What if it were boys?

[eucharisteo]

How do you think the world would react if planned parenthood were to offer vasectomies and a 16 year old boy decided he wanted one without his parents permission?

OOOOOoooo! A very good question. I will think about that for a while. But I believe the second poster has a point about cutting into profits.

 

[eucharisteo]

I kind of wish I would have done this though. Because if I had done this I would most certainly attempt to reverse it. My wife can’t without a risk even though I truly wish she would. However, it is very expensive to reverse. I’m ashamed, we were not Catholic at the time. This is an acceptable thing to do as a Protestant. I have several family members that did this. I rejected it and my wife did it in spite of how I felt about it.

 

[Sam_Maloney]

And yet that quote is an embarrassment to the pro-choice movement today.

Harsh, nasty, truly pro-abortion rhetoric like that was more common immediately after Roe vs. Wade was passed.

Today, no politician would dare call abortion a sacrament. Instead, it’s, “Oh, abortion is horrible; this is such a complex issue; I believe we have to be very cautious about it; we really can’t take away a woman’s right to choose, though…”

Basically, what I’m saying is this: the pro-life movement has made much rhetorical progress since 1973, if not as much legal progress. Abortion advocates once exulted over the procedure; now, they are so ashamed of it themselves that even they only talk about it in euphemisms.

That’s why you don’t often hear that nasty quote about abortion being a “sacrament” anymore.

Sadly, I’d have to disagree: I think the pendulum is moving the other direction.

Because we [pro-lifers] have had considerable success convincing people that what’s in the womb isn’t ‘mere’ tissue [thanks in large part to ultrasound], most feminists to day are more, not less radical on the issue.

Planned Parenthood Christmas Cards, for instance.

I’ve read many cutting edge feminists [Including Camile Paglia] are embracing the word ‘killing’ to describe abortion now: it is what it is, they say, so deal with it.

What they once defended on ‘hard cases’-- the 12 year old raped by her retarded brother-- they now defend on pure principle: no one other than the mother has a right to an opinion, period.

 

[Dale_M]

A woman has a limit; that’s why egg donors cost way more than sperm donors do.

The difference in cost may have more to do with the drugs, multiple exams and tests, and the surgery which are required for an egg donation.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Sadly, I’d have to disagree: I think the pendulum is moving the other direction.

Because we [pro-lifers] have had considerable success convincing people that what’s in the womb isn’t ‘mere’ tissue [thanks in large part to ultrasound], most feminists to day are more, not less radical on the issue.

Planned Parenthood Christmas Cards, for instance.

I’ve read many cutting edge feminists [Including Camile Paglia] are embracing the word ‘killing’ to describe abortion now: it is what it is, they say, so deal with it.

What they once defended on ‘hard cases’-- the 12 year old raped by her retarded brother-- they now defend on pure principle: no one other than the mother has a right to an opinion, period.

Okay, I see your point. Still, what I said definitely applies to the politicians today - the people actually making and enforcing the laws rather than the “feminist” philosophers who shape their views.

Our new President-elect is a good example. He was described as the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever, yet remember that even he answered Rick Warren’s question about abortion by hem-hawing around the matter, saying it was “above his pay grade,” talking about how difficult the matter is, stating firmly that it is a moral issue, etc. And I don’t think that was mostly because he was in front of an audience of pro-lifers.