If life does not begin at conception why does Planned Parenthood hand out so many condoms?

[estesbob]

It seems to me, though, that some people try to IMPLY with that statement that PERSONHOOD begins at conception, that a fertilized egg, even before implantation, is a person. That is equally ridiculous. It has none of the attributes of personhood whatever.

t.

Personhod is such a great word since verybody gets to define it any way they want. Basically personhood starts the day the Mother decides she doesnt want to kill her child. Therefore with the vast majority of the unborn that means personhood does indeed begin at conception. For those who might want to kill their child personhood does not begin until the child fully exits the womb.

 

[beeliner]

1. It is a scientific fact that neither an egg nor a sperm is a human being.
2. It is also a scientific fact that a fertilized egg is a human being from the moment of conception.

1. She didn’t say ‘a human being’, she said ‘life’; nonetheless, both egg and sperm are human.
2. But it is not a scientific fact that a fertilized egg has an immortal soul, at the moment of conception or at ANY subsequent moment. THAT is a religious belief.

 

[Janet_S]

Also, I’m not sure that the Catholic Church officially teaches that life, that is, ensoulment (is that a word?) begins at the instant of conception. It was my understanding that it teaches that the Holy Spirit has not revealed at exactly what point ensoulment occurs, therefore we must protect the fertilized egg from the beginning, which is a much more intelligent approach.

The Church does teach that life begins at conception.
Some of the medieval theologians, like Thomas Aquinas for example, talked about ensoulment occurring around 30 or 40 days after conception. But Aquinas was just repeating what biologists understood at that time. We know a lot more about biology now than we did then. At conception, you get a full set of 46 chromosomes that will identify you for the rest of your life. Why do you think they call December 8 the Immaculate Conception rather than the Immaculate Ensoulment?

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary,** in the first instance of her conception,** by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Regarding Limbo, I still maintain, Church teaching aside, that it’s a lot of fun at a party. How low can you go?

You’re okay in my book; we agree on that point.

Actually, another poster made that point, tongue in cheek. The point was to note the inconsistancy of Church teaching in this area. Another inconsistancy: Anybody ever heard of the Church celebrating a requiem Mass or conducting funeral and burial services for a miscarriage? I certainly haven’t. Why would that ‘child’ not be entitled to the same consideration as one who dies during or after birth?

There are funerals for miscarried and aborted babies:

May unbaptized babies receive a Catholic funeral? What about miscarried babies? If a child’s parents intended to have their child baptized but the child died before the sacrament could be administered, the local ordinary may allow the child to have a Catholic funeral (cf. Canon 1183.2).

Likewise, a miscarried baby may receive a Catholic funeral, though a family is not required to formally bury a miscarried child. If a more developed unborn child dies and is delivered intact, parents often choose to bury the child. Otherwise, hospitals typically remove the remains as they do with human organs or bodily tissue removed during surgery. (Because most miscarriages occur in the first trimester, the remains are generally minimal and/or incomplete [as with a D & C procedure].) The different ways of laying the child’s body to rest in no way imply that a fetus at an earlier point of gestation is less than a person or less deserving of respect. Every human life is sacred, “from the moment of conception until death” (Catechism, no. 2319; cf. no. 2258).

The same guidelines for funerals and burials of unbaptized children would apply to aborted babies. The Church recognizes the personhood of every unborn child (cf. Catechism, nos. 2270–75). She prays for the souls of miscarried and aborted babies, and commends them to the mercy of God (cf. Catechism, no. 1261).
cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=264

 

[a_cermak]

All this talk of Planned Parenthood handing out substandard condoms to drum up business at their abortion clinics strikes me as black helicopter type talk. So is the suggestion that the clinicians are angry when people give birth to their children.

Here’s an excerpt from a local Planned Parenthood web site:

"If you are trying to decide if abortion is the right choice for you, you probably have many things to think about. Learning the facts about abortion may help you in making your decision. You may also want to learn more about parenting and adoption.

“Planned Parenthood health center with abortion servicesOnly you can decide what is best for you. But we are here to help. A staff member at your local Planned Parenthood health center can discuss abortion and all of your options with you and help you find the services you need.”

