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.
I think as you have a deep, emotionally based position on the argument, I’m not sure you could be moved from your position by a reasonable effort.
I see.
Disagreement with you must somehow be “emotionally based”…I couldn’t possibly have a logical argument.

Your logic is flawed in that conclusion.
Second, I think your expectations of what proof, evidences and armies will be brought to bear on a chat forum may be a bit unreasonable.
It is not unreasonable to expect documentation to back a scathing accusation.
Without that tacit agreement, a forum of strangers doesn’t really function.
I agree.
This would be a lot easier if you simply agreed with me.
I’ve tried to be as polite here as I could be while still making the point.
Yes you have.
I believe your points weak and flawed, but I cannot fault your polite manner.
 
I see.
Disagreement with you must somehow be “emotionally based”…I couldn’t possibly have a logical argument.
Sure. As someone who has had a little schooling on rhetoric, let me show you your tale-tells of emotional entrenchment. It’s typically aggressive, accusatory language in the face of disagreement.

In this post alone, first is your faux incredulity above. “I couldn’t possibly…”.
Next-
Your logic is flawed in that conclusion.
Denialism without any sort of objective support.
…a scathing accusation.
Where was I scornful? I’ve tried to be polite and reasonable.
This would be a lot easier if you simply agreed with me.
This is a good one.
I believe your points weak and flawed…
Without doing anything to show why. Because your objection isn’t cold and rational. It’s heated and emotional.

Thanks.
 
Sure. As someone who has had a little schooling on rhetoric…
Trying to appeal to your own authority again.
Denialism without any sort of objective support.
I have supported each of my arguments.
One can easily read this thread to find that out.
Where was I scornful? I’ve tried to be polite and reasonable.
“Scornful”?
No one said this.
I am beginning to see a pattern of straw man arguments though.
This should tell you something.
You are trying to defend the inexcusable.
This is a good one.
I thought so.
But it was a team effort. Perhaps you should review the posts.
Without doing anything to show why. Because your objection isn’t cold and rational. It’s heated and emotional.
And yet it hasn’t been.
It has been logical.
Perhaps you should look at this from a different point of view. Your responses to logical arguments are becoming more and more personal and less about the topic on hand.
You are, in fact, becoming more emotional.

I am not relying on my own authority here, or pushing some story that must be believed for it to work. Just review the thread.
 
Yeah, right. Abortions are performed past the point of viability in several states, idiot.
First, I made a correction in good faith.
Second, abortions that occur after 20 weeks are what? 2-3%?
Third and maybe more importantly, how in hades is this comment not an unambiguous violation of forum rules?
 
Last edited:
PP makes the choice of life clear. They just don’t offer it as the only option - because it’s not.
Seeing PP stand to earn money on murder, how can they be trusted to be fair when discussing the alternatives, which they don’t make any money off.

How come people are saying, tobacco companies twist the truth on smoking, oil companies twist the truth on climate change.

But if anybody suggests that maybe PP twists the truth on abortion, you are somehow a woman-hating reactionary.
Pro-life groups generally want to sell you on an outcome. PP just wants to inform you of your options and let you make your choice.
Pro life groups do not stand to profit from life. they want to save life for its own sake.

PP stands to benefit from abortion, in real financial terms. You don’t keep those expensive clinics afloat by talking young women into adoptions.
 
Last edited:
It’s a strawman to say that pro-life groups are trying to sell you on life?
This is no dichotomy.

Saying life is a good thing, and people should have a right to life, is not at all the opposite side of the coin to saying murder is a good thing, and we should be allowed to kill our children.

One is an obvious and natural truth. The other is a horrible absurdity.
 
Last edited:
OK, what if the guest is her conjoined twin who will die if they are seperated?
Just as a body of a babe in a womb is distinct from the host mother’s body,
so too so are those of twins.

One must not murder any body

Catholicism Itself is Pro-Life…
 
40.png
Jen95:
40.png
Hume:
40.png
Jen95:
Hume doesn’t want to say it.
Please don’t speak for me.
Okay, what are the other option (s) besides life?
Depends on the woman involved.

