Planned Parenthood Changes Its Stripes

[KnightofChrist]

She's not the only woman to die because she was not able to have an abortion.

Still you shouldn't be a jackhole and rudely use their deaths to mock pro-lifers. Like you did with f Savita Halappanavar.

[4588686]

Still you shouldn't be a jackhole and rudely use their deaths to mock pro-lifers. Like you did with f Savita Halappanavar.

 

 

 

I'm not referencing her dead because I get lols over thinking about dead Indian women.  I referenced it in response to the attempt to decouple abortion from reproductive health.  It's not.  There are cases when women will die without getting an abortion.  

[Basilisa Marie]

Yes, I am. I'm simply pointing out to you a large part of it is based on feeling not actual evidence. When someone offers evidence against your argument you blow it off as 'oh they don't really mean that." It sure as heck does matter! It's what they believe! This action shows, based on their own reasoning and words, that they didn't want to provide abortions on site because they already have plenty of partners to refer abortions too. Nothing has changed. That is an assumption. They say the remain totally committed to reducing unwanted pregnancies and advocating the culture of death. You say somehow they don't even though they state otherwise. I hope you're right. But they say their just changing their name not who they are.

 

1) It's no more based on feeling than yours is.  And I'm not feeling.  I'm inferring.  Inductive reasoning.  You're doing the exact same thing. 

2) I'm not blowing off WHAT they're saying.  I AGREE with you that what they're saying hasn't changed.  

3) Their ideology has no bearing on my argument because...

4) You're talking about their ideology and intention. I'm talking about their actions, the results of those actions, and what those results mean for people like you and me.  

5) I never said that they AREN'T advocating the culture of death.  I'm saying that they aren't ACTIVELY INCREASING IT in the SAME WAY as Planned Parenthood.  While Planned Parenthood asked for an increase in abortion services, they said no. 

6) It doesn't matter why they said no.  The fact that they said no is better than saying "sure, we'll stay with the parent company and offer more abortion services."  What I've been arguing over and over again is that this is a good thing...and that the pope would agree with me.  

I say it's a good thing because it's way easier to argue with someone with whom you have common ground.  Some pro-lifers care about womens' health.  Some just care about ending abortion.  Some pro-choicers care about women's health.  Some just care about increasing abortion rights.  If you get pro-lifers and pro-choicers together who both care about womens' health, then they have some kind of common ground, they can begin to understand each other, and it's easier to convince someone of your position.  People with no common ground (merely anti-abortion/pro-abortion) will only talk past each other, and you end in a perpetual stalemate...

 

...like we are right now because we're talking past each other.  You're talking about ideologies.  I'm talking about actions.  

 

I wouldn't bother repeating myself over and over and over again, but I don't think you understand what I'm saying.  I don't care if I convince you. I already told you that I understand what you're saying and respect your opinion.  I just don't think I'm being understood. 

 

 

I'm not referencing her dead because I get lols over thinking about dead Indian women.  I referenced it in response to the attempt to decouple abortion from reproductive health.  It's not.  There are cases when women will die without getting an abortion.  

 

I decoupled them purposefully because of the audience around here.  Obviously there are cases and perspectives where abortion can be considered a part of reproductive health.  But saying so is going to get what I'm saying even more ignored in this thread than it already is. 

Edited December 7, 2012 by Basilisa Marie

[Basilisa Marie]

It would seem to be a step in the right direction, however, I believe we are right to remain vigilant and not afford the 'new organization' our direct support and open praise.

 

We can recognize the step forward without so much as giving our endorsement.

 

Hey look, another person gets it. 

Here's the thing:

 

Is "Family Planning" evil? Yes.

 

Is Planned Parenthood evil? Yes.

 

Are they both evil only because they provide unrestricted access to abortion and contraception? No.

 

Planned Parenthood is exceedingly evil in that they actively support a thinly veiled eugenics agenda and also because they are a huge bully and tend to force themselves and their policies upon others.

 

By Family Planning breaking off from the evil behemoth of Planned Parenthood, this is a small step in minimizing the breadth of Planned Parenthood's "dominion." That is a good thing. It also means that even the non pro-life folks are getting fed up with their bully tactics - that is also a good thing. That doesn't mean the Family Planning is a good organization, but inherently by them splitting off it shows some grumbling and dissension among the ranks. If we want to beat anyone, it is much easier to do when they are squabbling among themselves than when they are a unified front.

