Abortion Industry Hits All Time Highs!
YAY, taxpayer funded murder!!!!
The new annual report released by the national Planned Parenthood abortion business shows it did more abortions in its last year than ever before in its history.
The new report released by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) shows the abortion giant did a record 333,964 abortions on unborn children during the 2011-2012 fiscal year. Those abortions were estimated to have generated $150 million dollars for the “nonprofit” organization.
While the number of abortions reached a record high, only 2,300 Planned Parenthood customers were referred to adoption agencies during the 2011-2012 fiscal year.
Meanwhile, the annual report reveals PPFA generated nearly $1.2 billion in total income — just short of the $1.22 billion mark that was its record for income that it posted in 2010-2011.
PPFA’s income included a hefty and ever-increasing check from American taxpayers. In 2009-2010, government funding reached a whopping $487.4 million. In 2010-2011 the figure jumped to $538.5 million. The total for 2011-2012 reached a staggering $542.4 million, which represents 45.2 percent of the group’s total annual budget.
The lie that Planned Parenthood “does mammograms” that Obama & minions spread is laughable. But there is no letting the facts get in the way of progressive lunatics.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
70 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Looks like Planned Parenthood doesn’t need taxpayer help.
The sad thing is that the pro abortion crowd has convinced people that planned parenthood is all about mammograms and birth control, and pretends like they aren’t a business whose main source of income is killing babies in the womb.
Comment by Just Me — January 9, 2013 @ 3:51 pm - January 9, 2013
I hang my head in shame as we americans commit the single most evil and barbaric act we have yet to inflict on our fellow human being.
I grieve for the lost 333,964 souls. May God have mercy on them.
How in the world any decent person can support such actions. It is beyond my comprehension – there is NO excuse.
I hunger for a lib/democrat that comments on this site to explain the rationalization of exterminatiing 333,964 children. For what?
Comment by mixitup — January 9, 2013 @ 4:22 pm - January 9, 2013
How in the world any decent person can support such actions. It is beyond my comprehension – there is NO excuse.
Because they have been convinced by the pro abortion supporters and industry that a baby in the womb had no value and removing it from the womb is of no consequence.
Comment by Just Me — January 9, 2013 @ 4:38 pm - January 9, 2013
Wonderful, we should all be so proud.
Comment by Richard Bell — January 9, 2013 @ 4:42 pm - January 9, 2013
No here is something I’d join socons on to stop. At the very least I don’t want to pay for it.
Comment by JohnAGJ — January 9, 2013 @ 5:09 pm - January 9, 2013
I wonder what is the racial breakdown of those abortions (i.e., their parents).
Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood for the purpose, after all, of doing abortions on blacks and others that she found eugenically undesirable.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 9, 2013 @ 5:27 pm - January 9, 2013
Planned Parenthood has killed more children than all of the mass murderers in past 30 years combined…. by an exponential factor.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — January 9, 2013 @ 5:38 pm - January 9, 2013
And judging by the results, she was quite successful.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 9, 2013 @ 5:57 pm - January 9, 2013
These numbers are staggering in so many ways.
The actual costs to the consumer for an uncomplicated first trimester abortion is about $500. The actual cost for mammograms for the consumer is about $100.
Media Matters claims that Preventing Parenthood did mammograms for 1.3 million people in 2011.
If this charitable, non-profit, taxpayer funded operation did all 1.3 million mammograms and killed all 333,964 babies for FREE the total “value” would come to not quite $300 million. That leaves Preventing Parenthood $900 million to pay staff, costs, and miscellaneous services and supplies.
But wait! They “generated” $150 million from selling dead baby services!
All of this is to say that Preventing Parenthood seems to be a pretty impressive shell game.
It would be interesting to see their actual financials.
Comment by heliotrope — January 9, 2013 @ 6:05 pm - January 9, 2013
Someone one point to me a single PP clinic that actually performs mammograms… I’m pretty sure there are none.
Look, I’m certainly no fan of PP and they certainly shouldn’t receive tax money but Margaret Sanger wrote that abortion was a stain on civilization and, here comes trouble, I agree with the notion that people having children should be able to raise them. So “family planning” seems to me worthwhile. We simply cannot continue increasing the number of dependents regardless of skin color. We cannot continue on the road to an Idiocracy.
The fact that so many babies are aborted tells me that PP, et al, have failed miserably in family planning efforts. The point of planning is to put off pregnancy until the woman is in a situation favorable for the child.
Also, for an abortion to occur, a pregnant woman has to show up and submit herself (and the baby) to the procedure. The problem isn’t PP – it’s the culture.
Comment by SoCalRobert — January 9, 2013 @ 6:12 pm - January 9, 2013
Republican strategist Juleanna Glover told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday that although she is “deeply pro-life, Republicans need to be less aggressive or more open-minded about contraception.”
Glover wrote an op-ed featured in the New York Times last Thursday, “Republicans Must Support Public Financing for Contraception,” urging Republican lawmakers to increase funding for contraceptives so it could decrease abortions and help the country economically.
“If you provide contraceptive services independent of costs and in particular long-acting contraceptive devices and products to women—the likelihood of abortion in their lives dramatically decreases,” Glover said on Andrea Mitchell Reports.
Reducing the number of abortions across the country, “seems to be one of the most pro-life objectives one could possibly ask for,” she concluded.
“Half of all unplanned pregnancies end in abortion, and when a woman does get pregnant and she does not have adequate contraceptive care it’s because she does not have a good insurance or it’s because she doesn’t make enough money to buy her own insurance or it’s because she’s not poor enough to be on Medicaid,” she said.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/09/pro-life-gop-strategist-urges-party-to-push-for-contraceptive-funding/
Comment by rusty — January 9, 2013 @ 6:27 pm - January 9, 2013
Murder? That’s a relative-term depending on your individual ethical P.O.V.
