Pro-Lifers Should Get Same Access to Schools as Planned Parenthood Does

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
VanitasVanitatum said:
40.png
Hume:
Genuinely, the minimization of women and the danger to women from pregnancy that’s hoisted by a lot of pro-lifers is probably the pathos appeal that wins my side the most converts.
Click to expand...
Other precautions can be taken to minimize these risks amd harm caused and pregnancy’s that result in death can be detected and belong to a different category because of a new element.
Click to expand...
That’s an example of still trying to minimize the danger of it…

It’s inherently dangerous. Always was. Maternal death in childbirth before modern medicine was simply, sadly routine.

Modern medicine has done wonders, but an inherently dangerous activity remains dangerous.

No one should be forced to that danger. This is why my side pushes onward.

I yield the floor for now. Thanks.
 
Hume said:
That’s an example of still trying to minimize the danger of it…
Click to expand...
There’s no reason I can’t espeacially if the damage can be coped with and the alternative is worse. Fatal pregnancies can be detected and belong to a separate category than non-fatal ones. I also have no reason to believe the chances are significant to warrent an abortion unless you supply it.

To summarize my two points it would be that
  1. Abortion is worse than non-fatal damage that can be coped with.
  2. Abortion for the sake of preservation can only be considered unless danger is forseeable and likely.
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
It may not remove it. Not totally, and I was happy to concede that on the other forum.

But it is overshadowed by the mother’s autonomy.
Click to expand...
How are you deciding when one person’s rights overshadow another’s?
 
If it wasn’t so offensive, pro-choice commenters appear quite humorous in their straight-faced efforts to defend abortion.
 
No, the woman should not chose to kill a baby just because the baby is inside her.
So a babies life depends on it’s geographical location?
 
Hume said:
It is included as an option because it is an option.

This is part of the neutral, full disclosure that they provide to all women who walk through their doors.
Click to expand...
I don’t recall a neutral full disclosure when I was pregnancy tested at PP 36 years ago. I recall being told that I was about two months pregnant, that abortion would make my life easier, and that my child was merely a blob of cells.
I wound up having to correct the nurse, pointing out that my baby had a heartbeat and brain activity. Rejecting Planned Parenthood’s pro-abortion advice and misinformation, I continue to be a mother, as I was the day I went in for the pregnancy test.
 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
what have these two issues got to do with each other?
Click to expand...
If I want to attend an event should it not be up to me to decide if I want to take the risk of getting corona virus rather than the government preventing me from taking that risk.
 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
Not really, when the next person you infect is the doctor or nurse looking after you, who then passes it on to an elderly grandmother, all of whom end up occupying an intensive care bed that I may need.
Click to expand...
So you agree it is appropriate to place restrictions on what somebody can do with their body to save lives?
 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
Possibly yes. But carrying a pregnancy to term that you feel could severely damage you psychologically or physically, or mean you are unable to care for the rest of your family, is somewhat different to standing back from someone at the bus stop.
Click to expand...
Having to stay at home can be psycologically damaging.
 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
I am pro life, and I really try to do what I can to support mother’s to choose life.

Are you seriously comparing a pregnancy from non consensual sex, a baby with profound painful health problems, extreme poverty, severe maternal health problems, with having to stay home for a weeks watching telly and catching up with library books.
Click to expand...
I think it’s inconsistent to say you can’t tell a woman she can’t have her baby murdered because it’s ‘her body her choice’ yet forbid people from gathering in large groups to prevent disease. The logically consistent position may include advise, but not legislation.
 
vz71 said:
40.png
Hume:
It may not remove it. Not totally, and I was happy to concede that on the other forum.

