Planned Parenthood Offering Free Abortions After Attack

[spentagn]

Re: Weapon X, come out and play (Get it???)

Did we lose Weapon X?
I hope your looking up that definition and having the hard time I know
you will have with it. This ain't no amateur hour here, you're playin' with the
big boys now.

I wouldn't dare argue scripture with you.

Glad to know you're confident of your abilities. I attempted to post earlier regarding something you had said, but Windows ME decided it was tired and needed a nap, so I will address it now.

You suggested I feel that abortionists are Satan's spawn. Rather juvenille of an assumption. I never condemned anyone for having an abortion, or supporting it. I do not "terrorize" anyone. I have not, nor will I ever, protest the right to have an abortion. On the same token, I would not protest if that right were deemed unconstitutional.

You also assumed that I feel that "I've been there." Not so. I am not a woman, so I could never really be faced with the choice. My wife, on the other hand, was waiting in the abortion clinic when she decided to keep our daughter. The appointment had been scheduled by her mother. This same mother had three abortions prior to this.

Also, on a side note, I used the term anti-life in response to another poster using anti-choice. I feel that both are equally absurd.

 

[danielson]

yup

in many respects the fetus is a parasite.


i was always under the impression that the abortion could only take place if the baby was still in the blastocyte stage (i.e. an undifferenciated block of cells)

under thjose conditions it would not have a 'heartbeat' brain, CNS nothing, just a bunch of cells. would i have a child of mine aborted....i wouldnt not use a condom/if it broke make damn sure the girl got a morining after pill....but if somehow this didnt work i can always say id have it. point is when your dream life is just becoming reality and you become prganant there area whole lot of new issues that come into playing. so i support a womans right to choose.

if the father is willing to provide a home for the baby but the mother wants the abortion, i think the baby should be born. thats just a personal thing as a while back there was this case where a woman wanted an abortion, the father said he wanted the child and she pegged it. if one onf the parents want it i dont think there should be an abortion unles there are other considerations (i.e. health).

i also thnk that when a woman does go to the abortion clinic there shjouldnt be hundreds of people in her face shouting abuse at her and throwing images in her face, much less abusing/murdering members of the medical community. that pisses me off so much.

where do pro lifers stand on conraception. if its used the baby would not come to life. hormones can actively prevent a sperm and an egg being able to implant and become a baby. spermicides, copper things, morning after pills, condoms, where do u stand on this? its not rhetorical im really curious?

 

[Weapon X]

I'm all for responsible contraceptive use. I am also prepared for the consequences. And abortion is not an option.

Mrs. Weapon and I had a close call this summer, and we certainly cannot afford another little one. Regardless, even the Bleeding Heart Liberal Mrs. Weapon wasn't going to opt for an abortion, nor was I.
Peace out.

 

[danielson]

its just a lot of pro lifers were annoyed about morining after pills being availible over the counter.

at the endo of the day everyones entitled to their own opinion, but if teenagers arent gonna use a condom at least give them a means to cut down on our huge teenage pregnancy

 

[MommaKin]

I read some of the posts here...did anybody mention rape?
It's the females body, and in the end, it should be her choice. Unless the father is in the picture, then he should have a say too, but, in the end it should be the woman's choice. Sure, women should be more responsible in using precautions during intercourse to help rpevent pregnancy, but, if she does get pregnant and she decides to get an abortion, maybe that's a good choice then. Maybe she knows she can't take care of it or love it like it needs to be loved. And don't even bring up carrying a baby to full term and giving it up for adoption cause IMO, it would be easier to have an abortion at 6weeks pregnancy then to carry it a full term 40weeks and then give it away.
Althoguh we are far from rich, the neighbourhood we live in is wealthy. 98% of the ppl that live ehre have these big ass houses, drive 2 or 3 new expensive vehicles and they all have Nannies.....some even live-in......I take my kids to the park and alls I see are kids and their Nannies....why do these ppl have kids? It's beyond me.....

 

[satanic goatslayer]

Boiled fetuses make a good complement to pickled pancreases and liver pate.

 

[thebabydoc]

Boiled fetuses make a good complement to pickled pancreases and liver pate.

Maybe with fava beans, but do you have a preference as to gestational age?

Spentagn: If that is the case, then you are playing by the rules and my comments do not apply to your posts. the only comment made which pertained to you is that, even though you might have been at the clinic and made the decision to keep your little girl, that does not put you in the shoes of a single, unmarried 16 year-old girl.