While unfortunate, I have no ethical-qualms about 1st and 2nd-trimester abortions…nor 3rd-trimester abortions if medically-necessary. It doesn’t harm me nor mine. If you don’t approve of abortion under any circumstances, don’t get one. If you don’t want you daughters, sisters or mothers from getting on, do so …but don’t impose your ethical P.O.V. on me and mine. If you can’t control your daughters, sisters or mothers…that’s not my problem.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 9, 2013 @ 6:28 pm - January 9, 2013
So “family planning” seems to me worthwhile. We simply cannot continue increasing the number of dependents regardless of skin color.
I agree. If you want to be kept as a ward of the state – or a pet – spaying and neutering. Then you can screw like bonobos ’til your heart’s content or you die of some nasty STD.
Comment by Annie — January 9, 2013 @ 7:19 pm - January 9, 2013
The problem with this line of thought is that, to someone who views abortion as murder, then you are justifying genocide (in a sense).
Furthermore, allowing abortions to become this available gives people an easy way to run from their responsibilites. That isn’t really solving anything; they just continue to be irresponsible (with exceptions, I’m sure). Yes, they will still get abortions, but laws against murder don’t stop people from murdering.
I’m not really sure how people are just supposed to shut up when they see what they believe is a massive injustice. To someone like me, that’s like saying “If you don’t like murder, don’t murder anyone.”
In my opinion, this debate should be strictly focused on when life begins. I admit that I’m not completely certain that a human life begins right at conception, but I am convinced that the latest is around the fifth week when the brain starts to develop (after all, the human brain is what makes humanity uniquely superior to other life forms). After that point, I am confident that it is a fact, not just my opinion, that abortion is murder (although, it is still my opinion that human life begins at conception on the basis that the zygote has unique human DNA, and it should therefore be considered a unique human). If someone disagrees, refute my argument please.
Comment by Rattlesnake — January 9, 2013 @ 8:19 pm - January 9, 2013
For many years I considered myself neutral on abortion. As a gay man and a Libertarian, I was never going to have to deal with the issue on a personal basis. But eventually it dawned on me that as a non-Jew the Nazi horror would never have had any effect on me either. Until it was time to come for me.
Life begins when??? Answer the question honestly and you will have to admit that without conception, life will not exist. As such, abortion in a moral obscenity. Innocents being murdered for the sake of our ever indulgent state sponsored society.
While I am NOT a religious person, it doesn’t take religious belief, just logic, to understand that abortion is murder.
When the abortion issue first was raised back in the 60′s and 70′s (yeah, I was around for it) it was presented as an issue that was about personal choice and was never going to be state funded or supported. Damn, that sure has changed.
Too bad personal responsibility has taken such a back seat to convenience these days. What has happened to us? When did life become so cheap?
Comment by Formerly John In Dublin Now in Palm Springs — January 9, 2013 @ 8:41 pm - January 9, 2013
What I really, really marvel at is when these salient points are made in the midst of “pro-choicers” they stick their fingers in their ears and babble “it is not a baby, it is a fetus, boy are you stupid” on a nauseating loop. When I ask if it is not a human being, what kind of being is it, they turn their backs and treat me like I smell bad. They stubbornly insist I am against abortion on demand because of religion, no matter how much I prove to them that just on a biological basis, on a humanist level, just as a person, it simply makes no sense whatsoever. I can’t stomach forcing a little girl to bear the child of her molester or sacrificing the life of the mother whose physical health is immediately in peril from childbirth, so I am willing to tolerate those acts of justifiable homicide, if you will. But homicide it is. One day, one day, our successors will look back on our era and shake their heads in disgust, like we do now over how we used think owning another human was perfectly ok.
Comment by ignatius — January 9, 2013 @ 8:55 pm - January 9, 2013
To the left, abortion = contraception. Makes me sick.
Comment by windybon — January 9, 2013 @ 9:07 pm - January 9, 2013
“Murder? That’s a relative-term depending on your individual ethical P.O.V. While unfortunate, I have no ethical-qualms about 1st and 2nd-trimester abortions…nor 3rd-trimester abortions if medically-necessary. It doesn’t harm me nor mine.”
Ted B., the “I’ll wait until it happens to me before I will fight it” standard is a bizarre and inhumane policy against yourself.
If the zygote only temporarily located inside someone else were to be forcibly snipped away by the government, against the host’s will, would you be ok with it? You just want it to be your idea? Because preventing the formation of another human was within your skill set but not your will? So you are offended by humans who are merely very, very young?
Comment by ignatius — January 9, 2013 @ 9:15 pm - January 9, 2013
Huh? Can someone tell me what post pregnancy “contraceptive care” might be?
Is that the same thing as post-accident accident prevention. Is that the same thing as unscrambling eggs?
Comment by heliotrope — January 9, 2013 @ 9:28 pm - January 9, 2013
Or Ignatius, to how we look back at ancient societies that would lay a person down on a rock slab, cut their heart out, and hold the still beating heart up to their God in homage.
Interesting that today it appears to be a very similar act – democrats hold the dead fetus/baby up in homage to their “snake oil selling deity.”
I am compelled to comment Ted B, but you statement of: “It doesn’t harm me or mine” is incredibly self centered:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self-centered
The issue is not whether it hurts you or yours. The issue is the severity of the hideous act of killing that baby, that life, that little boy or girl. The “me or mine” approach is what has gotten us to where we are today with abortion. That argument was one of the major cornerstones of the Roe v. Wade decision and the argument in court for the legalization of abortions. Back then it was stated as:”It’s my body, I can do with it what I want.” That argument helped win the day – sadly, that was as self centered then as it is now.