 

...and another one!  

[Ice_nine]

"I just donated my last paycheck to "Family Planning" is applause of their latest news and commitment to pro-life issues,"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

replied no one.

[add]

"I just donated my last paycheck to "Family Planning" is applause of their latest news and commitment to pro-life issues,"




FAIL











replied no one.

[KnightofChrist]

I'm not referencing her dead because I get lols over thinking about dead Indian women.  I referenced it in response to the attempt to decouple abortion from reproductive health.  It's not.  There are cases when women will die without getting an abortion.  

 

I don't care if you didn't do it for the lulz, the way you used Savita Halappanavar to make your original point was both sick, rude and disrespectful to Pro-lifers and Savita Halappanavar.

[4588686]

I don't care if you didn't do it for the lulz, the way you used Savita Halappanavar to make your original point was both sick, rude and disrespectful to Pro-lifers and Savita Halappanavar.

 

Should the doctors have performed the abortion on her if she requested it and the procedure would have saved her life and the fetus was not viable?  

[4588686]

 

I decoupled them purposefully because of the audience around here.  Obviously there are cases and perspectives where abortion can be considered a part of reproductive health.  But saying so is going to get what I'm saying even more ignored in this thread than it already is. 

 

I understand your intentions.  I'm just sick of people having to tip toe around the sensibilities of people who live in a world where only loose girls need abortions and really a baby is a nice reminder to them to keep their legs closed next time.  

 

Abortion and birth control are good things for women.  Their advent has helped an, in the developing world, continues to help women break out of the position that treats them like nothing more than 

 

LANGUAGE LANGUAGE LANGUAGE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​an orifice in need of male occupation so babies can be churned out.  Of, as the scriptures put it, But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.  I'm sick of people who think that the highest virtue for a woman is to be a submissive wife trying to determine how and what women do with their bodies.  If somebody cannot even admit that abortion is a difficult moral question then they're thinking with unwarranted faith rather than reason and they need to keep their unfounded opinions out of legislation that dictates how other people live.  

[KnightofChrist]

1) It's no more based on feeling than yours is.  And I'm not feeling.  I'm inferring.  Inductive reasoning.  You're doing the exact same thing. '

 

There's only one problem with that, it isn't true. I'm using their own testimony and their actions as proof and your saying that it's just P.R. without any real evidence to back that claim up.

 

2) I'm not blowing off WHAT they're saying.  I AGREE with you that what they're saying hasn't changed.  

 

But you don't believe they actually believe what they say, it's just PR to you, even though you've got no evidence that it's just PR. I want to believe it is just P.R. I don't see evidence for this however.

 

3) Their ideology has no bearing on my argument because...

4) You're talking about their ideology and intention. I'm talking about their actions, the results of those actions, and what those results mean for people like you and me.  

 

Yes, their ideology does have bearing on your argument, reason tells me what they say the believe is what they believe and what they believe will effect their actions in favor of what they believe. Continuing to refer abortions to their partners is an action, offering the abortion morning after pill is an action, remaining totally committed and advocating the culture of death is an action.

 

5) I never said that they AREN'T advocating the culture of death.  I'm saying that they aren't ACTIVELY INCREASING IT in the SAME WAY as Planned Parenthood.  While Planned Parenthood asked for an increase in abortion services, they said no. 

 

I understand that but what I've been trying to point out is that other than the name change there is no real change here. They continue on as they did before. They are no less evil.

 

6) It doesn't matter why they said no.  The fact that they said no is better than saying "sure, we'll stay with the parent company and offer more abortion services."  What I've been arguing over and over again is that this is a good thing...and that the pope would agree with me. 

 

It does matter why they said no, if it was just business it lessens the good, and their is evidence that it was just business. And I have agreed that it is good that they did not start offering abortions on site. But that that good and any happiness I can have for it is over shadowed and made void by the fact they really aren't changing their ways.

 

Their position is "We do not and will not offer abortions on site (that's good), but we will still gladly help murder babies and refer you to one of our partners to have an abortion or you can buy some of our abortion morning after pills. (that's bad and it does void the good greatly)"

 

It is also good that they broke off main ties with P.P. but that good is also made void by the fact they remain allies with P.P. for the same cause. It would be like if one of the Nazi's camps decided not to kill unwanted persons on site, and formed their own nation. That would be good. But say other than that they changed nothing, they continued to gladly send unwanted persons to other death camps or offer their captor a pill that would easily kill the unwanted persons. The good of disassociation and not killing persons on site  is overshadowed and made void by the evil of gladly sending them off somewhere else to be murdered or offering a pill on site that would kill them.

