Planned Parenthood: Not About Choice

Unintended pregnancy happens. If it happens to you and you show up at the Pat Walker Health Center, they give you a packet of information and flyers. It has colorful pages about emergency contraception, an adoption agency list, free prenatal care, and a very innocent-looking info-graphic brochure called “Unsure About Your Pregnancy?” It walks you through very reasonable-sounding questions, like “what are two or three things that I hope to have or achieve in the next five to ten years?” Then, it moves to “how would becoming a parent help?”

On the back page, it gives the toll-free number for the abortion information hotline. And the National Abortion Federation (NAF) publishes the brochure.

The NAF protects the big abortion industry. It is an industry that hides behind the façade of choice, while discouraging mothers from evaluating all options and actually making a choice. The NAF fights laws requiring informed consent that would give patients detailed information about abortion and an ultrasound, hates parental consent, and is apathetic about adoption promotion—the “choose life” Arkansas license plate were a political nightmare.

It all hit the fan a couple of weeks ago when the Susan G. Komen Foundation decided that fighting cancer—after all, what they are about—was more important than subsidizing America’s largest abortion provider.

The media jumped on board like five college kids in an F-150 headed to the Waffle House, parroting every line big abortion fed them. Students defended Komen’s $700,000 donation as cancer awareness and screening, despite the fact that Planned Parenthood typically doesn’t offer mammograms, it just refers women to other clinics.

They always hide behind other services that are widely available to protect the procedure that is usually exclusive to them. Lots of free clinics and non-profits offer pregnancy help and breast cancer screening, but very few will perform second-trimester abortions in routine dilation and evacuation abortion procedures.

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood rakes in millions from women’s pain. Planned Parenthood’s own Guttmacher Institute said that each procedure billed an average of $451. Planned Parenthood ended 329,445 innocent, unborn lives in 2010, according to their annual report.

In addition to millions of dollars in abortion revenue, Planned Parenthood’s annual report showed that they scored nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money. It’s all under the pretense that it goes to their other services. Regardless of your opinion on the issue, don’t force all of us to pay for its flagship provider.

Life advocates are broken hearted to see the rampant human rights abuse that is abortion, but they are equally moved and compassionate for the young women who are in the impossibly difficult situations that lead them to groups like Planned Parenthood.

There are far more crisis pregnancy centers nationwide than abortion clinics. They are, in reality, what Planned Parenthood is in its own imagination. They are compassionate centers that provide free counseling, free prenatal care, pregnancy testing and ultrasounds, adoption information and everything else expectant mothers need to make a choice.

Loving Choices, for example, is a low-key yet highly effective non-profit in Fayetteville. Scores of volunteers and counselors offer free services with compassion and love to women on a daily basis. No pressure to make money off an abortion, but free services that women need.

But those aren’t the types of groups that “choice” advocates defend with taxpayer money or Komen grants. They insist on the one institution that also takes unborn life. Komen wasn’t even “getting political” by pulling its Planned Parenthood support. It was trying to exit the fray, to get out of the business, but activists wouldn’t let that happen.

How much choice is offered at Planned Parenthood? Again, going back to their annual report, they claim responsibility for 329,445 deaths by abortion and a paltry 841 adoption referrals. That’s it—three digits. 0.3 percent of the abortion total. It’s the full extent of “choice” offered by America’s largest abortion provider.

If you believe life begins at conception, abortion is not just a social issue. It’s the defining human rights cause of our day. The entire discussion about how abortion is only one part of Planned Parenthood misses the mark. We wouldn’t tolerate small bits of human trafficking or abuse, we shouldn’t tolerate an organization that profits from death. Planned Parenthood is not in the business of offering choice. We should be.

People arguing that life begins at conception are not primarily pastors and protestors. It’s people like Dr. Micheline Mathews-Roth from Harvard Medical School, Dr. Jerome Lejeune, the father of modern genetics; Dr. Hymie Gordon, chairman of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Landrum Shettles, the father of IVF—all of whom testified before Congress this belief.

We should be in the business of protecting life. We should preserve its sanctity, its intrinsic value, its unending worth from conception to death, and fight for its quality in between.

Will Simpson is a finance and economics major, and a Traveler columnist.

His column appears every other Wednesday.

