be difficult to pass in most states, I believe.
Some of the information here may overlap with what is above. In fact, from the item # and the title, I’m pretty sure it is duplicative, but much more of the complete research, as opposed to a summary.
alanguttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2900603.pdf
I get your point, Labarum and others; I understand that what you’re really saying is that the sheer availability of contraception enables a promiscuous pattern of sexual behavior. But again, note that contraception among married women in the U.S. is not a similar isolating factor correlated with abortion statistics. And it is also does not explain why, when contraception is never/rarely used in certain other countries, abortion statistics can still remain high.
Further, let’s take your theory at face value (although it is not backed up by research). What, then, would you plan to do with such an assumption? Prohibit contraception? You’re right that contraception by its nature implies the discretion to decide which pregnancies are intended and which are unintended, and implies further a permission to “do something” about a pregnancy which is not intended (given the assumption that it is the woman whose privilege it is be the decider). However, I hate to break it to you, but control over the reproductive process is a concept that most modern American women buy into. It’s just that they much more radically accept that option and that privilege when they are not married. They are far more willing to allow nature to take its course when they are married: established household, established marriage, more likely financial stability, an actual unit. Reasons why married women sometimes procure abortions is (1) serious trouble in the relationship, such as looming dissolution of it; (2) additional financial circumstances compromising a newly single mother’s ability to feed another mouth; (3) for an older mother, a medical problem with the growing fetus.
Again, in this country, the largest percentage of women who obtain abortions are unmarried women – both those who intermittently use (at the rate of 54% of that population) and those who do not use contraception. So it’s the unmarried that is the group most responsible. One could try to make it incredibly high-risk for such women to conceive, by prohibiting the sale of contraceptives to all but the married, but such laws would be difficult to pass in most states, I believe.
S
spunjalebi
Guest
It is true that PP has racist roots. Margaret Sanger initially wanted to use contraception to prevent black women from having children, because the black population would increase:
Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts.
Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
And you may not be making this point, bbarick, but I still argue that it is not the contraception – or its “mentality” – that is a separate factor that enables the later abortion. Why? Because married women in the U.S. overall – which includes Catholics both practicing and non-practicing, faithful to Church teaching and not – use contraception at an even greater rate than those who have procured abortions do. Therefore, it is not the big bad evil Contraception monster that is “causing” aboritons. It’s promiscuous unmarried sex with all kinds of contraceptive behavior (zero use, intermittent use, and possibly more consistent use) that is the most prominent cause of abortion in the U.S. Almost half (46%) of women obtaining abortions used no contraception in the month during which they became pregnant (in a study popularly cited on CAF); and statistically those would have to be largely unmarried women because, again, those are the source of the highest abortion figures in this country.
- Status