Comment by mixitup — January 9, 2013 @ 9:42 pm - January 9, 2013
Mixitup I know there are many people who don’t care for the human sacrifice comparison to abortion, but I actually think it is pretty much right on the money.
Just as people in ancient times would sacrifice a victim in order to gain some boon, people in modern times sacrifice babies in the womb for the sake of convenience and/or hedonism.
When a culture has no respect for the most innocent among them, that culture is one headed for decline.
Comment by Just Me — January 9, 2013 @ 10:27 pm - January 9, 2013
SCR: You’re right. I spoke without having my ducks lined up. Sanger founded PP to promote her racial-eugenics views by contraception (or, shall we say, family planning) and not by abortion.
Sounds like Glover is a statist, a Big Government Republicans. From what I understand, Republicans *are* open-minded on contraception: they’re fine with people having it. Glover is calling for something different: government funding for it, or in other words, public funding for private goods, which is one definition of socialism.
Glover pulls a typical cheap trick of the Left, which is to pretend that those of us who oppose public funding for contraception are somehow against the contraception part, rather than being against socialism (the public-funding part).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 9, 2013 @ 10:30 pm - January 9, 2013
(continued) Well, to be sure, some opponents do bring their anti-contraception views into it. But (1) not all; and even with those who do, (2) the public funding is almost always the sticking point.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 9, 2013 @ 10:33 pm - January 9, 2013
“The lie that Planned Parenthood “does mammograms” that Obama & minions spread is laughable”
Bruce -
Why do you say they are lieing about doing cancer screenings but not about the abortion numbers? I clicked on the link you provided and according to the annual report that cites the same number of abortions you site, it says they do 1 Million + Cancer Screenings and 4.4 Million STD related work – wow!
What makes you think they are putting false numbers in their annual reports? – That would be quite a story if true!
Personally I find abortion repugnant and would love to see more resources go to counseling and adoption services. I fully support any measure that would take out federal dollars from any abortion.
But in my life, I have worked with “troubled” teens and know some gals who had abortions and I would never call those kids murders. Its a tough thing for those kids…it really is, and I think its better for these kids to have a safe place like PP centers to turn to instead of the alternatives.
Comment by mike — January 10, 2013 @ 4:00 am - January 10, 2013
1 Million + Cancer Screenings and 4.4 Million STD related work – wow!
Ever heard of a pap smear? I am willing to bet all 1 million cancer screenings were pap smears and not mammograms.
Both are cancer screenings, but a pap smear requires no expensive equipment and is pretty easy comparatively. Also, it is pretty much unethical to use some forms of birth control without first completing a pap smear and pelvic exam, so a patient seeking birth control at a PP clinic more than likely is also going to get a pap smear.
Not to mention that planned parenthood doesn’t provide anything other thn condoms for free.
Comment by Just Me — January 10, 2013 @ 6:59 am - January 10, 2013
Two of the biggest lies of the left are “we’re not pro-abortion,” and “we’re not out to confiscate your guns.”
Comment by V the K — January 10, 2013 @ 8:44 am - January 10, 2013
Did your troubled teens live in a place with a public health service? That is to say, did the social worker take the troubled teen to the public health agency or to Planned Parenthood?
Of course, if the “trouble” was pregnancy, then Planned Parenthood is the place to go. Right?
The local public health service is entirely taxpayer funded and the costs are minimal if you can pay and free if you can not pay. Is it not clear that Planned Parenthood is duplicative of the public health service except for its kill the baby service? Isn’t it clear that federal money is going to planned parenthood to defray their ‘non-profit’ costs of killing babies?
That you do not want to call a “troubled teen” a murderer is fine with me. The “troubled teen” chose (or was guided to choose) to kill a baby that was ….. what …… likely to become a “troubled teen?” That is Darwinist eugenics and exactly why Planned Parenthood exists. Kill the riff-raff.
Aren’t churches and social workers safe places to turn to as an alternative to being “troubled teens?” Don’t we have a massive system of child welfare and domestic relations courts and social welfare programs that are supposed to be working on this problem. Why doesn’t the government just step up to the plate and kill babies for free in their own clinics?
Comment by heliotrope — January 10, 2013 @ 9:19 am - January 10, 2013
Bad choices should have no personal consequences; it’s the guiding personal philosophy of the left.
Comment by V the K — January 10, 2013 @ 11:21 am - January 10, 2013
Helio – I don’t know the circumstances butI wouldwager that they were not guided into anything. If PP didn’t exist they would have found some way to abort. Most of these kids suffered all kinds of abuse….the world can be a sad sad place.
I would encourage you to follow the link that Bruce provided. It shows that abortionsare a very low percentage of their services and their main business seems to be STD testing and cancer screening .
Just Me the report breaks down exactly what test they do and how many.
Comment by mike — January 10, 2013 @ 11:32 am - January 10, 2013
Bad choices should have no personal consequences; it’s the guiding personal philosophy of the left.
For the win. They won’t admit it, but in a culture where everybody gets a medal and nobody should ever have to fail (even if it is from their own lack of work ethic) it also means nobody should ever have to experience the natural consequences of decisions.
During a breast exam, a health care provider will examine your breasts for any possible signs of breast cancer or other breast problems. Your provider will also talk with you about your risks for breast cancer and what you can do to help prevent it.
Just Me the report breaks down exactly what test they do and how many.
