Planned Parenthood and Christianity ?????

[KristofferUmfrey]

No, I'm done with you. I refuse to have a discussion with someone who believes a baby isn't a viable life until it leaves the birth canal and can't see the difference between brutally murdering a baby and a common medical procedure.

[BenRaines]

No life begins at contraception unless the contraception doesn't work.

Ben Raines

[Guest ceeboo]

Some think life begins at contraception, .

Now you are finally begining to sound LDS :lol::lol:

[PeterVenkman]

This is seriously insulting. Refer to me in the third person, question my membership in the church, call me loveless, disgusting, disturbing and walk away from the conversation. Thank you for showing persuasive skills and reasonable thought on an issue of intellectual importance.

Haha, whoops, you know I meant conception.

[pam]

Please explain to me why it is truly disturbing to compare an abortion (medical procedure) with a hysterectomy (medical procedure)?

I've had a hysterectomy but I wasn't killing an unborn child either.

[KristofferUmfrey]

Never questioned your membership in the church, I'm not even Mormon.

Bye.

[BenRaines]

I know you meant conception. I was trying to add a little levity to a situation I felt was getting out of hand.

If people can not remain civil to each other even with opposing ideas then infractions will be issued and the thread will be closed or deleted.

Ben Raines

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

Why does everyone keep asking me this?

Yes, I am a member of the church. I was born and raised in the church. I graduated from seminary, I'm an Eagle Scout, and my family has a very large food storage. In fact, my mother helped design a very popular year-based food storage program for the church. I've also baptized people to the church, although I have never been on a mission (have however been on splits). This is all true.

Are you saying that it is impossible for one to be very far left on the political spectrum and still identify as a mormon?

Burn Him!!!!!!!!!!

Oops....just read Ben's post....um....

[Guest ceeboo]

on an issue of intellectual importance.

My new friend Peter,

As to not pile on you ( you seem to have your hands full ) I wanted to offer this for your consideration.

I wish it was simply an issue of itellectual importance ( for ALL our sake ). I am afraid it is MUCH bigger and may indeed have serious consequences for many.

God bless,

Carl

[Guest ceeboo]

I'm not even Mormon.

Bye.

Hey, who let the non Mormons in this thread !!!!!!:):)

[georgia2]

If you research the history of the founding of this organization, and the main women who were the ones who created it, you would have a better understanding of the TRUE objectives that these women have.

We are in a time where good is called evil and evil is called good. Planned parenthood's main objective is abortion. Oh they throw in other things that make them seem to do some good, but it is only a cover for the evil objective.

I am all for a woman to have a choice whether to have a baby or not. Women can choose to use birth control pills, condoms, spermicide, rythum, saying no and even adoption, BUT WOMEN do not have the right to kill a baby in the womb. This is not a choice, this is murder.

There are more babies aborted in a year than all people who have been killed in all wars combined.

[Misshalfway]

The LDS church is against this organization. Just for the record.

[MarginOfError]

Notice he continues to refer to the babies as "fetuses", this way he can dehumanize them in his mind and silence his conscience for supporting such a barbaric practice.

Baby is not a medical term. There is an oocyte, a zygote, a fetus, an infant, a child, an adolescent, and an adult.

And just for the record, I do think several of you are treating Peter with and absurd unkindness. Go ahead and disagree with the man, but leave it at a disagreement.

Edited November 18, 2008 by MarginOfError

[KristofferUmfrey]

Baby is not a medical term. There is an oocyte, a zygote, a fetus, an infant, a child, an adolescent, and an adult.

And just for the record, I do think several of you are treating Peter with and absurd unkindness. Go ahead and disagree with the man, but leave it at a disagreement.

Quite honestly someone who thinks unrestricted abortion is swell, thinks there are things worse then partial birth abortion, and believes abortion is akin to a common medical procedure has ZERO respect from me, and sometimes it shows in my writings

[threepercent]

... I am also a strong proponent of unrestricted abortion rights...... I will take you to mean that I am also evil and disgusting...

