What Planned Parenthood Does (Page 4): Look at all the wonderful things the Egyptians built. The pyramids, the Sphinx, the elaborate tombs. They were once a great and mighty nation.

cSc61 Loc: Austin

PaulPisces wrote:

With all the attention on Planned Parenthood it's worth noting where they focus is on their services.

Look at all the wonderful things the Egyptians built. The pyramids, the Sphinx, the elaborate tombs. They were once a great and mighty nation. Ok, so maybe they ens***ed an entire peoples for 400 years, but hey, imagine what wouldn't have been accomplished without them. If Conservatives could have had their way 3000 years ago, they would have wanted to eliminate all construction everywhere. Who would be left to make the bricks?!

What a stupid, soulless argument!! Let me see if I understand ... we need to continue funding the wholesale slaughter of the unborn because hey, it's only 3% of what PP does. And, if we defund them, think of all the wonderful work in contraception and screening services that would disappear from the earth.

I'm sorry but this has to be one of the most asinine posts I've seen on OPP in quite a while. If you don't have a problem destroying life in or out of the womb, just own it. Stop hiding this a*********n behind some delusional, disingenuous pretext of good works.

Hitler may have slaughtered 6 million Jews, and sure that's not great, but look at the wonderful autobahns he built. Where would the Germany people be today if he weren't allowed to continue his life's work ... Sheesh!! Really Paul?!

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

A lot of folks on OPP are interpreting a lot of things from my simple post of how PP's services break out.

To be clear, my stance on a******n is that it is probably the most difficult decision a woman ever has to make, but it is between her, her doctor and, should she be so inclined, God. I may not understand or always agree with the choices women may make, but it remains their choice. And I have a firm sense that if men were the ones who carried fetuses to term we would not be having this discussion at all.

It's beyond me why conservatives are so uncomfortable with this issue but happily accept the unfair consequences of war, poverty and lack of education that are visited upon millions of innocent children in the world. I smell hypocrisy.

VladimirPee

So you think aborting a baby in month 8 or 9 is acceptable? It is proven that they are living , developed and viable.

PaulPisces wrote:

A lot of folks on OPP are interpreting a lot of th... (show quote)

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

DennisDee wrote:

So you think aborting a baby in month 8 or 9 is acceptable? It is proven that they are living , developed and viable.

Considering that I've already stated the decision to abort is between a woman, her doctor and God I don't think my opinion matters and is moot.

I'd be interested to know your position on the "collateral damage" of indeed very viable innocent children lost in war.
Because of their deaths do you lobby against war?

My guess is you think it is OK to lose some innocent lives but not others. Can you advise the appropriate criteria??

VladimirPee

Not sure I see the analogy between war and murder of a fully viable and fully developed baby in its final months.

PaulPisces wrote:

Considering that I've already stated the decision to abort is between a woman, her doctor and God I don't think my opinion matters and is moot.

I'd be interested to know your position on the "collateral damage" of indeed very viable innocent children lost in war.
Because of their deaths do you lobby against war?

My guess is you think it is OK to lose some innocent lives but not others. Can you advise the appropriate criteria??

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

DennisDee wrote:

Not sure I see the analogy between war and murder of a fully viable and fully developed baby in its final months.

That's my whole point Dennis. You do not see both as the immoral k*****g of innocent children.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

This is why it's a waste of time to argue with libs. He's trying to equate war with selling fetal tissue. Can be hundreds of reasons for a war. His argument makes it sound like if you're against selling fetal parts you are for war.

DennisDee wrote:

Not sure I see the analogy between war and murder of a fully viable and fully developed baby in its final months.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

JFlorio wrote:

This is why it's a waste of time to argue with libs. He's trying to equate war with selling fetal tissue. Can be hundreds of reasons for a war. His argument makes it sound like if you're against selling fetal parts you are for war.

Please re-read my posts JFlorio.

My point is that the war/a******n construct reveals that conservatives often are quite comfortable choosing which innocent children die; they just don't want women making that decision when it concerns what's going on in the women's own bodies.

VladimirPee

There are reasons. For example during WW2 there was simply no way of avoiding it. The alternative was surrender to the N**i's.

PaulPisces wrote:

That's my whole point Dennis. You do not see both as the immoral k*****g of innocent children.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

That's crap. I know no conservatives comfortable with innocents dying. It happens in war. Any group that would target children even in a war would be condemned, and should be. They would be and should be (such as (ISSIS) named war criminals. You say the decision has to be made by the woman the doctor and the fetus. Oh that's right, the future human life has no v**e so you believe he/ she would v**e to be k**led so not to inconvenience mom and dad.

PaulPisces wrote:

Please re-read my posts JFlorio.

My point is that the war/a******n construct reveals that conservatives often are quite comfortable choosing which innocent children die; they just don't want women making that decision when it concerns what's going on in the women's own bodies.

Workinman Loc: Bayou Pigeon

PeterS wrote:

No it's not. That's how research on fetal disease's are done you and it's perfectly legal. Fetal tissue was used to develop the Polio and Rubella v*****es, used to develop cancer treatments, immunology, and t***splantation. Christ, have you people never been out in the real world?

It's been used legally in medical research for decades. You really should check to see if you are being a dumbass before calling someone a dumbass--dumbass!!!

You should really check and see if using tax payer money to perform a******ns is legal, then while your at it check and see if it's legal to sell those poor babies parts...you vile animal.

Ricktloml

JFlorio wrote:

That's crap. I know no conservatives comfortable with innocents dying. It happens in war. Any group that would target children even in a war would be condemned, and should be. They would be and should be (such as (ISSIS) named war criminals. You say the decision has to be made by the woman the doctor and the fetus. Oh that's right, the future human life has no v**e so you believe he/ she would v**e to be k**led so not to inconvenience mom and dad.

I always thought that a******n should be legal if every child condemned to die for the crime of conception got to appeal his or her sentence like every other condemned felon

Workinman Loc: Bayou Pigeon

Anigav6969 wrote:

Their federal funding is not to be used toward a******n....that's the law

Thank you and that is why the lying and spinning...the animals don't want to lose tax payer money...they get to much of a kick out of using the money of people who are against a******n...making us complicit in this monstrous a*********n.

Workinman Loc: Bayou Pigeon

DennisDee wrote:

Selling baby parts is d********g. Close em down

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Workinman Loc: Bayou Pigeon

PoppaGringo wrote:

They want to do away with providing for baby k*****g. They make enough money to be more than self-supporting, they make a profit. Why do they need 300, or is it 500, millions of dollars from the taxpayer's?

I think it's more like 2 billion, if I remember right.