Have any of the posters here ever gone into a Planned Parenthood clinic? Many of them have sliding scale fees for contraception (which they provide in far more clinics than they do abortions) and abortion services. They also teach family planning classes, some clinics have started to provide breast cancer screenings. They are a non-profit business, though they do have decent earnings (not sure what happens to profits in a non-profit corp, I’m guessing they’re plowed back into the organization–such as the new clinic in Aurora, IL). They receive grants from individuals, corporations, foundations, and yes, the governments of the various states as well as the US government.

Another thing is that Planned Parenthood doesn’t do all the abortion procedures in any given year. Most stats say they do about 1 in 5. A poorer demographic uses Planned Parenthood both for contraception and abortion because the wealthier can go to private clinics and pharmacies and avoid the whole line of protesters thing. Primarily focusing on Planned Parenthood by pro-lifers has always smacked of classism to me, we won’t picket the places where the nice women go, but we’ll picket where the poor women have to go.

 

[mapleoak]

Personhod is such a great word since verybody gets to define it any way they want. Basically personhood starts the day the Mother decides she doesnt want to kill her child. Therefore with the vast majority of the unborn that means personhood does indeed begin at conception. For those who might want to kill their child personhood does not begin until the child fully exits the womb.

And also if personhood can be ‘granted’ it can therefore be taken away. Imagine if someone told you that you were no longer a person.

 

[mapleoak]

1. She didn’t say ‘a human being’, she said ‘life’; nonetheless, both egg and sperm are human.

They are not human beings. Such a big a difference it is almost laughable.

1. But it is not a scientific fact that a fertilized egg has an immortal soul, at the moment of conception or at ANY subsequent moment. THAT is a religious belief.

What difference does it make? Many murderers don’t believe in God or could care less whether their victims have souls or not. That is why we need laws to protect the innocent from people who believe it okay to kill them.

 

[Janet_S]

All this talk of Planned Parenthood handing out substandard condoms to drum up business at their abortion clinics strikes me as black helicopter type talk. So is the suggestion that the clinicians are angry when people give birth to their children.

I’m a little suspect of this too. I’ve never been a big fan of conspiracy theories. But it is true that PP makes a lot of money from abortion; they make money from the pregnant women and from selling body parts, fetuses and tissues. I don’t think money is the only incentive; there is a certain philosophy behind what they are doing. But money is involved. People who have left the abortion industry are pretty upfront about this.

Have any of the posters here ever gone into a Planned Parenthood clinic?

I haven’t, I never will now, but I probably would have at one time. I used to be a pro-choicer, but now I’ve changed my mind. There are posters here who have had abortions, though.

Primarily focusing on Planned Parenthood by pro-lifers has always smacked of classism to me, we won’t picket the places where the nice women go, but we’ll picket where the poor women have to go.

Pro Lifers are very daring, and will picket anywhere abortions are performed. They’ll champion the rich unborn as well as the poor.

You seem to think contraception and abortion are good for society, but that’s where a lot of us disagree. Our late Pope John Paul II spent most of his pontificate illuminating the destructive effects of contraception and abortion, and urging people to reclaim their dignity. PP may perform a few token mammograms or pap smears, but that hardly balances the damage it does.

And what a lot of Catholics really object to about PP is its founder, Margaret Sanger, her mission, and her ties to the eugenics movement. Talk about smacking of classicism–she set up her clinics in the poor Hispanic and Black neighborhoods to prevent the undesirables from reproducing. Now that may sound like a conspiracy theory to you, but I encourage to investigate for yourself. It’s all true!

 

[beeliner]

I’m a little suspect of this too. I’ve never been a big fan of conspiracy theories. But it is true that PP makes a lot of money from abortion; they make money from the pregnant women and from selling body parts, fetuses and tissues. I don’t think money is the only incentive; there is a certain philosophy behind what they are doing. But money is involved. People who have left the abortion industry are pretty upfront about this.

I haven’t, I never will now, but I probably would have at one time. I used to be a pro-choicer, but now I’ve changed my mind. There are posters here who have had abortions, though.