I followed the link. And it says in the report they don’t do mammograms. They do breast exams. If you don’t know what a breast exam is, I have quoted it right here from planned parenthood’s own website.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/womens-health/breast-exam-21194.htm
For a breast exam, you will undress from the waist up. Your health care provider will look at both breasts, paying close attention to their shape, size, and skin texture. Then, your health care provider will feel your breasts with the pads of her or his fingers for any abnormal texture or lumps. Your health care provider will feel all parts of one breast and then the other, including the nipple, as well as the area beneath each arm.
Comment by Just Me — January 10, 2013 @ 1:00 pm - January 10, 2013
Sorry if the above post doesn’t make complete sense. I messed up the quotes. But needless to say planned parenthood does not do mammograms, they do breast exams, which is a doctor using his/her hands to feel for lumps.
Comment by Just Me — January 10, 2013 @ 1:01 pm - January 10, 2013
@ Just me,
In the interests of health care, I hereby offer to do breast exams free of charge
Comment by The_Livewire — January 10, 2013 @ 1:56 pm - January 10, 2013
Livewire you beat me to it! I will gladly follow you to make sure you didn’t miss any lumps or abnormalities. There is nothing worse than an abnormal breast. LOL
Comment by mixitup — January 10, 2013 @ 3:53 pm - January 10, 2013
You know what I love about Planned Parenthood? The way they won’t report you to the cops for statutory rape. That alone is worth the billions in taxpayer subsidies.
Comment by Average Democrat — January 10, 2013 @ 5:34 pm - January 10, 2013
Not just that they won’t report you to the cops, they actually provide advice on how to get an abortion and protect the older guy who got you pregnant from getting charged.
Oh and not to mention protecting child molestors (you know where the older man intentionally victimizes an underage teen, gets her pregnant then takes her to get an abortion to hide the fact that he is having sex with an underage teen).
Comment by Just Me — January 10, 2013 @ 6:40 pm - January 10, 2013
If the poor and uneducated have more abortions and contraception, the result will be fewer children. Thus it will save us taxpayers money down the road. Plus there will be fewer criminals populating our prisons.
Comment by davinci — January 10, 2013 @ 10:58 pm - January 10, 2013
Go figure, eugenics accelerates when the Progressives have the most power they’ve had in years. Obamacare can decide whether and how to treat the elderly, babies can be killed at a whim, and more wars then ever.
Comment by Paul — January 11, 2013 @ 2:01 am - January 11, 2013
Contrary to conservative belief, liberals don’t like that people have abortions, we don’t get off on performing abortions, and we’re not advancing some kind of eugenics agenda. Rather, the pro-choice side has a better understanding of the underlying issues that relate to abortion, which include unplanned pregnancy, teenage sex, socioeconomic factors, educations levels, even laws of supply and demand, and acknowledge that the availability of safe, medical abortion is the best solution when these factors are considered.
When you talk about criminalizing abortion, what you’re doing in practical terms is applying a one-size-fits-all solution to millions of women living in millions of unique situations. The common assumption around these parts seems to be that liberals want legalized abortion as a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card to cover for their irresponsibility, and that there are legions of women who are carelessly banging their way through nightclubs that figure it’s no big deal if they have to get an abortion. This caricature simply doesn’t exist, and the reality is that women often find themselves in difficult situations that are easy to relate to.
It takes absolutely no creativity to imagine these kinds of situations. Maybe a woman is in a physically abusive relationship. Maybe a woman is informed that she has terminal cancer. Maybe a woman’s financial situation is upended by being fired. Maybe a woman’s husband and other children are killed in a car accident and the grief drives her into severe depression. Maybe a teenage girl is fearful of how her abusive parents will react. Maybe a woman is under the influence and her judgment was impaired during conception. Maybe a crippling birth defect is discovered during the course of the pregnancy. Maybe a woman has mental health issues. Maybe a woman was promised by her doctors that she couldn’t get pregnant and stopped using contraception. Maybe a woman is an alcoholic or addicted to heroin. Maybe a woman’s contraception didn’t work or was used improperly. Maybe a couple teenagers didn’t know enough about safe sex.
The point is, saying that all of these circumstances are completely irrelevant, that every woman who finds herself in one of the above situations is completely responsible because they decided to have sex, and that they should have to ‘pay for it’ by becoming an unwilling parent against their will, is inhumane and sadistic. Nobody’s perfect and shit happens – we don’t need society piling on people who have tiny slip-ups or misfortunes by forcing upon them the responsibility of a newborn.
If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. It’s really that simple. Indeed, the vast majority of unintended pregnancies are carried to term, and a good percentage undoubtedly by pro-choice women. But some people are not cut out to be parents or are visited by the prospect way before they’re ready. We live in a free society, and we should trust people to know their situations and limitations.
And for everyone that is so appalled by this 333,964 statistic, at least we know! When abortion is legal, it’s possible to get real, concrete numbers about how many abortions are performed in the US. This is a useful yardstick for measuring the efficacy of family planning policies. We can try different things and measure the results. If you criminalize abortion, these figures go away, but the abortions won’t! Abortion opponents are very naive about this point. Instead of knowing exactly how many abortions are performed, we’ll have to cobble together guesses based on how many women and infants are brought into hospitals or found dead, since criminalization will instantly create a lucrative and dangerous abortion black market.
I’ve linked Kermit Goswell’s Wikipedia entry in the past, and I’ll do so again here. Dead girls, girls with ripped up reproductive organs, and fetuses floating in jars. This is the alternative to legal, medical abortions, and Gosnell represents a mere taste of what’s to come if pro-lifers had their way. But hey, out of sight, out of mind, right? Ignorance is bliss, huh? Just so long as the pro-lifers don’t have to read the 333,964 statistic, they’ll be happy and consider the battle over. Never mind that there will be new statistics detailing how many girls die from their abortions, how many infants turn up in dumpsters, and how many millions of dollars people like Gosnell make – what matters is that 333,964 statistic!