It was not my "suggestion" that you feel anything.... It's not all about you Spent, baby.
It WAS my suggestion that "anti-abortionists" feel..etc... big difference. You present
yourself as against abortion but not as an anti-abortionist or pro-lifer. There is a
big difference, and if you look through all my posts on this thread, you will see that
I keep driving home that distinction. So once again: it is ok to be against abortion
and express that opinion, I 100% respect that. It is not ok to be anti-abortion and
attempt to impose these beliefs on others.

 

[Weapon X]

It is not ok to be anti-abortion and attempt to impose these beliefs on others.

Au contraire, mon frere.

1.) If one feels very strongly that Abortion is more than just wrong - that it is a crime against humanity, then one has a duty to make that point to others. To stand back and allow what one considers to be murder to occur at a rate of millions per year, is hypocrisy of the highest order.
2.) It could be argued that your posts in this thread are seeking to "impose" your beliefs on others, babydoc. Why else debate if not to expose others to your reasoning and feelings? (Unless I am misunderstanding your usage of the word "impose.")

Would you agee that it is wrong for Gun Control advocates to attempt to 'impose' their beliefs on others by lobbying for Gun Control legislation?

Not a flame, honest curiousity.

 

[Delinquent]

Well if this would make you guys feel better my ex decided to have an abortion when we were 16. You're supposed to wait to have sex for a while after the operation but being the horny little teens we were we fu**ed a few days later and what do you know I had this lumpy shiot on my di*k. Needless to say we called it junior. Oh yea I'm one happy atheist too.

 

[N-10-CITY]

I just love "pro-lifers" who bitch about the killing of a fetus but are pro capital punishment. They're the best kind of hypocrites. And even better is that most of them are Christians. Christianity - the religion that preaches tolerance and forgiveness and that the only person who should pass the ultimate judgement is God him/herself. And yet they fight relentlessly to justify their stance. All the while they can't without either compromising their pro-life stance or their religious convictions.

 

[thebabydoc]

Au contraire, mon frere.

1.) If one feels very strongly that Abortion is more than just wrong - that it is a crime against humanity, then one has a duty to make that point to others. To stand back and allow what one considers to be murder to occur at a rate of millions per year, is hypocrisy of the highest order.
2.) It could be argued that your posts in this thread are seeking to "impose" your beliefs on others, babydoc. Why else debate if not to expose others to your reasoning and feelings? (Unless I am misunderstanding your usage of the word "impose.")

Would you agee that it is wrong for Gun Control advocates to attempt to 'impose' their beliefs on others by lobbying for Gun Control legislation?

Not a flame, honest curiousity.

Hmmmmmm where to start???

1) But to murder those responsible is hypocrisy on an order of magnitude higher. Go and try to change the laws then, do not resort to the same tools as terrorists (please don't ask me to expound on this). When the majority agrees with you, it will be the law. And abortions will still go on... I'll be in my new Lamborghini, many poor women will die at the hands of street abortionists, even more will die during childbirth, and there will be thousands upon thousands of genetically malformed, unwanted children to be cared for by society. What a sweeeet victory that would be!!

1a) So if I feel very strongly that something should be a crime, say breastfeeding in public, (Lewd and indecent conduct), I have a duty to squash it by any means necessary? Maybe go out and throw red paint on women breastfeeding in public or show them the latest centerfolds from Hustler and Cue?!! The justification you are using is that you feel strongly that it should be a crime?

2) Actually, it could not be argued, although I'm sure you'd give it a good run. That's just plain twisting of words and trickery. How could I hope to "impose" (meaning to force another to do what I want) my belief that one should be free to do what they want so long as it is within the realm of the law? I can't force you to believe something; I can only educate you with the facts and also let you see where and how you've been deceived and blinded.

3 [not numbered]) Again, trying to introduce a non-sequitor, but I will bite. They lobby for gun control legislation, they do not picket, intimidate, and scare people who are merely exercising their rights under the law. Also, if you want to get technical, gun control advocates might have a teeny weeny point in that the lack of gun control may pose an immediate physical danger to them.

next "question"?

 

[spentagn]

Spentagn: If that is the case, then you are playing by the rules and my comments do not apply to your posts. the only comment made which pertained to you is that, even though you might have been at the clinic and made the decision to keep your little girl, that does not put you in the shoes of a single, unmarried 16 year-old girl.

No, I definitely was not in those shoes. But the mother was 18, in highschool, and unmarried. Not the best of circumstances, and definitely a likely case for abortion.

 

[Warik]

I just love "pro-lifers" who bitch about the killing of a fetus but are pro capital punishment. They're the best kind of hypocrites.

Really? I thought "pro-choicers" who bitch about the execution of CONVICTED, DANGEROUS CRIMINALS, but a pro-kill-innocent-child were the best kind of hypocrites.

I guess we learn something new every day.