Pro Lifers are very daring, and will picket anywhere abortions are performed. They’ll champion the rich unborn as well as the poor.

You seem to think contraception and abortion are good for society, but that’s where a lot of us disagree. Our late Pope John Paul II spent most of his pontificate illuminating the destructive effects of contraception and abortion, and urging people to reclaim their dignity. PP may perform a few token mammograms or pap smears, but that hardly balances the damage it does.

And what a lot of Catholics really object to about PP is its founder, Margaret Sanger, her mission, and her ties to the eugenics movement. Talk about smacking of classicism–she set up her clinics in the poor Hispanic and Black neighborhoods to prevent the undesirables from reproducing. Now that may sound like a conspiracy theory to you, but I encourage to investigate for yourself. It’s all true!

I know very little about the Planned Parenthood organization. I do know this:

a. There is no question that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist and a racist.

b. The current organization does not reflect those views any more than the Ford Motor Company reflects its founder’s vicious anti-Semitism.

c. About one third of the organization’s funding comes from the US government, which is to say, from you and me. Bearing that in mind, who is making all of the ‘profits’ that posters here are claiming? Is it a corporation? A partnership? If so, who are the partners? If it is a commercial profit-making enterprise, why does it require government funding?

d. If Sara Palin’s daughter’s boyfriend had visited PP before unzipping, they might not be in the situation that they’re in.

Now, going back to your earlier post…

1. The Church does teach that life begins at conception.

1. There are funerals for miscarried and aborted babies…

1. Well, it might teach that in some circles; as I pointed out previously, that is only a figure of speech. My understanding is that the Church’s current (NOT historical) official teaching is that the exact point of ensoulment is unknown, so the fertilized egg should be protected from the point of fertilization. And furthermore, the reason for that uncertainty is just as I stated - that ensoulment of a fertilized egg that fails to implant seems questionable on theological grounds.
2. Thank you. I was not aware of that.

 

[st_lucy]

I know very little about the Planned Parenthood organization. I do know this:

a. There is no question that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist and a racist.

b. The current organization does not reflect those views any more than the Ford Motor Company reflects its founder’s vicious anti-Semitism.

Here is proof that Sanger’s views are still running strong at PP

c. About one third of the organization’s funding comes from the US government, which is to say, from you and me. Bearing that in mind, who is making all of the ‘profits’ that posters here are claiming? Is it a corporation? A partnership? If so, who are the partners? If it is a commercial profit-making enterprise, why does it require government funding?

This is true but why should my hard earn money ever pay for someones horrific death?

d. If Sara Palin’s daughter’s boyfriend had visited PP before unzipping, they might not be in the situation that they’re in.

And how exactly do you know if he didn’t have some kind of protection on? ABCs are not 100%

 

[beeliner]

Here is proof that Sanger’s views are still running strong at PP

The video has been pulled. I have no idea what was on it.

What are you saying? That anything on a blog has to be true?

Or that the organization is responsible for the views of every one of its supporters?

 

[st_lucy]

The video has been pulled. I have no idea what was on it.

What are you saying? That anything on a blog has to be true?

Or that the organization is responsible for the views of every one of its supporters?

Okay I will just tell you what happened someone called up PP and told them that they wanted to donate money. He claimed to want to help with genocide of black babies (or something to that tune). The PP rep replied with a yes that is understandable.

And no I don’t just believe every blog and so on as you so kindly claimed of me but this is true and has been very widely published. Of course those who choose to not see the truth will not see it.

I will look back on history to find an article on this.

 

[beeliner]

Okay I will just tell you what happened someone called up PP and told them that they wanted to donate money. He claimed to want to help with genocide of black babies (or something to that tune). The PP rep replied with a yes that is understandable.

And no I don’t just believe every blog and so on as you so kindly claimed of me but this is true and has been very widely published. Of course those who choose to not see the truth will not see it.

I will look back on history to find an article on this.

“Or something to that tune” and it HAS to be TRUE!

Remember, your sainthood, bearing false witness is a sin, a direct violation of a commandment. You shouldn’t repeat things that you’re unable to verify. Why was it removed from the blog?

PP’s statement of principles may be read on its website.