JohnGriffith92

Therefore you are saying that all males in the world should have no say about abortion. And if I have no say over whether she keeps or gives up the child, why should I stick around to care for the child?
The answer to that question of course is because I also love the child, because he is my child as well as the mother’s child. Because the child is also mine, I should have a say as well.
Jeremy

I wasn’t really attempting an analogy and did not accomplish one.

If the object being discussed is not a person, if the part owner that we call the Father is demanding a say in what happens to the object, then it is necessarily a discussion over property.

An analogy would be if I compared the fetus to two people owning rental property. One of them living in it, the other not. The one living in it will have a greater effort expended in the maintenance of the property, but not by that gain greater say over what is done with the property. Not a perfect analogy, as the house is not living in the person, but I only bring it up to illustrate what is an analogy and that what I said above is a fact.

It’s a property issue. That it has a variation on the level of pain or effort over differing instances or custodianship does not affect that it is still a discussion of property.
Kate

Not even touching on anything else, just pointing out that abstinence-only education is where our education system fails youth. People are going to have sex and when they are taught that condoms do not work and are not reliable, that’s where unwanted pregnancies come from. It is our fault for failing the youths that look to schools for education.
woman

I’m a little confused as to what your point is.
I was trying to show that aborting a fetus is just flat out not the same as killing a person. On many different levels.

I was trying to give a little personal perspective on why women have abortions.

Are you saying that because I had an abortion then my views are automatically not valid?
35-40% of women have an abortion in their lifetimes.
Brad Braddock

If I could rule over any kind of major population density, I would raise children until they were 30 and have them reproduce. As for adults over the age of 30 that have already reproduced I would send them to mars to create life. I would teach the children to respect life and provide for other organisms to survive where ever possible in the universe naturally or with the help of humans. You guys don’t seem to realize that life on earth is more precious than we thought it was. We are looking at things on earth that have occurred naturally and we are calling it beautiful, intelligently designed or evolutionarily. Some specie’s on earth have actually learned how to coexist with other organisms and to help them both survive. I call this kind of natural coexistence factor to be more morally correct than your Gods anti-coexistance factor
justthefacts

Numbers “straight from the horses mouth”…quoted from Planned Parenthood’s Annual Report. 2009-10, page 5. http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ppfa_financials_2010_122711_web_vf?mode=mobile
Jeremy

My point is that if your target audience is people that disagree with you, you have to deal with the subject starting with their premises, not yours.

I tried to help you understand by placing you in their situation with the rape scenario.

You tried to relate to them on the level of how they would make people they viewed as murders feel. I tried to point out that if you observed someone doing something abhorrent that you would not care how they felt about you pointing it out.

If you believe that a fetus is fundamentally different than a child, fine. Argue that terminating a fetus is no different morally than having a skin tag removed. The argument has to start with the why of them calling someone a murderer, not the emotional impact because if they are right, the emotional impact is just as irrelevant as how a rapist would feel about being called a rapist.
Reid Wahl

I still disagree with you. For one thing, I can think of no other type of shared property that actually is a part of one partner’s body, living inside her and feeding off her. I’m finding it hard to articulate all my thoughts because I’m barely awake, but I don’t think this argument is going anywhere, nor is it extremely relevant to the article.
Jeremy

If two people are claiming the right to decide what to do with an object, they are claiming ownership. So if the fetus is not a person, it is by definition a property rights issue. What is decided on that basis is up to the courts, but it is rightly decided that way.
Reid Wahl

If you’re really gonna keep this up, I’m calling false dichotomy. I’m not in any way saying an embryo or fetus is a person, but it’s not simply a property issue, as it is a growth of cells INFLUENCING and completely depending for its continued existence on the carrier. You could say there’s as much similarity to a parasite as there is to property, but I won’t argue on that. Even if you say that property could be a pet, that pet is neither grows inside and influences its custodian, nor is it completely dependent on the custodian for its continued existence.

I’m not making the argument that it’s not a person–though I DON’T BELIEVE IT IS ONE. Here I’m just saying that it’s not the simple dichotomy you’re making it, and the fact that it’s not a person doesn’t make it automatically property.

