Thursday, May 24, 2012

Why are we funding Planned Parenthood health clinics?


From Bonchamps at American Catholic:

... Planned Parenthood presents us with a false choice: accept our network of abortion mills as legitimate, or women everywhere will suffer. Let us kill children with impunity, or watch your women die from easily preventable illnesses! However did the world and the women within it survive before Planned Parenthood emerged as the sole guardian and guarantor of “women’s health”? 
The truth is that there is no reason whatsoever why abortion must necessarily be tied to the other medical services that PP provides. There are pro-life groups within and outside of the Church that are prepared to offer such services. The nightmare scenario constantly offered by PP is nothing but a giant fallacy. And while I am not really a fan of taxpayer money being used for anything other than the legitimate functions of the state, if such funding IS going to be used to fund health clinics, there is no reason why it can’t be used to fund those that don’t butcher children for profit. When PP is a state-funded monopoly (or at least when the attempt is made to establish it as such), of course they can argue that their sudden absence would mean a setback for some women who depend upon them. But there is no reason why PP has to remain a state-funded monopoly. Where there is a demand, there will be a supply. Where there is competition, there will be lower prices. And where there is charity, there will be compassion for those who truly cannot afford to pay. In this case, money that would have gone to PP is simply going to other health clinics that do not provide abortions.

Why are we sending any tax money to the organization that is the most prolific killer of Americans in history? Planned Parenthood kills 300,000 American children each year-- equal to the number of American combat deaths in World War II. A third of the dead children are minority kids, because Planned Parenthood sites their clinics preferentially in minority neighborhoods.

Let's use taxpayer money to fund health services provided by people who do not butcher our children for profit.  


  1. In your honor, I'm sending a big check to my local Planned Parenthood today. Thanks for the reminder!

    1. It will surely bounce!

    2. A lawyer sends money to an abortion mill. Man... I feel like I need a shower after reading that comment.

      New personal rule: Avoid reading the stuff from people who do not even have the class/spine to get a google name or sign their posts.

  2. Michael,

    The reason why Planned Parenthood is funded is to piss off people like like you. No other reason is necessary.

    Again, a fetus isn't a child. A woman's intrauterine fetus is her fetus, not yours, ours or anyone elses's fetus.

    If competition results in reduced costs, remind me again why America spends 16% of GDP on health care, fails to cover substantial segments of the population and has the worst outcomes of health care of all the developed countries, so it's very much an outlier amongst comparable countries in regard to cost (most expensive) and results (worst).

    Or isn't American healthcare competitive and it's all a rort?

    1. "Again, a fetus isn't a child. A woman's intrauterine fetus is her fetus, not yours, ours or anyone elses's fetus."

      Have you ever heard of Jianna Jesson? She's am abortion survivor. Her mother tried to kill her via abortion. She survived the abortion. If she hadn't been alive in the first place, how did she survive it? Survival implies that someone is already alive and continues living.

      That is why why talk of "fetal viaibility". For some people, this represents some kind of sick line in that divides murder from "choice". A viable fetus is one that can survive--that's that word again--outside the womb. Using a truly perverse logic, these people reason that fetuses (children, actually) aren't really alive if they can't survive outside the womb.

      A sane person knows that not being able to survive outside the womb means that they will DIE outside the womb. Things that aren't living can't die.


    2. Bach,
      ""Again, a fetus isn't a child. A woman's intrauterine fetus is her fetus, not yours, ours or anyone elses's fetus."
      This is where we disagree.
      A human foetus can only develop into a baby, and therefore is human. A human has the right to determine it's own destiny.
      It belongs only to itself, not it's mother or father. The mother and father OWE it the chance to develop into a child. Should they lapse in that responsibility it is their FAILURE that they own, not the child.
      People cannot own other people in my view.
      Not of any age, race, religion, size, or opinion.
      Killing a human is killing a human.
      That has a name.
      It is a crime.
      Someday, I pray, those involved in making this industry will be held responsible.

    3. Trish,

      "A sane person knows that not being able to survive outside the womb means that they will DIE outside the womb. Things that aren't living can't die."

      Very well put.
      Too much bloody mindedness is hidden in this clinical, pseudo-scientific new-speak of 'survival'.

      Your stimulating point, above, has lead me to further: A living thing that is intentionally caused to die has been killed.

      In other words: Removing a living thing from the environment that allows it to 'survive' (ie not die) is to cause it's death.
      Because only a living thing may be caused to die (or not 'survive'), and removing it from it's environment is the cause of death - therefor, those removing a living thing in order to cause it's death are killing it.
      When the thing that is to 'survive' - or not - is human, and can only ever be a human being; then it is only logical to conclude that those that cause the removal of that living human are killing him/her.
      At 8 weeks, or or 80 years, it is still killing.
      Well put, indeed.

    4. Trish,

      My comment was in response to Michael's final sentence referring to 'butcher(ing) OUR children for profit'. A woman's fetus isn't ours. It's hers. The case of Gianna Jensen has been disputed. The confidentiality of an adoption means that the medical history can't be verified, and there's a suspicion that the case has been fabricated for political reasons.