No one is saying that you have to agree with them.

 

[st_lucy]

“Or something to that tune” and it HAS to be TRUE!

Remember, your sainthood, bearing false witness is a sin, a direct violation of a commandment. You shouldn’t repeat things that you’re unable to verify. Why was it removed from the blog?

PP’s statement of principles may be read on its website.

No one is saying that you have to agree with them.

Wow, did I hurt you in some way that you have to be so rude?

here is a blog,

here is a news article

here is another news article

I really these help to calm your anger, if not please try taking a deep breath and counting to 10, this usually worked my three year old when he was prone to temper tantrums.

 

[estesbob]

All this talk of Planned Parenthood handing out substandard condoms to drum up business at their abortion clinics strikes me as black helicopter type talk. So is the suggestion that the clinicians are angry when people give birth to their children.

.

I don’t think there’s any way the Planned Parenthood hands out substandard condoms- they don’t need to. What they do do is preach a false message of safe sex and tell teens that if they use a condom everything will be okay. We’ll condoms can be effective when properly used but the truth is is that most teens don’t properly use them. The overwhelming majority of pregnant teens I that I counseled had been using some type of contraception The local high school they went to had most modern sex education one could encounter including lessons on how to properly put on a condom . We can’t even trust our kids to clean their room or take out the trash and yet we expect them, when in the throes of lust, to carefully put on the condom.

 

[a_cermak]

You seem to think contraception and abortion are good for society, but that’s where a lot of us disagree. Our late Pope John Paul II spent most of his pontificate illuminating the destructive effects of contraception and abortion, and urging people to reclaim their dignity. PP may perform a few token mammograms or pap smears, but that hardly balances the damage it does.

No, I don’t think contraception is evil or good, just a tool to be used one way or another.

Abortion I see as a necessary evil. I don’t believe a woman’s body should be enslaved to the fetus for even one minute she doesn’t want it to be so. That is to make her a slave to her unborn child. Even if you define the fetus as a person, it has no legal right to the use of its mother’s body. Note I reject the Natural Law theory and therefore see no tenable legal claim the fetus has to a womb. Perhaps technology (such as artificial wombs) will render the whole argument moot. Now, after viability, I would frown on abortion because a Caesarian is or should be available for her leaving both parties in decent condition.

And what a lot of Catholics really object to about PP is its founder, Margaret Sanger, her mission, and her ties to the eugenics movement. Talk about smacking of classicism–she set up her clinics in the poor Hispanic and Black neighborhoods to prevent the undesirables from reproducing. Now that may sound like a conspiracy theory to you, but I encourage to investigate for yourself. It’s all true!

Yes, she was a eugenicist and a racist. So? Does that mean her organization, that survives her, is to this day racist and eugenicist? Black women are more likely to have abortions because they tend to be poorer than white women. That would be true whether they had to travel to get their abortions or not. The fact that their clinics may actually be in poorer communities–communities a Starbucks or even a brand-name grocer won’t invest in, is not of and by itself evil. Women in more affluent areas can get their birth control scripts at a Dr’s office and then go to the local Walgreens, and they can get their abortions at private hospitals and clinics, it’s the poorer women that have to resort to Planned Parenthood.

 

[st_lucy]

No, I don’t think contraception is evil or good, just a tool to be used one way or another.

Abortion I see as a necessary evil. I don’t believe a woman’s body should be enslaved to the fetus for even one minute she doesn’t want it to be so. That is to make her a slave to her unborn child. Even if you define the fetus as a person, it has no legal right to the use of its mother’s body. Note I reject the Natural Law theory and therefore see no tenable legal claim the fetus has to a womb. Perhaps technology (such as artificial wombs) will render the whole argument moot. Now, after viability, I would frown on abortion because a Caesarian is or should be available for her leaving both parties in decent condition.

Yes, she was a eugenicist and a racist. So? Does that mean her organization, that survives her, is to this day racist and eugenicist? Black women are more likely to have abortions because they tend to be poorer than white women. That would be true whether they had to travel to get their abortions or not. The fact that their clinics may actually be in poorer communities–communities a Starbucks or even a brand-name grocer won’t invest in, is not of and by itself evil. Women in more affluent areas can get their birth control scripts at a Dr’s office and then go to the local Walgreens, and they can get their abortions at private hospitals and clinics, it’s the poorer women that have to resort to Planned Parenthood.