Troll-comment if you want, but I’m done with this.
Reid Wahl

Or if it is property, it’s property whose care is of a different nature such that the male partner does not have equal, or perhaps any, say in its existence while inside the woman’s body.
RobinsonM

Your response had literally nothing to do with the topic on hand. Also, you would “teach the children to respect life” how ironic.
life matters

Awesome article Will! Thank you for writing with such truth and conviction!
BR

Ridiculous. When women choose to keep their baby, its a miracle, when women choose to have an abortion they “didn’t have a choice”. Uhh yeah they did and they chose to have a life of their own rather than ruin it with an unplanned pregnancy. Just because you don’t like their choice doesn’t mean they didn’t have one and were “forced into abortion” by some evil organization. If you aren’t paying for it, what difference is it to you what women do with their bodies? And aren’t they in a better position to know what’s best for them than some 65 year old white guys in the senate (read: GOP)?
BJR

Thank you for posting! Very important to point out that if it doesn’t happen in a clinic, it happens in a back alley. I know there isn’t a Bible quote for that, but it is 100% more relevant to the discussion at hand.
BJR

Correct, no one is pro-abortion, and abortions will always happen. Women are a lot safer having an abortion in a clinic than a back alley though. That’s the bottom line.
Kjwaller

Oh this makes perfect sense now. I mean with all the smartness coming from a guy about a guy issue. Oh wait, you cannot get pregnant so you don’t have to worry about being strapped down with a kid or having to live with the choice that you make. So that sort of disqualifies you as an expert. Plus, you did not cite one single source. By the way, Komen Foundation is under investigation for misappropriation of funds with all the good things that they are supposed to be doing. You should go look at the distribution of funds. And, dude, if you are going to write, learn when to use it and they and where to put the commas. Bad, bad journalism. Finally, in the USA, abortion is legal and the definition of life has been identified by our supreme court justices. So, for you to try and reinvent when life begins based on your what? Religion…doesn’t work dude. Your religion is your religion and not mine, so quit trying to do like the other rightwingnuts.
Jeremy

”Troll-comment if you want, but…”

Really? You devolved it to that?

Anyway, there are pets that are completely dependent on the owners for continued survival.

Outside of a forced impregnation or fraud involving birth control, the act of consented sex is an acceptance of the possibility of being the custodian of such an object, in part, born of the man’s labor, that is, he helped build it.

As such, in most cases, it is a property issue. Outside of a pre-sex agreement, there is tacit agreement upon the act of consented sex.

Property issue.
Jeremy

”…no one is pro-abortion…” False. There are plenty of eugenicists floating around that would back me up on that.
http://www.facebook.com/astrobrad Brad Braddock

It’s confirmed, you believe in the superiority of the human race, you talk about human life like its sacred, and you would have the human popuation
increase exponentially until every square inch of the earth was coved by our
species, thus eliminating most multicellular organism on earth including ourselves. Stop bringing up eugenics and how it relates to Hitler in Nazi Germany. People grow tired of listening or being compared to Hitler every time there’s a difference of opinion about Naturalism. Please, come up with your own logical reasoning for your beliefs and stop regurgitating everything your pastor told you! Hitler exterminated the Jewish population which should be classified as mass genocide not eugenics. There might have been some experiments done with eugenics and how it relates to the Aaron race, but you can’t convince me that these kinds of experiments themselves were immoral unless you tell me more about the Nazi’s experimental design? Saying that any design based on eugenics is bad is like saying that the discovery of nuclear power was bad too. Knowledge, as it is can be used for good or bad depending on how you use it. End Of story! I’m simply suggesting that we use all means necessary to limit
our population growth rate. It would be a pity to wait until the next major extinction on earth occurred due to human activity, before we start to realize how sacred all life really is. You say that we “We are by nature meat-eaters.”. So, are you asking me how are we to hold life sacred but still eat meat? Seriously? Our planet that we call earth has provided all of the means necessary for the survival of the human race. I’m not against the farming of animals just like I’m not against the production of crops. What I am against is the meaningless and thoughtless waste of genetic material that has evolved for hundreds of thousands of years going extinct all because of some hunter who wanted to go trophy hunting, thus causing a regressive shift in that organisms allele frequency due to directional selection.
Camille Richoux

THIS. this so much.
Jeremy

“… you believe in the superiority of the human race…” What did I say that leads you to believe that? I did quote you, afterall, to be clear what I was responding to. I never addressed my opinion of the stature of the human race relative to other creatures.