This is the problem with the reactive nature of pro-lifers efforts to eliminate abortion. Pro-life efforts seem to focus exclusively on making it extremely difficult to procure an abortion, but they’re already too late! The underlying problem is unintended pregnancy, and there simply is no energy spent by pro-lifers to address that problem. Within the current legal framework of legal abortion, pro-lifers are attempting to overwhelm people with rules and regulations and bureaucracy (decidedly un-consevative, by the way), which again, only makes a desperate situation even more desperate. As a matter of fact, pro-lifers line up against common sense policies that address unintended pregnancies like sex education, contraception coverage, and universal healthcare. What’s more, pro-lifers also generally oppose social safety net policies that would make the prospect of having a baby a little more palatable for reluctant, but potentially persuadable, pregnant women. It’s expensive to have a kid, and if you want more pregnant people to choose life over abortion, doesn’t it make sense to support spending a little money to help out, especially if you genuinely believe that abortion is the same as murder?
I’ve tried to cover absolutely everything in this post, so now you can all get to work on tearing me apart. Before I go, however, I feel I have to mention how the GOP has exploited the abortion issue over the years. I touched on this in the last paragraph, but there are many policies and ideas that Republicans could support if reducing the number of abortions was their actual goal. I don’t believe it is – I think that the GOP’s stance on abortion has always been about getting social conservatives extremely angry so that they will hate Democrats in the same way that they hate child murderers. It’s mostly about discrediting their political opponents, because once you believe someone is a child murderer, what do you care what they say about tax rates or which country to invade? This is Propaganda 101, and the Republicans have been following that lesson plan to a T, while steadfastly opposing the kinds of policies that would demonstrably reduce unplanned pregnancies (and thus abortions).
Comment by Levi — January 11, 2013 @ 10:48 am - January 11, 2013
If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. It’s really that simple.
Dumbest line ever.
If you don’t believe in theft, don’t steal, but doggone it a starving person should be able to walk into any grocery store and steal the food they need.
If you don’t believe in speeding, don’t speed, but everyone else running late for work or an appointment should have the right to speed on any road they want to.
Everyone has problems, but the true moral and ethical thing to do, is to not impost on somebody else’s rights just because you are.
Also, since you think the stop gap point should be killing an innocent baby in the womb, I think the stop gap should be somewhere before the pregnancy.,
If you aren’t ready or able to have a baby, then don’t engage in behaviors that might result in pregnancy.
But then of course that means people might have to be a little more responsible and a little less hedonistic. In the end we approve abortion because it allows people to engage in any sexual behavior they want to, without having to worry about the consequences.
Our culture at the moment values sex more than it values human life.
Comment by Just Me — January 11, 2013 @ 11:17 am - January 11, 2013
Blue state governor pushes for more access to abortion. Kind of contradicts the notion that leftists don’t want there to be more abortions.
Comment by V the K — January 11, 2013 @ 11:24 am - January 11, 2013
There you go again with those facts, V.
Now you know that’s just going to confuse our little fascist.
Remember, Levi wants no restrictions on abortion. If the child is poorly timed rather than adjust his life to deal with the creation of a new life, he just wants to snuff it out.
Which makes this
all the more funny.
Especially since he specifically wants more abortions. One day, Levi will remember that the bile he spouts does remain, even after he flees the thread.
Comment by The_Livewire — January 11, 2013 @ 11:59 am - January 11, 2013
If I steal from you or are flying through your neighborhood every morning, you are directly affect by my actions. If I have an abortion, you are not affected in any way. That’s why we have laws against theft and speeding, and that’s why people should be able to choose for themselves whether or not to have an abortion.
Typos, maybe? I’ll respond if you expand.
You’re mistaken – I agree that we should be trying to solve the problem before the pregnancy. Unfortunately, conservatives do not focus on this part of the problem at all, and have settled on a strategy that involves making abortions harder to procure. Again, this is a reactive solution to the problem and not a preventative one. When you try to solve problems this way, you’re doing it very inefficiently and creating a litany of other very destructive problems.
Well, right. But people aren’t perfect, and the reality is that people get pregnant on accident or experience other crises that make carrying to term a not good option. Those people need options, and your indifference to them and their circumstances only motivates them to take matters into their own hands.
Having and enjoying sex is not hedonism. Our bodies are built expressly for the purpose of having sex – it’s no exaggeration to say that having sex is the meaning of life. Given this, it should be easily understood that people are not always going to make perfectly rational decisions about sex every single time. You have to cut your species some slack and stop being so unrealistic in your expectations of everyone. And please, pay at least a little bit of attention to the consequences of the alternative to legal, medical abortions, and try to feel a little bit of sympathy for those people that are in tough situations. It’s not like every aborted fetus could have been born into a perfect family where nobody deals with any problems. Starting a family is hard, raising a family is hard, and people should undertake that responsibility with eagerness and confidence and hope, not reluctance and fear and despair.
Comment by Levi — January 11, 2013 @ 12:15 pm - January 11, 2013
Advocating for more access to abortion is not the same as advocating for more abortions. Respecting a woman’s right to choose and taking steps to make sure that she has the ability to make that decision on her own is not any kind of endorsement of abortion itself.
The left demonstrates their desire to reduce the number of abortions by supporting policies like contraception coverage and sex education.
Comment by Levi — January 11, 2013 @ 12:24 pm - January 11, 2013
Which invalidates LEvi’s attempt at a comment here.