My heart breaks for you. You are so confused. You state that you are Jewish but a true Jew would never state the things you have just done. I will pray for you and those who think like you.

One day this horrible genocide will end just as all horrible acts against humans have come to end. What answer will you be able to give to your children when they ask you what did you do to stop this horrific act from happening.

 

[Janet_S]

I know very little about the Planned Parenthood organization. I do know this:

a. There is no question that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist and a racist.

b. The current organization does not reflect those views any more than the Ford Motor Company reflects its founder’s vicious anti-Semitism.

c. About one third of the organization’s funding comes from the US government, which is to say, from you and me. Bearing that in mind, who is making all of the ‘profits’ that posters here are claiming? Is it a corporation? A partnership? If so, who are the partners? If it is a commercial profit-making enterprise, why does it require government funding?

d. If Sara Palin’s daughter’s boyfriend had visited PP before unzipping, they might not be in the situation that they’re in.

Now, going back to your earlier post…1. Well, it might teach that in some circles; as I pointed out previously, that is only a figure of speech. My understanding is that the Church’s current (NOT historical) official teaching is that the exact point of ensoulment is unknown, so the fertilized egg should be protected from the point of fertilization. And furthermore, the reason for that uncertainty is just as I stated - that ensoulment of a fertilized egg that fails to implant seems questionable on theological grounds.

1. Thank you. I was not aware of that.

The original mission of the Ford Company was to build and sell cars. I think it’s still the same today.

The mission of PP has pretty much stayed the same, too, though it has branched out a little. Now it is geared more towards corrupting youth, undermining parental authority, and protecting adults who are having sex with minors. You’ve come a long way baby!

And really, bee, what part of “life begins at conception” do you not understand.? Your profile says you’re a Catholic. Why not try to listen to your Church as much as you listen to your political party?

 

[estesbob]

No, I don’t think contraception is evil or good, just a tool to be used one way or another.

Abortion I see as a necessary evil. I don’t believe a woman’s body should be enslaved to the fetus for even one minute she doesn’t want it to be so. That is to make her a slave to her unborn child. Even if you define the fetus as a person, it has no legal right to the use of its mother’s body. Note I reject the Natural Law theory and therefore see no tenable legal claim the fetus has to a womb. Perhaps technology (such as artificial wombs) will render the whole argument moot. Now, after viability, I would frown on abortion because a Caesarian is or should be available for her leaving both parties in decent condition.

 

[a_cermak]

Are you a parent? Do your children know that you felt the enslaved their mother and that she could hack into little pieces anytime she wanted prior to them exiting the womb? Would you like to have parents with the attitude?

Yes, I do have one child, a little girl. I don’t feel that she enslaved me at any point during my pregnancy because I deeply, dearly wanted that child and wanted her to live. I willingly offered her my body, as most parents do, and that doesn’t really change with the exit of her from the womb. I would today willingly sacrifice myself for her, in fact, I consider self-sacrifice to be a part of parenthood.

It was my choice to be a parent and I am grateful that I had that choice.

 

[beeliner]

The mission of PP has pretty much stayed the same, too, though it has branched out a little. Now it is geared more towards corrupting youth, undermining parental authority, and protecting adults who are having sex with minors.

If it’s so evil, why is the governement giving it one-third of its funding?

You can characterize it anyway you wish, the fact is, if Miss Palin’s boyfriend had paid them a visit, they would have instructed him in the various ways of preventing pregnancy, including, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, abstinence.

Governor Palin backed an abstinence-only policy for schools, prohibiting any discussion of birth control for teens.

She now realizes that such a policy doesn’t work.

It seems unlikely that the young man was ‘corrupted’ by PP. If he had been, perhaps he and Miss Palin wouldn’t be in the situation in which they find themselves.

In any case, I’m sure we all wish them well. I certainly do. And it’s nice that they plan to marry - or is it?

Seventeen is too young to get married and too young to get pregnant.