Pro-life group targets funding for Planned Parenthood

Oh good, more cannon fodder for the next Republican administration to send to die in the sands of the Middle East fighting for Israel and Big Oil.

I have thought about this all AM and have come to a conclusion that, while I suspect the majority of those writing comments against the pro-life position might be Democrats, there is another reason for their comments than the idea that the government should pay for everything.
When I suggest that those who think a woman has a right to an abortion, even if she can't pay for it, send her the money themselves, it's repugnant, isn't it? I mean, who wants to know for sure that their cash paid for an abortion? So what we do is pursue the human nature cop-out line. If we make the "government" pay for abortions, we can forget that the money comes from the pockets of real people like you and me--that we are, indeed, forking over cash for abortions. It's kind of like firing squads where only one person out of ten has the real, live bullet and no one knows who that was. We can all claim lack of responsibility for the deaths of babies. But they go on dying . . .

2/3's of all pregnancies are unplanned, yes? But many, many women (and men) rejoice at the news anyway. It just means they did not consciously intend to expand their family that week. Maybe their child comes several months or a year earlier than they would have wished, but they are flexible and accommodate that (there was no birth control, to speak of, before about 1960 so that was a normal way of doing business back then).
Again, I am *not* saying I will regulate another person's abortion. That is between that woman (and man) and God. What I am saying, for about the fourth time, is that I will never approve of using my taxpayer $$$ to pay for it. Somehow, ya'll keep coming back with the statement that I am denying other women abortions. No, I am staying out of their way as long as they pay for abortions themselves (or collect funds from those of you who are afraid they should abort the child so they won't abuse it).

I never said all so-called "undesirables" should get abortions; I myself wouldn't be here then, & bad parents can be of any color or class. I first & foremost am for planning & contraception, but 2/3 of ALL pregnancies are unplanned. So then what? I DO believe a child is better aborted than had by a woman who doesn't want &/or can't care for it. Statistically such children often are unhappy & maladjusted, & they don't fare well in many aspects of life. Many do end up as strains on society or their family. However, ONLY the pregnant woman can really know what life she can provide for her child, so ONLY she should make the final choice. Whatever her choice, PP will get her the help she needs. They provide MANY valuable services, & deserve our support.

"It just isn't enough for the aborto-centrics to make us stand by and witness the murder of babies, it must be rubbed in our faces by making us accomplices."

Yet Don, Mary and their fellow supposed pro-lifers just stood by mostly silently while living baby Sun Hudson was deliberately killed against the mother's wishes because he was an inconvenience to the state.

Pro-life is a myth.

You and Mary said so.
Don: "But some things are not subject to compromise."
Mary: "Planned Parenthood knows that pro-lifers will not compromise"
Seems pretty clear to me. But you can reduce abortions legally by family planning and education. So don't say you there is nothing you can do. You, of all people, should realize that it would be more effective to reduce and even eliminate abortions that way rather than at the point of a gun from the government; all that does is push the procedure underground. The right to life movement has a long history of sabotaging any family planning funding because it may contain provisions for abortion. And even if it doesn't, they view many birth control methods to be abortifacient drugs and refuse to budge. So, in the end, more abortions take place. Kind of ironic that the "all or nothing" stance encourages the very procedure that they are trying to eliminate. I gather you do not see abortion as infanticide before 10 weeks of gestation, so I assume you are ok with birth control methods that prevent implantation of fertilized eggs.

We have already conceded that we have no legal way to prevent someone from having an abortion, even though we see it as infanticide.

Is it not enough that we can't prevent abortions? Is it necessary to force us to participate by funding them?

How is it that we are the ones who are not willing to compromise?

It just isn't enough for the aborto-centrics to make us stand by and witness the murder of babies, it must be rubbed in our faces by making us accomplices.

It is not from the political right that fascism arises.

I really don't expect PP to compromise--I just want to expose the hypocrisy of collecting government $$$ for "birth control and education" while making more money, down the hall, from providing abortions, partially, however small a percentage, at government expense.
It is safer to get abortions at hospitals (just as some people recently stated that home births are dangerous, in a related discussion), but PP makes their money primarily from the times when birth control fails or is not used. I don't think it is right for them to provide both services in the same facility and, as long as even one penny of taxpayer money goes to supporting their abortions, I will never see ground for pro-lifers to compromise with them.

Don, I have never stated my position on abortion, but it is interesting to see the inferences drawn that I am willing to kill babies just because I am trying to find a middle ground. No question this is an emotional topic that allows for little agreement among the various positions.
Mary, you have put into words what I have felt is the biggest sticking point in the whole debate: "Planned Parenthood knows that pro-lifers will not compromise--that compromise will have to be on their part when they end their abortion providing services and only provide education and birth control." Why do pro-lifers, then, expect the pro-choice camp to give in at all? I think most Americans would like to see and end to abortions, some at the point of a gun, and some through education and better family planning. Personally, I would prefer the latter because that would also prevent the back alley abortions that would certainly reappear were the procedure outlawed. Legal or illegal, without better education and family planning, abortions will be performed.

Right to Choose?

You can choose:

1)not to have sex
2)use birth control
3)use more birth control
4)keep your child
5)give child up for adoption

So really all we're talking about is abortion.