“…you talk about human life like its sacred…” Did I? Man, quotes would help because saying something is so does not of itself make it so.

“…and you would have the human popuation
increase exponentially until every square inch of the earth was coved by our species…” Would I? I never indicated that was a desired or even achievable end. Well before the world is unsustainably overrun by us, we will probably have a large scale war or, more likely, a plague. We’re about due. All I was pointing out was that it is natural for us to expand and then be confront by a force that culls us. Every species on earth goes through this process. Why would or should we be any different? The directional selection is just your way of saying that it’s your guess that us being involved in natural selection is a bad thing as you estimate good and bad. If you are going to claim science to say that diversity of species is important, you also have to acknowledge that science says we are part of natural selection which is a helpful process that necessarily creates extinctions even if we are not involved at all and improves the species that survive. Or to put it differently, natural selection is, in part, the process by which many species that are not worthy of surviving die. Natural selection improves the “genetic material” of the “planet we call earth”. It does this by eliminating some of it.

“People grow tired of listening or being compared to Hitler every time there’s a difference of opinion about Naturalism.” I rarely bring it up because usually people aren’t cool-headed enough to learn from history. That said, I brought it up for one reason alone, only one, “…congrats to Planned Parenthood…for insuring the survival of the human race and for eliminating so much
unwanted human life that would have only made it harder for other ecosystems and other organisms to survive. By insuring survivability of other organisms and their ecosystems on earth we are there for insuring are own survival…” That is crack-smoking, jew-killing nuts. There are logically defensible positions for abortion. This is not one of them. You could not have sounded more like a dictator wanting to kill millions of people. The casual disregard for what you acknowledge as human life is disturbing. According to what you said, you believe in mass killings of humans to better the ecosystem like when deer get overpopulated and they increase the kill limit. As I said in my previous post, opposition to murder is not a religious position. An overwhelming majority of secularists oppose murder. You support killing “human life” for the ecosystem. Your words. Were you to offer that self-defense case in court after hatcheting a few adults human lives, you would be laughed out to prison. You have made yourself sound like that person who set up a hit with an undercover FBI agent to kill people wearing fur.

“Hitler exterminated the Jewish population which should be classified as mass genocide not eugenics.” Well, it wasn’t just the jews. That aside, why would it not be both? They selected an inferior population to eliminate so as to not muddy the waters, as it were. Not all that different from selecting a population as ideal to be eliminated for the health of the ecosystem.

“[Eugenics] can be used for good or bad depending on how you use it.” Sure. The implication being that your idea is better than Hitler’s. Let’s examine your idea. “You have asked me to respect the rights of tax payers who don’t want publicly funded
money to go into the abortions. However, I don’t respect anyone’s opinions in less their opinions have some truth behind them.” Okay, so you support people being forced to financially support what they consider to be immoral because you don’t like why they believe what they do. Money is the method of exchange for time and effort. By supporting forced financial support, you believe in enslaving people to work for what they think is murder. That you have no appreciable power to force your belief on others is the main thing that distinguishes you from Hitler.
RobinsonM

For all those saying that just because Simpson is a finance major he shouldn’t talk about this issue, what makes you able? He chose to publish his thoughts and convictions on a subject, the same as everyone on here is voicing theirs. Why act like anyone who has ever had an opinion is a major in that area. Frankly, everyone commenting most likely has no expertise in the area as well. Act like decent human beings and respect those who voice their opinions because we all know you want your opinions to be listened to as well.
Brad Braddock

“He is largely responsible for there being at least 50 million less “human li[ves]” with which to burden the ecosystem.” Your entire conclusion in your last reply makes you sound like you believe in human superiority over other species on earth. Your statements make you sound like your saying that the act of suppressing human life is immoral. Then I would argue that an intelligent
species that doesn’t take control of their own reproduction is actually immoral. We are an intelligent species and with “With great power, comes great responsibility”. We are the only the species on the planet that can control our own destiny. We learned how the earth is finite when we captured the first pictures of the earth from outer space. We noticed that there were limits for life to expand on this pale blue dot and that life could not keep expanding without bounds forever. Hitler did not practice the act of population control. Hitler eliminated a population that he thought he was inferior to based on politics and his own prejudices. I have never heard of a argument that stated how population control immoral. We are controlling the population rate of other animals like deer and I’ve never heard of any arguments from extreme environmentalist on this issue. In the world we live into day we have doubled our life expectancy over the past hundred years due to modern medicine. Therefore, there are now more babies being born
then there are people dyeing and there’s no slowing down of this exponentially baby boom.