By mandating contraceptive coverage, you are directly affecting me. You are forcing me to pay for your contraceptions, (through higher premium rates) You are destroying my busniess (Hobby Lobby) You are forcing me to cut costs, hire less people etc.
Thus Levi’s actual argument is “You should pay for what I want, regardless. Oh and don’t tell me what to do, it infringes my freedom.”
Of course the little coward can’t reply to my post. It would require him to admit he’s a liar.
Comment by The_Livewire — January 11, 2013 @ 12:35 pm - January 11, 2013
Yup.
Mainly based on what liberals themselves state:
In short, Levi, you yourself have stated that these things are “no big deal”, no worse than paying too much for a latte or watching bad TV.
Next:
Actually, he represents what happens when pro-abortionists get their way, which is no inspection of clinics, no regulation of clinics, and no requiring clinics to follow even basic requirements for medical facilities.
Because, as has been proven, abortionists want NO government supervision or regulation of abortion facilities.
So Levi, we have facts and evidence indicating that abortionists like yourself do in fact support using abortion as a cover for irresponsible behavior, that you think acting irresponsibly should carry no consequences whatsoever, and that you want abortion clinics to be completely free of any government or safety regulations because doing so prevents them from performing more abortions.
Too bad.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2013 @ 1:13 pm - January 11, 2013
We also should remember that Levi needs abortions because, as he has acknowledged, liberal men like himself manipulate women into having unprotected sex.
And of course, as Levi admits in the same post, the main concern of liberal men like himself is their own convenience:
This is really what makes the whole “war on women” meme hysterical. Obama supporters like Levi are sitting here saying that women are idiots who are incapable of resisting emotional manipulation and who should be forced to have abortions or take hormonal treatments because Obama Party males like Levi don’t want to make the “effort” or “compromise” required to wear a condom.
It really illustrates the point, though. The main reason Levi and Obama Party men want abortion and want it paid for has nothing to do with WOMENS’ rights; it has everything to do with the convenience of liberal men like Levi who want to screw around without consequence.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2013 @ 1:21 pm - January 11, 2013
And the latest hilarity: Levi’s Barack Obama Party is ordering pastors to preach against guns and in favor of Barack Obama’s gun ban and confiscation laws.
Such lying little hypocrites Levi and his Barack Obama Party are. They scream and piss themselves about separation of church and state and how laws should never be based on religious belief, but then turn right around and try to pervert churches to push their propaganda.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2013 @ 1:33 pm - January 11, 2013
Levi is a lying cultist. I really don’t care what he purports to think, beyond the degree to which it represents all the other lying cultists.
Comment by V the K — January 11, 2013 @ 1:55 pm - January 11, 2013
I mean, pure common sense dictates that if I were a Democrat Governor and I were pushing for people to have more access to lemon-scented paper napkins; my goal would be for more people to use lemon scented paper napkins.
Comment by V the K — January 11, 2013 @ 1:57 pm - January 11, 2013
Suppose that preventing access to lemon-scented paper napkins resulted in a series of horrible social problems, and you’d have a better analogy. Making sure that women have access to abortion services means that they won’t have to resort to drastic measures that are dangerous and deadly. Cuomo isn’t trying to increase the number of abortions in his state, he’s trying to guarantee that every abortion is performed by trained medical professionals. The policy isn’t more abortions, it’s safer abortions.
Comment by Levi — January 11, 2013 @ 2:22 pm - January 11, 2013
And again, the little fascist liar doesn’t have any thing to back up his comments.
Ooh, forgot another “Liberals want more abortions” moment. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s undesireables comment.
IT’s like Levi saying that if these kids were killed, it would be ‘too bad’. In the womb or out, Levi really doesn’t care about kids.
Comment by The_Livewire — January 11, 2013 @ 2:39 pm - January 11, 2013
So let’s review.
According to Levi, having children is a “horrible social problem”.
In contrast, according to Levi, having sex when you’re drunk, coercing a woman into sex (aka raping her), emotionally manipulating a woman into sex, refusing to wear or “forgetting” condoms during sex, and men refusing to accept “no” from a woman in regard to sex are NOT “horrible social problems”, and in fact are perfectly acceptable.
What should be obvious to everyone at this point is threefold:
1) Levi’s sexual gratification is the only thing that qualifies as a “social good”
2) Levi refuses to practice or accept any limitations whatsoever on his sexual gratification
3) Levi’s need for abortion is primarily to avoid the consequences of his refusal to practice or accept any limitations whatsoever on his sexual gratification
In short, Levi is a misogynist of epic proportions. He believes that women have no right to say no, that men should be free to emotionally manipulate and coerce women into sex, and that women have no right to demand that their sexual partners act responsibly.
Moreover, Levi and his fellow Obama Party members are public-health menaces. It is well-documented that sexual coercion, sex while impaired, and refusal to wear a condom massively increase the risk and dispersion of sexually-transmitted diseases, driving up health care costs for everyone.
It is no surprise that he is familiar with all the abortion clinics in Northern Virginia. It is also no surprise that he is demanding that the government pay for abortions and STD treatments.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2013 @ 3:09 pm - January 11, 2013
Yes, that’s precisely what I meant! I guess I just didn’t know how to say it. I wasted all those words and everybody’s time when all I really had to do was say, “Abortion is good because having children is a horrible social problem.” That’s exactly what I believe and that’s exactly what all liberals believe, and that’s why we’re pro-choice. In fact, pro-choice isn’t even really the correct terminology, is it? We’re anti-children! I’ll begin informing all of the other liberals of the change as soon as I can, and I’ll be sure to give you credit. They’ll be so excited!