Planned Parenthood knows that pro-lifers will not compromise--that compromise will have to be on their part when they end their abortion providing services and only provide education and birth control. That is not going to happen, by the way, as there is a reason that almost *all* of the government money goes for education and birth control. Abortions are profitable and almost pay their way. Unfortunately, "almost" doesn't cut it for me, as in "I won't agree for my taxes to pay for an organization where only 7% of my money kills babies. Even one baby killed is too many for me to agree."
This stance cannot change, just as you would not expect to have seen a righteous Gentile person in Hitler's Germany agreeing to send just one of their Jewish friends to the ovens in order to save dozens more!

your comment can go for anything, like the death penalty or faith based charities or welfare. Indeed, if everyone who was offended by something could veto something government does we'd get nothing done and fall into anarchy. I'm personally opposed to government money going to any religious function, including military chaplains and senate chaplains. Sure, we have a constitutional right to religion, but it sure doesn't say anything about using my money so you can worship.

But some things are not subject to compromise.

Once there is an even marginally self aware person in there, then the only justification for taking that life is self defense. And that means a threat to the mother that would justify the killing of a born child, not just a woman who says her health is endangered by depression if she has to bear and care for a child. Nor is it OK to kill a child because his father was a rapist, or committed incest. Those are irrelevant, we don't execute children for the crimes of their fathers.

Once self awareness exists, it is a person in my eyes. You may disagree, so if you are OK with paying a portion of the fee for a "hit" on what to me is an infant, then send PP a check.

Just don't use the force of government to place the blood of innocents on my hands by using money taken from me in taxes.

then you should be ok to kill children a little under a year after birth. I understand, and partially agree to what you are saying. But the point of the issue is whether an organization whose main focus is family planning should be cut off because it does not follow the line of the pro-lfe movement 100%.
In a country of 320 million different people, you have to accept some compromises or decide to kill or revolt. The pro-lifers, and the pro-choice people both have tried to force perfection. It is not going to happen. The object is to reduce, and possibly eliminate, abortion. Both sides have a plan, but only one will allow some flexibility…that is allowing abortion early or in cases of extreme abnormality, rape, incest or the threat to the life of the mother.

It is my personal belief that at some point, a person is present before birth. It may well be as early as 10 weeks gestation, and it is certainly there at 5 months. Those are not religious beliefs, those are based on my knowledge of fetal development and the early signs of self awareness exhibited before birth. I believe that once even rudimentary self awareness is demonstrated, killing that fetus is murder just as much as killing a person who's self awareness is dulled by early alzheimer's.

Why is my belief about the beginning of life of any importance?

Because if even one penny of my tax money is used to take the life of a self-aware fetus, you have made me a party to what, in my heart and mind, is infanticide.

I may not be able to call on the law to prevent you from taking such an action, but you have no right to force me to be an accomplice.

I don't care if you get an abortion, I just don't want my tax money paying for it.
Well, actually, I do care if you get an abortion, but I won't stand in your way. It is between you and God (since the government got out of the process of regulating it).

but the compromise in Planned Parenhood is already there. With 93& of the funding going to family planning, etc., instead of abortion services, is that not a push in the right direction? You are ready to scrap funding to Planned Parenthood because they are not 100% in your camp. And that is particularly ironic, since the vast majority of their effort is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, a goal we can all share…or should. I am afraid it is the pro-lifers which has the toughest time compromising because it is all or nothing, not a reduction in abortions. I never said that all pro-lifers are against birth control, just that there is a segment that opposes any form of family planning, and they are a part of the anti-abortion movement. Sort of like the gun lobby, which opposes any form of reasonable control of firearms.
BTW, I think NPR and PBS are a lot more balanced than conservatives would like to admit. No scream fest loonies like FOX or CNN. Instead, issues are discussed with representatives from both camps, with neutral moderation.

Once again,The panty sniffing purveyors of piety and palaver are at it again. No one forces a woman to get an abortion and yet the pro-lifers would force any female to give birth no matter the circumstance that brought on the pregnancy. That is to say women are breeding stock with no control over their reproductive organs or their destinies. How are pro-lifers any different in their attitudes toward women in this country than the Taliban in Afghanistan?

That is a huge logic leap, friend, that we pro-lifers are against birth control. A few are, not many of us. But you can't separate the $$$ given to Planned Parenthood so that the government money *only* supports birth control and education. It's like NPR/WHRO. I used to pledge to "HRO" till I got a gander of the leftist slant of the NPR news broadcasts. Not to criticize them--they are what they are--but why in creation would a *conservative* give money to support that? So I, and many others, can't in good conscience pledge to WHRO, although we listen to and love the classical music station. One day they will wake up and realize that, then do something about it.
Planned Parenthood *could* drop their abortion services (there are plenty of other places that provide them, including hospitals, which are far safer) and I would not have the slightest problem with them getting $$$. They want the compromise on our part instead!

I have had two abortions and have no regrets nor remorse. I was not in a position in life in which a baby would be convenient. I would not hesitate to have another abortion if needed. My rights to my body are a lot more important than some flawed moral ideas.