 

I say it's a good thing because it's way easier to argue with someone with whom you have common ground.  Some pro-lifers care about womens' health.  Some just care about ending abortion.  Some pro-choicers care about women's health.  Some just care about increasing abortion rights.  If you get pro-lifers and pro-choicers together who both care about womens' health, then they have some kind of common ground, they can begin to understand each other, and it's easier to convince someone of your position.  People with no common ground (merely anti-abortion/pro-abortion) will only talk past each other, and you end in a perpetual stalemate...

 

...like we are right now because we're talking past each other.  You're talking about ideologies.  I'm talking about actions.  

 

Again I am also talking about actions, as well as ideologies. I want what you say and hope about them to be true, I just don't see the evidence. I do not see any evidence that they do not remain totally committed to the culture of death the same exact way they did before the name change.

 

I wouldn't bother repeating myself over and over and over again, but I don't think you understand what I'm saying.  I don't care if I convince you. I already told you that I understand what you're saying and respect your opinion.  I just don't think I'm being understood. 

 

I believe I do understand you, I want to hope that your hope is right, I do care about your attempt to convince me, and you probably could if you had some evidence to back up claims like it's just P.R. I really do want to believe it is just P.R. but I don't have anything other than hope to believe that.

[KnightofChrist]

Should the doctors have performed the abortion on her if she requested it and the procedure would have saved her life and the fetus was not viable?  

 

I'm sure the answer is easy for you, kill the child save the mother. But since I respect both of their rights to existence, it is not so easy for me. Because we cannot do evil so good may come from it. Your question is something like when a bad guy in a movie asks the good guy pick one of these two innocent people you want to live and I will kill the other. If the death of the baby wasn't purposefully intended but rather an unintended side effect in the primary objective to save the mothers life, that would be acceptable.

[4588686]

I'm sure the answer is easy for you, kill the child save the mother. But since I respect both of their rights to existence, it is not so easy for me. Because we cannot do evil so good may come from it. Your question is something like when a bad guy in a movie asks the good guy pick one of these two innocent people you want to live and I will kill the other. If the death of the baby wasn't purposefully intended but rather an unintended side effect in the primary objective to save the mothers life, that would be acceptable.

 

That's not the situation that was described here and the one I am asking you to address.  The fetus will not survive.  But it will have to be aborted so she can receive immediate treatment. 

 

And I already know the answer.  No.  The abortion is not permissible.  So you'd throw her on the sacrificial pyre and let her die.  Just one more burnt offering to your unmerited faith.  So please, don't talk to me about respecting her memory.  I want her to be alive.  Not murdered for the sake of Catholicism's ideological purity.  And I don't apologize for confronting this discussion with the brutality of her ordeal or the triviality of the factors that prevented her from receiving potentially life saving treatment.  Talking roughly about a grim and ugly thing isn't disrespecting her.  Throwing away her life for no good reason except for a pretentious moral purity certainly is.  

Edited December 7, 2012 by Hasan

[KnightofChrist]

That's not the situation that was described here and the one I am asking you to address. The fetus will not survive. But it will have to be aborted so she can receive immediate treatment.

The later part of my previous answer is still my answer.

[4588686]

The later part of my previous answer is still my answer.

 

See above.

[KnightofChrist]

And I already know the answer. No. The abortion is not permissible. So you'd throw her on the sacrificial pyre and let her die. Just one more burnt offering to your unmerited faith. So please, don't talk to me about respecting her memory. I want her to be alive. Not murdered for the sake of Catholicism's ideological purity. And I don't apologize for confronting this discussion with the brutality of her ordeal or the triviality of the factors that prevented her from receiving potentially life saving treatment. Talking roughly about a grim and ugly thing isn't disrespecting her. Throwing away her life for no good reason except for a pretentious moral purity certainly is.

Nope, that's still a sick use of a dead woman to twist the position and mock pro-lifers to push your leftist political beliefs. You wouldn't give a damn if her mother had aborted her for no other reason than she was unwanted. So your want that she be alive is relative and conditional.

I gave you the actual answer to your question. I would approve of any means to save the mother's life so long as the intent is not to kill the child, even if that is an unfortunate side effect. Edited December 7, 2012 by KnightofChrist