Thank you so much, North Dallas Thirty. You are certainly one of the most brilliant people on the internet and your contributions are, like, soooooo worthwhile!
Comment by Levi — January 11, 2013 @ 3:22 pm - January 11, 2013
Sorry, I forgot my links.
Levi wanting those kids I mentioned above, here
And note how I called it. The little coward is afraid to reply to facts.
Comment by The_Livewire — January 11, 2013 @ 3:37 pm - January 11, 2013
If I steal from you or are flying through your neighborhood every morning, you are directly affect by my actions. If I have an abortion, you are not affected in any way.
I am personally not affected, but the baby killed in the womb is 100% affected.
Having and enjoying sex is not hedonism. Our bodies are built expressly for the purpose of having sex
Having and enjoying sex isn’t hedonism, but having and enjoying sex without any self control or choosing to abort a baby because they will get in the way of your desire to seek the pleasures of life (btw I didn’t say sex=hedonism, but that our desire to kill our children in the womb so we won’t be inconvenienced is hedonism-hedonism is about prioritizing the pleasures of life above all other things including somebody else’s rights-like an innicent baby in the womb).
Comment by Just Me — January 11, 2013 @ 4:04 pm - January 11, 2013
That’s absolutely correct, Levi.
You see, if you valued children, the thought of actively killing one for your own personal convenience, as you advocate, would appall you — and you would do anything and everything in your power to avoid doing such.
But you don’t. As you make clear, promiscuity is what you value, and children are an unwanted byproduct. You would rather kill children than have to wear a condom or accept the word no or wait for someone to sober up first.
Meanwhile, your rationalizations amuse. Literally billions of children throughout history have been born to imperfect homes under imperfect situations without enough money or at the “wrong” time or when it was inconvenient for the people involved. And those literal billions of children have grown up to be scientists, philosophers, savants, teachers, preachers, doctors, lawyers, police, firefighters, cooks, and presumably Indian chiefs with rich, fulfilling, and satisfying lives.
Your insistence that a child born under less than perfect circumstances should be killed in the name of “mercy”, or that they are a “social ill”, perverts the very concept of mercy. These children have done nothing wrong other than to inconvenience the narcissistic, selfish liberal men like yourself who didn’t want to wear a condom and who manipulated/coerced/drugged women into sex.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2013 @ 4:33 pm - January 11, 2013
I knew you were going to go there, but this is a terminus of discussion. Yes, you can say that abortion is killing a baby in the womb and in a technical sense, you are correct. But there are very real differences between murdering a person and deciding against carrying a fetus to term, so you’re abusing the language if you insist on using phrases like ‘murder’ and ‘killing’ to describe two very different thing. Take the death penalty, for example. You wouldn’t describe the execution of someone as a murder, would you? Even though technically, somebody is being murdered if you apply the definition. Situations can be different and similar at the same time, and that’s why we have so many words in the vocabulary.
I’m sure that there are people who are reckless and careless and as indifferent as you say. But I don’t think that would describe a majority of the people who get abortions, and I don’t think it’s a significant amount anyway.
Comment by Levi — January 11, 2013 @ 5:02 pm - January 11, 2013
Comment by The_Livewire — January 11, 2013 @ 5:58 pm - January 11, 2013
@Just Me
Note how Levi can’t argue your point, that his actions, and accepting them will directly impact you. Again, asking him to be responsible is infringing his freedom. Not paying for his recklessness is… infringing his freedom.
Comment by The_Livewire — January 11, 2013 @ 6:05 pm - January 11, 2013
So what crime has an unborn baby committed, that it deserves the death penalty?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2013 @ 7:02 pm - January 11, 2013
Take the death penalty, for example. You wouldn’t describe the execution of someone as a murder, would you? Even though technically, somebody is being murdered if you apply the definition.
Last time I checked a person being executed was at least convicted of a crime. A baby in the womb has committed no crime and is innocent, which is why I took the time to refer to the baby as an innocent life.
But I don’t think that would describe a majority of the people who get abortions, and I don’t think it’s a significant amount anyway.
According to the Guttmacher Institute 50% of women getting an abortion are getting their 2nd or more. Getting pregnant with an oops, I am not ready to have a baby once may be chalked up as unintentional, but when you get to where you are killing the innocent life in your womb for the second, third or fourth time, then I think you can’t argue they are indifferent and irresponsible.
Comment by Just Me — January 11, 2013 @ 9:27 pm - January 11, 2013
It inconvenienced a selfish liberal.
Comment by V the K — January 12, 2013 @ 11:03 am - January 12, 2013
“According to Levi, having children is a “horrible social problem”.”
well we all wished levi’s mother thought the same.
What to say… only that levi’s offspring is murdered as he wished…
People should get what they want good and hard. Wishing abortion on members of levi’s family seems appropriate (and we wouldn’t have cargo cultists like him around anymore)
Comment by susan — January 12, 2013 @ 1:26 pm - January 12, 2013
Well,
So, then, in a technical sense, you can prove that Obama is a world class hypocrite or,
Click on the link.
Click on the link.
Click on the link.
There. You clicked on the link and Obama was …… taken out of context? “What context? You can’t handle the context! You don’t want the context You use words like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You use them as a punchline.”
Life is the fundamental liberty. When one life become two, you go for the “owner” of the life in the womb. You can whip it, shackle it, sell it, abuse it, kill it with impunity in your world of “context.” It is a zit to be popped, a boil to be lanced, a cancer to be excised. In your context, it is not a life, it is a clump of cells, just like you are. Just like the Jews at Dachau. Just like the kids and gang stuff killed in Chicago are to Mayor Rahm. Just like the children at Sandy Hook who are the useful victims for a political move on the Second Amendment. The slippery, sloppy slope of renaming facts to fit political circumstances can make you “clever” wordsmiths look awfully guilty and stupid.