      Perhaps not. There was a similar case in Germany, involving a failed late term abortion for trisomy 21. However, almost all abortions are carried out early, in which viability of the fetus isn't a question. I don't dispute that a fetus isn't human. It's just not a person, just like the 30% of conceptions that spontaneously abort.

      I personally support the right of women to have the automatic right to decide whether abortion is wanted or not early in the pregnancy (it's her body after all), with her automatic right disappearing late in pregnancy. You have to set a dividing line, which is arbitrary, like voting age and legal drinking age. I'd set it at 20 weeks, because there's evidence that the capacity of the fetus to feel pain doesn't develop to at least 24 weeks.

      That would have avoided Gianna Jensen and also the case in Germany.

  3. Dr Egnor,
    I think we need to look deeper into this trend than the business side of it. That's a start, but we really need to follow the trail.
    To find the beast itself we have to look into it's cave, and it's lair is history.

    What we are seeing here is the decline of a civilization. The implosion of a stiff meritocracy cum rigid technocracy.
    An experiment in democracy gone oligarchy.
    The horrible patterns of infanticide, selfishness, amorality, oppression, censorship, and ever present sexual deviances are typical of a period of decline. Just as they are today.

    History records several such slopes, and each of them is replete with exactly these kinds of behaviour. Surely today's is far more clinical (or 'scientific', if you prefer), but they are spun quite typically for the 'greater good'.
    Offering up the blood of innocents for the 'crops' or the 'earth' (or the personal income) is a constant during these periods. So operations like Planned Parenthood are a perfect fit for our corporate present.
    This trend of child sacrifice seems to serve the function of hastening the downfall of the entire corrupted hulk, and encourage those who would sack and reduce the last remnants of any such culture.
    Evil pays evil wages.

    During the final throes of this infection of malaise -of this mass 'affluenza'- the symptoms that present themselves nearest the demise are the most disgusting and horrific and include The murder of the elderly and children, even the scraping of unborn babes from their mothers' wombs is justified as a 'choice', the whole of the potential of that new human life reduced to a matter of property law. Who 'owns' 'it'?
    Consider: If the most amazing and important thing, the womb, is not sacred to a man or nation, what is? What more do their enemies needs say?
    Need an excuse for slaughter?
    'They kill their own young' is better than any blood libel imaginable.
    Evil motivates evil.
    Thus we begin to see the pay-off for preventing all those sons and daughters, all the cousins, uncles, and great aunties. The generations of literature, science, and art. All that potential sacrificed to some abstract notion like time or wealth ('sustainability') ; all of that life scraped from a womb in an act of sacrifice to the status quo.
    And what does the mighty - whatever they call it - pay them back with? Derision. Opposition. Loss. Madness.
    Eventually, destruction of their way of life.
    Evil rewards with evil.

    I recall my grandfather saying to me, when I was a boy, something that he felt was obvious, but struck me as profound. It has stayed with me all these years, through war and peril.
    "We either stand against the evil we see, or are(be?) damned with it."

  4. Looks like lil' cwusader forgot to take his meds again today. Really, the daily dose is there for a reason.

    1. Oh! What an astute reply.
      So rich in in thought. So deep in the level of contemplation.
      What a brilliant mind you are, Anon.
      How deeply respectful you are of others.
      Consider your compassion towards a veteran, when you suggest a comment you cannot grasp must be the result of his missing his meds.
      Meds for what I wonder? A serious wound? Cancer?
      Or do you mean mental stuff? Like anti-psychotics or anti-depressants for serious disorders like PTSD?
      Wouldn't that be HILARIOUS!

      Well, unfortunately for you, it is none.
      This veteran is neither rotting with disease, crippled, or driven near mad by war.
      He is a lucky one.
      In simple terms, so even YOU may understand: I don't have to take any 'meds' currently.

      Care to comment on my comment? Or is this goodbye?

  5. "We either stand against the evil we see, or are(be?) damned with it."

    So, crusader, how does it feel to be the evil rot in society that is getting purged?

  6. Oh yes, you're right. The Constitution says so. So we're not killing Americans. We're killing stateless people. Which really makes a difference, because if a person isn't an American, it's already to kill her.


  7. Pepe,

    Wrong again as usual. We 'heartless atheists' (as you so characteristically charmingly put it) realize that an individual is 50% nature, 50% nurture (approximately, as discussed in such 'atheist' books such as 'the Blank Slate'). There isn't much point in producing unwanted children or adding children to communities which are unable to provide for the ones it has already.

    Children have to be nurtured to realize their potential, otherwise you'll get the tragedy as typified to excess in the Rumanian orphanage scandal under the previous Communist regime.

  8. Anon,

    "So, crusader, how does it feel to be the evil rot in society that is getting purged?"

    I don't understand the thrust of of your question. It seems to be unrelated to the post or my comment. Perhaps your comment is on the wrong post or blog?