“Well before the world is unsustainably
overrun by us, we will probably have a large scale war or, more likely, a plague.
We’re about due.” You’re confirming my conclusion and you have not
offered any arguments to prevent this kind of catastrophe from occurring. You
would have us sit still and do something while we wait for this inevitable to
occur. I would have are species take action to postpone and event prevent a catastrophe
form ever occurring.

“As I said
in my previous post, opposition to murder is not a religious position.” Your
right! Everyone can agree universally that murder is morally wrong unless you’re
killing someone else to survive. The commandment that says thou shalt not
murder is written in every holy book as immoral.

“You support killing
“human life” for the ecosystem.” Natural Selection is designed
to insure the reproductive success of all specie of life. That’s we find that
most prey animals are born in letters. Many offspring are reproduced in letters
because the environment in which they live is so deadly that only a few, maybe
even one of the parent’s offspring’s will actually be able to survive to
produce a new generation. In fact women are born with billions of egg’s that continually
dye at an exponential rate though out their entire lives. What a major waste of
life Mother Nature was caused! We should take this example mother earth has
given us and allow for women to abort unwanted offspring.

“That you have no appreciable
power to force your belief on others”, I would only enforce an opinion on
others if that option was based on truth and not faith. You’re actually trying to push your views and beliefs
on women’s health by not even providing them a choice. In my opinion the state
and federal government should not even be involved in social issues. How bare,
the Republican Party to try and advocate for a smaller government economically but
not socially! How bare them for trying to manipulate the masses and enact a big
brother shadow government. Hypocrites.

Many Atheists would claim
that it is a mission of many religions to reproduce as many offspring as
possible to expand their own religious beliefs. For example, the Mormon faith expands
their religion by progeny and the catholic do by not supporting contraception.
Therefore, most religions indorse their own way of increasing their population to
dominate the world. We should be having abortions in the streets unless you’re
advocating for an increase in population density for the United States to compete
with India and Chain’s ever increasing populations.
Brad Braddock

“He is largely responsible for there being at least 50 million less “human li[ves]” with which to burden the ecosystem.” Your entire conclusion in your last reply makes you sound like you believe in human superiority over other species on earth. Your statements make you sound like your saying that the act of suppressing human life is immoral. Then I would argue that an intelligent
species that doesn’t take control of their own reproduction is actually immoral. We are an intelligent species and with “With great power, comes great responsibility”. We are the only the species on the planet that can control our own destiny. We learned how the earth is finite when we captured the first pictures of the earth from outer space. We noticed that there were limits for life to expand on this pale blue dot and that life could not keep expanding without bounds forever. Hitler did not practice the act of population control. Hitler eliminated a population that he thought he was inferior to based on politics and his own prejudices. I have never heard of a argument that stated how population control immoral. We are controlling the population rate of other animals like deer and I’ve never heard of any arguments from extreme environmentalist on this issue. In the world we live into day we have doubled our life expectancy over the past hundred years due to modern medicine. Therefore, there are now more babies being born
then there are people dyeing and there’s no slowing down of this exponentially baby boom.

“Well before the world is unsustainably
overrun by us, we will probably have a large scale war or, more likely, a plague.
We’re about due.” You’re confirming my conclusion and you have not
offered any arguments to prevent this kind of catastrophe from occurring. You
would have us sit still and do something while we wait for this inevitable to
occur. I would have are species take action to postpone and event prevent a catastrophe
form ever occurring.

“As I said
in my previous post, opposition to murder is not a religious position.” Your
right! Everyone can agree universally that murder is morally wrong unless you’re
killing someone else to survive. The commandment that says thou shalt not
murder is written in every holy book as immoral.