-Warik

 

[thebabydoc]

Warik, here we go again with the words "kill", "innocent", and "child", none of which apply to abortion. If you want to play that way, try "remove non-viable fetus".

also,

We much prefer the term "pro-what's-legal-under-the-law(yers)"

 

[thebabydoc]

Can we hear from some women?

Smallmovesal, Star, Azia, Spatt....

I know the numbers, step up to the plate and speak from the heart.

 

[Warik]

We much prefer the term "pro-what's-legal-under-the-law(yers)"

Incorrect.

Try: "What has been unconstitutionally ruled legal by the Federal Government despite the fact that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that issues not explicitly accounted for in the Constitution are left up to the states."

I'm not going to argue the issue of abortion any longer. Anyone who could possibly be in agreement with the termination of innocent life clearly lacks the mental capacity for an intelligent conversation. If it's so OK to perform abortions, why isn't it OK to systematically terminate all of the parasitic life that infests our country today, i.e. teenage single moms and drunk ex-boyfriends?

-Warik

 

[huntmaster]

1)
What would it then be called when one kills another living, breathing, self-sustaining
human being, e.g. a gynecologist?

2) What is your response to those who:
a) did not chose to have sex (incest, rape) or
b) chose to use effective contraception (IUD's, injection, surgery) yet failed?

"tough luck, you have no choice?"

You have the right to be anti-abortion and not have one.
But no one has the right to force their views on anyone else, no matter how strongly
they may feel about them. That is what makes this country what it is.
To try to justify and rationalize forcing one's beliefs on others by attaching a legal term like "murder" to them in an attempt to define the act as illegal is not one
bit more valid than to call premarital sex "lewd conduct" in an attempt to outlaw it.

Yeah thats what I did didn't I? I tried to force my beliefs on you!

I wish I had a nickle for every time I have seen that here and on other boards. Its a copout. instead why dont you just say that you dont agree and state your opinion.

Every one should be welcome to express their thoughts here. Whether they agree with you or not.

And oh yeah, if someone kills a doctor--that is murder too. Dont group me in with those people that bomb clinics. Thats no different than grouping all Middle Eastern people together.


I am against abortion in all cases.

 

[thebabydoc]

Yeah thats what I did didn't I? I tried to force my beliefs on you!
I wish I had a nickle for every time I have seen that here and on other boards. Its a copout. instead why dont you just say that you dont agree and state your opinion.
Every one should be welcome to express their thoughts here. Whether they agree with you or not.
And oh yeah, if someone kills a doctor--that is murder too. Dont group me in with those people that bomb clinics. Thats no different than grouping all Middle Eastern people together.
I am against abortion in all cases.

Since you clearly haven't bothered to read along Huntmoron, I'll repeat this for you once again...

Don't take my comments out of the context in which they were made. Those comments obviously and clearly refer to so-called "pro-lifers" who harass women trying to get abortions, post phony or exaggerated pictures, and yes, even resort to violence to get the world to abide by their beliefs. Your stating your beliefs is not forcing your beliefs on anyone and no one would claim that. Just as I noted before to Weapon X, it's a losing argument. It's simple to try to grab on to this "copout" to deflect from the real question, the anti-abortion ACTIVISTS.
So once again, if your only statement is that you are against abortion in all cases, well, more power to you for your beliefs and I hope you stick to them if the opportunity arises.
I will, however tell you that there's a 50% chance that you won't.

 

[thebabydoc]

Incorrect.

Try: "What has been unconstitutionally ruled legal by the Federal Government despite the fact that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that issues not explicitly accounted for in the Constitution are left up to the states."

I'm not going to argue the issue of abortion any longer. Anyone who could possibly be in agreement with the termination of innocent life clearly lacks the mental capacity for an intelligent conversation. If it's so OK to perform abortions, why isn't it OK to systematically terminate all of the parasitic life that infests our country today, i.e. teenage single moms and drunk ex-boyfriends?

1) "Unconstitutionally ruled?" according to whom, you? Congratulations on your appointment to the bench. And it's not the federal government, it was the Supreme Court. The court has been given the power to rule on the constitution and its application and it has done so. On multiple occasions. I don't even want to get into all the end runs at the law the anti-abortionists have tried- consents for women under the age of x, 24 hour waiting periods, etc...yet they have all failed because the law is clear.

2) Once again, you continue to incorrectlyand deliberately make the jump from living, breathing beings to a fetus. "teenage single moms and drunk ex-boyfriends" are still living humans, just as any already born "unwanted" child is. An 8 week fetus is not. Should we kill these people? Well for one, that is illegal, it's called murder. The law is clear on that, too. So I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to give you no credit on that one yet again. You cannot equate a fetus with a living, breathing human being. No matter how many times you rephrase it or come back with this argument IT WILL NEVER BE VALID because a fetus is not a viable human being until 24 weeks. The law has determined that and that's just how it is. Whether you agree or not, that is the criteria the law uses and therefore you cannot refer to it as "murder" or "innocent life". Innocent tissue, maybe, life, no.