(1) ... Especially since those activities are constitutionally protected.

(2)

There are a number of circumstances that justify abortions,

and people should be able to make that decision with their bodies.

Ultimately, no one in their right mind wants to kill fetuses.

I disagree so across the board with this I wonder where to start.

you are a strong proponent of things that are evil and disgusting, that does not make you evil or disgusting, it makes you a supporter of evil.

Abortion is not constitutionally protected. this would require an extensive thread, but in short it does not matter because the constitution is not being enforced anyway.

I agree that there are circumstances that may justify an abortion, but this is a load of stink coming from you because you believe in unrestricted abortions, its intellectually dishonest for you to use this argument. for you, the "number of circumstances" is "I'm pregnant".

its not her body. period. I can easily prove this with double blind dna testing. to call it her body is a lie. again, intellectually dishonest just to support your view.

"Ultimately, no one in their right mind wants to kill fetuses"

interesting choice of words. "kill" stands out here. On a different note, you are promoting this very thing, and you are wrong anyway. Ultimately, people don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions, and given a choice of facing the music and doing the right thing or "killing fetuses" they choose to kill someone else instead of having their life interrupted. Just to head off any arguments here, I for the most part feel that you get one choice, if you didn't get to choose to engage in the activity that got you pregnant then you get the choice of abortion, but if you did get to choose that, then you have already made your choice.

when the alternative would be much worse

what alternative? how is it worse? are you trying to say the life of the mother might be tragically lost while she murders her child? please explain.

I think the word "pro-life" is a tactic

of course it is, so are the words "pro-choice". I am not "anti-choice" I think the above shows where the choice is really made though, and "forced pregnancy', what a joke. How about we call it "forced murder prevention." This is just all spin, and you accuse others of it then adopt the tactic. More intellectual dishonesty. The difference is that the term "life" is really the central issue, as it is a life or death issue. the term "choice" was chosen to try to change the issue from a life/death issue to a freedom/slavery issue, except that the redefining of the argument is a lie. the choices were made prior to the abortion issue.

but there is something of merit to it

we must define merit differently.

but isn't there something to be said for overpopulation

no. I guess you didn't believe Him when the Lord said there is enough and to spare? Did you know that if you gave every single man, woman, and child 1/4 acre of land (so a family of 4 gets an acre) that the entire world population would fit in less that 2/3rds of Australia? that would leave the rest of the land mass empty. ponder that for a bit.

also, "global warming" for the most part is a lie.

Edited November 18, 2008 by threepercent

[bytor2112]

The LDS church is against this organization. Just for the record.

And that should clear things up for members who find themselves confused on such matters. If the church is against it.......then it stands to reason that the Lord is against it....hence we should also be against it. For those of us who may struggle in the grey areas...thankfully we have a living Prophet and the restored church of Jesus Christ to lead us toward the truth and light.

[Guest ceeboo]

And that should clear things up for members who find themselves confused on such matters. If the church is against it.......then it stands to reason that the Lord is against it....hence we should also be against it. For those of us who may struggle in the grey areas...thankfully we have a living Prophet and the restored church of Jesus Christ to lead us toward the truth and light.

" Should " clear things up, I wonder if it DOES !!!!

Peace,

Carl

[threepercent]

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."

Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."

Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.

Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

As an advocate of birth control I wish ... to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation....

On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.

Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics."

Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."

Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.

"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."

Margaret Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza. "Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?" Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, page 44.

"The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped."

Margaret Sanger. Speech quoted in Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do. The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference. Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, November 11-12, 1921. Published by the Birth Control Review, Gothic Press, pages 172 and 174.

"The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order..."

Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

"[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children..."

Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

"Give dysgenic groups [people with 'bad genes'] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization."

Margaret Sanger, April 1932 Birth Control Review.

"As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our outrageous and our courageous leader, we will probably find a number of areas in which we may find more about Margaret Sanger than we thought we wanted to know..."