“You support killing
“human life” for the ecosystem.” Natural Selection is designed
to insure the reproductive success of all specie of life. That’s we find that
most prey animals are born in letters. Many offspring are reproduced in letters
because the environment in which they live is so deadly that only a few, maybe
even one of the parent’s offspring’s will actually be able to survive to
produce a new generation. In fact women are born with billions of egg’s that continually
dye at an exponential rate though out their entire lives. What a major waste of
life Mother Nature was caused! We should take this example mother earth has
given us and allow for women to abort unwanted offspring.

“That you have no appreciable
power to force your belief on others”, I would only enforce an opinion on
others if that option was based on truth and not faith. You’re actually trying to push your views and beliefs
on women’s health by not even providing them a choice. In my opinion the state
and federal government should not even be involved in social issues. How bare,
the Republican Party to try and advocate for a smaller government economically but
not socially! How bare them for trying to manipulate the masses and enact a big
brother shadow government. Hypocrites.

Many Atheists would claim
that it is a mission of many religions to reproduce as many offspring as
possible to expand their own religious beliefs. For example, the Mormon faith expands
their religion by progeny and the catholic do by not supporting contraception.
Therefore, most religions indorse their own way of increasing their population to
dominate the world. We should be having abortions in the streets unless you’re
advocating for an increase in population density for the United States to compete
with India and Chain’s ever increasing populations.
woman

I wasn’t trying to create the perfect argument or anything. Just offering the perspective of a woman who has had an abortion.

Which I think is important because no one talks about it. I don’t even use my name because really, it is so stigmatized. I have been kept up many nights by the judgmental things said by pro-lifers.

One of the biggest factors causing people to change their mind about social issues like this and gay marriage is being aware of the fact that you know someone who is gay or who has had an abortion.

I guess I wanted to ground this discussion in lived experience for some people.
Kjw

It’s not about his right to speak his mind, but it is not his right to bully or villify those who aren’t of like mind. His opinion uses highly inflammatory words that are geared at creating an emotional agreement and not a rational or ethical agreement. And to imply that women who are trying to decide what to do are not smart enough to make the right choice for them is ridiculous. Women who are in this situation are not children and they do not need to be rescued from the abortion clinics or the adoption clinics. They have and will think through their options, but they don’t need to read inflammatory journalism. He can say, I’m against choice. I think women should keep their kids. But he shouldn’t say, I’m against poor little babies being murdered in abortion factories. Life is already difficult enought for women; they don’t need to read this kind of emotional propaganda.
Caleb Gray

Even empty insults and threats are painful. It hurts to know that someone else hate you for a choice you made.
Wait What?

U mad bro?
Wait What?

I’m sorry that you think my aunt, sister in law, 3 close friends and thousands of other women have “ruined their lives with an unplanned pregnancy.” I wouldn’t be surprised if you were a “surprise.”
shutit

Gay dudes can’t get preggers so “Whatthewhat” are you talkin’ bout, troll?!
Kate

Wow, you read soo deep into these comments, don’t you? Because they -totally- said that gay men are going to get pregnant and have babies. Same-sex adoption. Go away.
justthefacts

Every county in the state of Arkansas (and essentially in our nation) has a health department that offers contraception, gynecologic exams, STD testing, pregnancy testing and assists women in obtaining mammograms with free vouchers. This is made available for women who cannot afford it and those in modest income brackets. The only “service” missing from this list is abortions. To make the claim that these needs would go unmet were it not for the funding of Planned Parenthood is blatantly false. This can be verified at the Arkansas Department of Health – 800-462-0599. Camille is mistaken in stating those are the issues here. The only real issue is the question of providing abortions and the ethics of funding them.
Former Engineer

I don’t see how Mr. Simpson is trying to, “reinvent when life begins” by stating what some doctors and biological scientists believe. The Supreme Court can provide a legal opinion as to when human life begins, and the legal system is bound by that opinion, however, we must realize that the Supreme Court has reversed itself before and the Congress has passed laws in the past that have esentially made moot previous Supreme Court rulings.

Finally, aren’t you doing what others on the left of this issue are doing? Aren’t you trying to get your views on this issue in the marketplace of ideas with the hopes that it will become or continue to be the law of the land?
Phil-Will

It’s not your “65-year-old white guys in the Senate” who oppose abortion or think that unborn human life should be protected. Nor, for the record, is the GOP alone in having a bunch of 65-year-old white guys (The Senate Majority Leader and Whip are 72 and 67, respectively).