3) And there it is again, the ultimate defense for those who have no facts, only emotion to back them up...." Anyone who could possibly be in agreement with the termination of innocent life clearly lacks the mental capacity for an intelligent conversation" I guess if you say so that, too must be a fact. We don't agree with you so clearly we lack the mental capacity for an intelligent conversation. It actually seems to me that your suggestion that it be ok to kill "teenage single moms and drunk ex-boyfriends" advocates the taking of innocent life. By the way, is "innocent life" any better than "sinful life?" Good point.

 

[Weapon X]

babydoc, I'm not going to argue the issue any longer, but I must take exception to your lumping me in with those who shoot abortion doctors.

1.) Never have I advocated the killing of abortion doctors.
2.) Never have I advocated using unlawful means to educate people about Pro-Life issues.
3.) There is a tremendous difference between Jeffrey Dahmer and a pre-born human.
By committing murder as defined within US Law, Jeffrey Dahmer gave up his right to life.
He was an adult and made decisions that he knew could result in his forfeit of some basic human rights.
A pre-born human does not deserve to be killed.

All I am arguing is that you stop lumping me in with extremists and terrorists. Our views differ, and mine are as rational and valuable as yours. I was Pro-Life before I became a Bible Believer, so I don't know why you keep making this a religious issue.

I believe that a pre-born human is exactly that: a human being. You do not.
You have not convinced me otherwise; nor do I expect to convince you. Your M.D. does not make you any more qualified to make ethical decisions than any of the rest of us.

 

[gymnpoppa]

Bdoc, wX, Warik,

Interesting angles, valuable points to consider from each of you....making a very good debate......all we need now is some female input from one of our EF Ladies.

 

[MommaKin]

umm im a female and i made a post......sorry if im not the female you wanted to hear from...
fuckin ingrates

 

[gymnpoppa]

MKin

I know you posted.....earlier, I heard what you were saying in your posts, I was just wanting more input...ya know...ongoing....just bring it, if you care to.....you're the only one who's posted lately in this thread.....I assumed you were speaking for yourself, like everybody else. Not all females.

 

[thebabydoc]

umm im a female and i made a post......sorry if im not the female you wanted to hear from...
fuckin ingrates

Then change your f*cking avatar and show us some skin so we can tell!!

 

[Weapon X]

Helping Out in NYC
Planned Parenthood answers the call.

By Kathryn Jean Lopez, NRO Executive Editor
September 24, 2001 10:15 a.m.


We all try to chip in any way we can.

After the attack on the World Trade Center, New Yorkers offered their talents and services to the relief effort. Emergency workers, construction workers, and other men with the fortitude helped recover what would too often turn out to be dead bodies and human body parts from the rubble. Churches opened their doors for people who wanted to pray and to residents of lower Manhattan displaced by the attack. Restaurants and delis throughout the city provided free food to rescue workers.

And Planned Parenthood of New York City (PPNYC) has been providing New York City women with "complete reproductive health care… free of cost." Services include birth control, emergency contraception, and abortion.

The idea isn't completely original. For years, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has turned natural disasters and wars into opportunities to end more lives, passing out "reproductive health kits" in refugee camps and among victims of tragedy.

Too bad they're just answering one tragedy with another.


http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment092401.shtml

 

[dballer]

That is horrible and disturbing. One tragedy after another, most fitting for that article.

 

[polarpixie]

Just makes me wonder what their reasoning for doing this would be? It would make some sense since many businesses or different types of health care services are offering free services to help ease any financial burdens on top of emotional distress, and Planned Parenthood is simply jumping in the bandwagon to show their support. But it also makes me wonder if they may be opportunists taking advantage of the situation in order to propel their own agendas.

While I'm not going to touch on abortion rights vs. wrongs, it is kind of scary that by offering FREE abortions, the number of abortions performed may increase, because I bet there are many people who hadn't considered an abortion prior to the tragedy...but now their mindset might be that it would be a worse horror to bring new life into this messed up world, and since it would be free and easily accessible, they're more likely to make a rash and impulsive decision....

Right or wrong, people are gonna do what they want and make their own choices....hopefully intelligent enough to make educated choices anyway...

 

[thebabydoc]

Then change your f*cking avatar and show us some skin so we can tell!!

Oh Baby! looks like I got what I asked for!!!!!