PP provides resources in raising and caring for babies. They provide referral to adoption services. They also perform abortions at many of their clinics.

The woman chooses what happens to the fetus inside her.
raising and caring for babies = Life
referral to adoption services = Life
perform abortions at many of their clinics = Death

You seem to acknowledge the two options are life and death but you choose to obfuscate the reality of the situation.
 
raising and caring for babies = Life
referral to adoption services = Life
perform abortions at many of their clinics = Death

You seem to acknowledge the two options are life and death but you choose to obfuscate the reality of the situation.
YEP… . “Planned ParentHood”? Seems OxyMoronic!

PP Nudges Sex as being OK for teens - and then $upports Abortion. ? ? ?

It’s not easy to for any to actually follow such Planning for Parenting
-when/IF there’s no Children to “Parent” !


Planned Parenthood?

How About: PP: The Largest Known Supporter of ABORTION in The Known World !
 
Last edited:
Pro-life groups generally want to sell you on an outcome. PP just wants to inform you of your options and let you make your choice.
Let’s look at another example.

Suppose some people were to come into the school of your children and talk to kids about smoking. Inform them about the risks and all that.

You would probably welcome that, right?

Now what if it turned out these people were actually employees of the tobacco industry?

Would you still trust them to advise your kids well?

Nobody has said they would defend their own interests, or skew borderline cases to their advantage. It could well be that they are selflessly doing the right thing.

But you would have your doubts. You wouldn’t feel comfortable about it. Am i right?

Maybe they would sublimally be spreading a different message to what they are pretending to be spreading.

It is a fair assumption, right?

And if now to balance that potential risk, some people from a non smoking group were to ask to have equal access to the kids.

Would you be saying, they can’t do that, as they are only pushing one side of the argument?
 
Last edited:
Next to every single planned parenthood in the country there is a federally qualified health care center that offers the same services to women and more (minus abortion services).

We do not need planned parenthood.
 
Hey elf I’m on my phone using voice to text so apologies for lack of direct references.

Statistically insignificant, freak occurrences are not suitable bases for general rules. In the case of conjoined twins, those are intimately case-by-case and if separation is necessary the twin with a greater chance of survival usually gets the benefit.
 
Again we do need Planned Parenthood because they’re not trying to sell you anything. They give you the advantage of an objective, clear presentation of all available options and allow the woman to decide.

They’re not trying to give her a sales pitch. Pushing an agenda in such a delicate and stressful moment is unethical.

They present the options as fully and clearly as they can with all available supporting data and then they step back.

The woman decides. This is as it should be.
 
Last edited:
Again we do need Planned Parenthood because they’re not trying to sell you anything. They give you the advantage of an objective, clear presentation of all available options and allow the woman to decide.
Why does it have to be PP that provides this advice. Can’t you see the conflict of interest? Can’t it at least be somebody who is neutral, who has no skin in the game?
 
Statistically insignificant, freak occurrences are not suitable bases for general rules. In the case of conjoined twins, those are intimately case-by-case and if separation is necessary the twin with a greater chance of survival usually gets the benefit.
Lets say both could survive, but it would need a transplant, and there is a 9 month waiting list.
 
Before we get lost down any rabbit holes of What If’s?

Back to the OP … Let us not forget

Catholics obedient to Catholic Teachings are by default - AntiAbortion/Pro-Life

In no way does the Catholic Church support Planned Parenthood - who in turn $upport Abortion
to the tune of millions of Aborted babes in the Womb

_
 
Again we do need Planned Parenthood because they’re not trying to sell you anything. They give you the advantage of an objective, clear presentation of all available options and allow the woman to decide.

They’re not trying to give her a sales pitch. Pushing an agenda in such a delicate and stressful moment is unethical.

They present the options as fully and clearly as they can with all available supporting data and then they step back.

The woman decides. This is as it should be.
Au contraire Mon frere, I believe PP is selling something to the children. Abortion. Planned Parenthood is selling abortion to the high school students.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top