The shading you’re attempting to give the argument is that the only pro-lifers in the world are men, and conversely that all women are pro-choice; neither assumption is even remotely true (See, e.g., the law faculty at Notre Dame, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Governors of South Carolina and New Mexico; the list goes on). Nor, for that matter, are all pro-lifers even Republican (See, e.g., the most of the Blue Dog Democratic Caucus).

Now, as for the “what difference” question…isn’t the entire basis of social activism taking up the cause of someone else?
Jeremy

I didn’t say anything about hate.

If someone finds a behavior reprehensible, it isn’t likely that person will find it necessary to not label the person that freely.

Most people don’t hold back from calling admitted child rapists precisely that.

Similarly, if a prolifer believes that child murder has occurred, they, just as reasonably, will not hold back from calling them that.

You can argue the substance of the belief that it is child murder, but it is rather odd to argue against behavior that would be considered normal when addressing other behaviors.
Jeremy

“Hitler eliminated a population that he thought he was inferior to based on politics and his own prejudices.” You are implying by that that you are free from politics and prejudices in your belief that unwanted human life should be eliminated. I don’t think anyone believes that, yourself included.

“I have never heard of a argument that stated how population control immoral.” Forced population control has often been argued immoral. I’m surprised you haven’t heard such an argument before. I suggest you check into it.

“We should take this example mother earth has given us and allow for women to abort unwanted offspring.” That is the conclusion. I did not see any kind of sound or recognizable argument supporting it. I saw sentences — no argument.

“I would only enforce an opinion on others if that option was based on truth and not faith.” Many people have done even more many horrible things on the same basis. Distilled down: “I will only force people to do things, I will only enslave them to my way of life when I know I’m right.” It really isn’t worth my time to round up all the equally terrifying quotes from people in history that did have power and an idea about what was truth.

“You’re actually trying to push your views and beliefs on women’s health by not even providing them a choice.” Honestly, I’m not even sure what you are trying to say here. I suspect it is not what you wrote. If you mean that I am trying to interfere with a woman’s right to life, by all means, find the quote in this thread that supports that. Show it to me. If you mean that I am pushing my views by “not even providing” something. Pretty much no one describes withholding support or providence as pushing views. So, I hope that isn’t the point you are making because it makes no sense at all, but that is the one closer to what you actually wrote.
AJC

“ rightwingnuts.”, “Bad, bad journalism”, “emotional propaganda.”…. Quit trying to villify and bully Simpson. You are just as guilty of anything you accuse him of and there is no crime against him stating his opinion anyway he pleases. We have a right to free speech for a reason. You’re only upset because he states his opinion in a way that make your ideas out to be sadistic, homicidal, malicious and unrepentant. Which happens to be true! Im pretty sure it was PP that quietly pushed for that investigation too.
BTW, Financially, that over 300,000 aborted is an entire CITIES WORTH OF PEOPLE!!!! We are killing off future tax payers. So you can have my 40,000 worth of debt paced on us by the Goverment, because you want to kill the only ones left that could help pay that debt off when I get old.
Children are a responsibility, yes. but its one that should be thought about before the burning loins does your thinking for you. Thats part of being a MATURE HUMAN BEING. Accepting your responsibilities.
Oh! and if you are male and irresponsible enough to run off when your partner gets pregnant, you should be castrated. personal opinion. If you are a woman, then i would let you do the cutting.
BR

I’m pretty sure that women who have had an abortion don’t want their “cause taken up” by a bunch of people screaming “abortion is murder” at them as they walk out of a clinic. You call it social activism all you want, but there are thousands who do not want their “cause taken up”.
BR

Why do women get abortions if not to prevent a child from ruining their life and future?? For fun??
BR

Right, the real danger here is the 5 eugenicists that exist in this world…thanks so much Jeremy for defending us against such a dangerous threat.
JJ Stokes

Props to Will Simpson for taking a stand on something he believes in. The boldness he contributes to this paper and this campus is something we should all admire.

Go Hogs!

By Will Simpson • February 22nd, 2012 • 9:24 am. 92 comments

By Will Simpson • February 22nd, 2012 • 9:24 am.

92 comments