You best retract that statement about killing a baby in the womb being correct in a technical sense. In doing so, you are losing control of the language. No demagogue can ever permit that to happen.
Comment by heliotrope — January 13, 2013 @ 10:32 am - January 13, 2013
I seem to remember you agreeing with me about the necessity of keeping abortion legal – so what gives?
Comment by Levi — January 14, 2013 @ 12:47 pm - January 14, 2013
Wow, I’ve never seen Levi speechless.
Struck dumb, yes, but never speechless. Bravo heliotrope!
Comment by The_Livewire — January 14, 2013 @ 1:25 pm - January 14, 2013
Never have I believed that abortion can be eliminated. Furthermore, there are rare, complicated medical circumstances in which abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.
There is one heck of a world of difference between a Planned Parenthood free-for-all abortion, partial birth abortion and what I recognize as medical necessity worked out between a woman’s medical professional and her advised consent.
That is what gives.
I am not interested in locking up conscientious doctors or a woman who has her baby killed in her womb.
Perhaps you would like to make the argument stark and narrow, I do not.
That may be why you are so loathe to condemn partial birth abortion, killing the baby that survives the abortion process and using abortion as a form of contraception after the fact.
Kindly do not assume that you can drag me closer to your emotional, unprincipled, situation ethics and moral relativity stance.
Comment by heliotrope — January 14, 2013 @ 7:47 pm - January 14, 2013
Then you and I are of the same opinion. You seem intent on not saying the words “I think abortion should be legal,” but your position is effectively the same as mine. As for your complaints about Planned Parenthood, I don’t know what to tell you. Abortion is legal, and it only follows that in a world where abortion is legal, there would exist an organization that specialized in providing abortion services. If you think abortion should be legal, but then gripe incessantly about the organization providing those legal abortions, you are contradicting yourself. A primary reason for supporting legal abortions in the first place is because women (and men) who do not have access to abortion services often take matters into their own hands, resulting in injuries and death. You’re cancelling yourself out by voicing your support of legal abortion to avoid that problem, only to compound that problem unnecessarily by putting a series of restrictions on abortion! Whether abortion is illegal or extremely difficult to procure, the effect is the same – some people don’t have access to abortions services and will take matters into their own hands. That’s what we’re tying to avoid.
Planned Parenthood is an abortion provider, yes, but they also provide a wide range of services for people with few resources that actually reduce unplanned pregnancies, and thereby abortions, in the first place. Getting rid of them, or whatever you’d prefer to have happen to them, would in reality be very counterproductive if your goal is to lower the number of abortions in this country.
If I’m understanding your position correctly, we are very nearly in agreement, and you just have some quibbles. First, partial birth abortion. Ideally, these would be unnecessary, but they have purpose, and are limited in number any way, accounting for less than 1% of all abortions. In other words, quibbles. Many of these abortions are done because of birth defects that mean the baby won’t survive or due to health needs of the mother. The method was developed in the first place because other methods can cause more severe bleeding or damage a woman’s reproductive organs. And when everybody’s body is different, it isn’t hard to imagine why different methods are necessary. What’s more – many of the measures that pro-lifers have introduced are designed to make securing an abortion a giant pain in the ass, requiring wait times and multiple visits, that undoubtedly close the window of opportunity for regular abortion for many women, and leave partial-birth abortion as the only option.
Killing a baby that survives an abortion? I can’t imagine that this is a frequent occurrence, so whatever.
Using abortion as a contraception. Sure, it happens. Oh well. You can’t let the behavior of irresponsible people set the terms for everybody else. Yes, there are people who know what they’re doing and are careless. But there are also responsible people that make perfectly reasonable mistakes. There are people who have bad luck. There are people who are naive and ignorant, but through no fault of their own. There are people who live in fear of their abusive significant others. These are the people that I’m concerned about when I consider the issue of abortion, not the irresponsible people – though they deserve some measure of sympathy, too. We can certainly do better on this front and teaching people about personal responsibility is an important part of resolving the problem of unintended pregnancies, but there’s more that we have to do than just lecture people about their sex lives.
Comment by Levi — January 15, 2013 @ 1:39 pm - January 15, 2013
I’ll just leave these here.
Shorter Levi: I can kill my child because he’s inconvienent, but because someone somewhere might kill someone with a gun, you can’t defend yourself.
Always amusing watching the fascist run into his own words.
Comment by The_Livewire — January 15, 2013 @ 3:19 pm - January 15, 2013
Thelittlefascist is so nearly brain dead that trying to kick start his reasoning power is all but hopeless.
Read the tripe he spewed #68 and then tell me that he isn’t wasting oxygen.
Thelittlefascist says that if I think abortion should be legal, then I must also go for abortion on demand, abortion as an accessory to convenience and abortion this and abortion that. In clearer terms: If any abortion is legal that all doors and floodgates are open in the abortion department.
So, thelittlefascist must agree that regulating abortion is dead wrong and entirely out of the picture. So, in his world, he is contradicting himself because he loves more and more government regulations for banks and corporations, but he defines legal abortions to be wide open and unregulated.
That has to be so, because if I accept legal abortion on any terms, to be consistent in his world and what passes for his mind, I must accept Planned Parenthood and all its schemes.
Go figure. If he is not just about terminally dense, thelittlefascist must be missing the part of evolution where humans have reasoning powers.
Comment by heliotrope — January 15, 2013 @ 5:57 pm - January 15, 2013