But it is overshadowed by the mother’s autonomy.
Click to expand...
How are you deciding when one person’s rights overshadow another’s?
Click to expand...
It’s already been done. The mother takes precedent. It’s why in ultra-rare situations when it’s mother’s life vs. baby’s, we save mom.
EndTimes said:
Abortion is always wrong…

Cease feeding trolls…
Click to expand...
I’m not a troll. I’m just a guy that disagrees with you and does a decent job of explaining why.
1cthlctrth said:
If it wasn’t so offensive, pro-choice commenters appear quite humorous in their straight-faced efforts to defend abortion.
Click to expand...
Nothing humorous about defending a woman’s right to control her own body.
hanspi02 said:
No, the woman should not chose to kill a baby just because the baby is inside her.
So a babies life depends on it’s geographical location?
Click to expand...
No, a baby’s life depends on it’s use of a woman’s body and her consent to offer that use.
jeannetherese said:
I don’t recall a neutral full disclosure when I was pregnancy tested at PP 36 years ago.
Click to expand...
I can’t answer anecdotes. No one can. I can just show you what they do. It’s on their website. Abortion is just one of the options.
All summed up, pro-lifers shouldn’t get the same access because they’re not informing. They’re selling. In such delicate situations, salesmanship needs to be set aside, the woman given a choice and then that choice respected.

The best way to be pro-life is to attack the reasons why a woman would want to get an abortion. Don’t attack the liberty of the woman.
 
Hume said:
I can’t answer anecdotes. No one can. I can just show you what they do. It’s on their website.
Click to expand...
Actually, you are showing what the website says and I am discussing what they do, an evidence based discussion.
Yes, anecdotes are tricky-one must consider the credibility of the source, among other things. However, there is a whole field of research in academia called qualitative research which works with the data collected anecdotally; and one might consider the value of oral histories.
Here’s one survey which gives some data.

 
Hume said:
Keep the baby or don’t. They’ve got support structures for either choice.

PP isn’t just an abortion mill
Click to expand...
It actually is. Planned Parenthood focuses solely on pregnancy tests, abortions and to some women birth control. They claim to offer all of women’s health services but what they really offer is referrals.

Yes, Planned Parenthood claims to offer a wide-variety of services, that they actually don’t. For instance, not a single Planned Parenthood facility offers mammograms. They also do not provide prenatal care. If a woman goes to Planned Parenthood for birth control and discovers in the course of her visit that she has high blood pressure, Planned Parenthood can’t help her, she has to be referred to a Federally Qualified Health Center for care.

It also likes to bill itself as serving low income women. Low-income women often have limited resources including limited access to childcare and transportation. So Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide all of the services these women need and often end up wasting more of their time and resources because they end up referred elsewhere.

If we truly care about women, we should desire they be seen by comprehensive centers that are able to focus on whole women’s health.

Planned Parenthood has about 650 facilities nationwide, all of which provide very limited care to their patients. The ONLY thing PP provides that these Federally Qualified Health Centers do not is abortions.

There are over 13,000 non-abortion providing Federally Qualified Health Centers that provide whole health care to women and their families. And that number doesn’t include the tens of thousands of private and group physicians that accept government subsidy programs like Medicaid.

The fact is they make no money on pap smears mammograms and prenatal checks so they’ve developed a new business model to cut these health care services and instead focus only on pregnancy tests & abortions.

It is the largest abortion provider in the United States and was receiving $500 million in taxpayer funding. They claimed none of that money went towards abortions but since they don’t offer anything else, where was it going?
 
Last edited:
Notice that a pro-choicer is permitted to make all sorts of pro-abortion comments in this highly pro-life website? (And I think it SHOULD be permitted, by the way.) Also notice that when we submit strongly pro-life comments on many secular websites, they are usually not published? I think it’s safe to say that WE are the tolerant ones, and the Left is intolerant, as they squelch opinions they don’t want to see or hear.
 
Hume said:
That’s exactly what PP is.

They don’t care if you get an abortion
Click to expand...
If that is so, why is it that they resist just shutting down that branch of their business. Spin it off into a separate entity with separate name and accounts?

They don’t because it is central to their profitability.

Asking PP whether you need an abortion is like asking the armaments lobby whether we need to go to war. They’re up to their neck in deep sticky bias.
 
Hume said:
Please understand, there is no evidence for this - none. The only “evidence” (if you want to use that word) comes from sources that cannot be described as even remotely objective.
Click to expand...
Maybe.

But PP could easily and proactively create evidence to the contrary by simply separating themselves from that part of the business.

They don’t. They refuse to.

What does that tell you Sherlock?

In the business world, for example, it goes without saying that any consultant you employ should not have a stake or interest in any of the suppliers he is advising you about, let alone actually own said company. Anything else is corruption. People have done jail time for that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top