Faye Wattleton, Past-president of Planned Parenthood

Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, proposed the American Baby Code that states, "No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child… without a permit for parenthood".

Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, proposed the Population Congress with the aim, "...to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization."

[Guest ceeboo]

Hi threepercent,

Thanks for that,

Hmmmmmm, still not sure though

I think this Christian ( ceeboo ) is still in the middle somewhere

After all, I did hear they gave free dental floss to the poor, so how bad of an organization could they really be ????:)

If we Christians could only look past the 280,000 abortions in the good old US of A per year, we might see alot of value in cavity reduction.

Edited November 18, 2008 by ceeboo

[PeterVenkman]

I disagree so across the board with this I wonder where to start.

you are a strong proponent of things that are evil and disgusting, that does not make you evil or disgusting, it makes you a supporter of evil.

Abortion is not constitutionally protected. this would require an extensive thread, but in short it does not matter because the constitution is not being enforced anyway.

I agree that there are circumstances that may justify an abortion, but this is a load of stink coming from you because you believe in unrestricted abortions, its intellectually dishonest for you to use this argument. for you, the "number of circumstances" is "I'm pregnant".

its not her body. period. I can easily prove this with double blind dna testing. to call it her body is a lie. again, intellectually dishonest just to support your view.

"Ultimately, no one in their right mind wants to kill fetuses"

interesting choice of words. "kill" stands out here. On a different note, you are promoting this very thing, and you are wrong anyway. Ultimately, people don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions, and given a choice of facing the music and doing the right thing or "killing fetuses" they choose to kill someone else instead of having their life interrupted. Just to head off any arguments here, I for the most part feel that you get one choice, if you didn't get to choose to engage in the activity that got you pregnant then you get the choice of abortion, but if you did get to choose that, then you have already made your choice.

what alternative? how is it worse? are you trying to say the life of the mother might be tragically lost while she murders her child? please explain.

of course it is, so are the words "pro-choice". I am not "anti-choice" I think the above shows where the choice is really made though, and "forced pregnancy', what a joke. How about we call it "forced murder prevention." This is just all spin, and you accuse others of it then adopt the tactic. More intellectual dishonesty. The difference is that the term "life" is really the central issue, as it is a life or death issue. the term "choice" was chosen to try to change the issue from a life/death issue to a freedom/slavery issue, except that the redefining of the argument is a lie. the choices were made prior to the abortion issue.

we must define merit differently.

no. I guess you didn't believe Him when the Lord said there is enough and to spare? Did you know that if you gave every single man, woman, and child 1/4 acre of land (so a family of 4 gets an acre) that the entire world population would fit in less that 2/3rds of Australia? that would leave the rest of the land mass empty. ponder that for a bit.

also, "global warming" for the most part is a lie.

What is the difference between being evil and supporting evil? Does it make a qualitative difference in God's eyes?

You say that abortion is not constitutionally protected, but it actually is. If you look at the decision of Roe v. Wade, then you will see that the right to terminate pregnancy arises from the constitutional right to privacy and bodily integrity, both stemming from the Bill of Rights. This has been constitutional law since the decision was handed down in the 1970s. I suspect that you will say it is not constitutional because the word "abortion" does not appear in the constitution, but that response fails to understand the idea of precedent and the role of the judiciary in our government. The Supreme Court is the entity that is responsible for interpreting the meaning of the constitution, and in 1973 the United States Supreme Court said that the right to an abortion was a constitutionally protected right.

One other thing on this. In our church we have a First Presidency that gets to "interpret" scriptures and other fundamental texts, and then give us "guidance" on what they mean. We have a group that is responsible for interpreting doctrine and clarifying it for members. That is precisely what the court did here. I don't see how you can say it is not constitutional.

On the issue of "unrestricted abortion rights", I do mean that an abortion should be available to the woman in an unrestricted way. This is not intellectually dishonest. This really comes down to how you view human society. Personally, because I believe that people want to do what's best. To quote a post I made on page 3: You are right, "unrestricted" does mean whenever she feels like it. That is certainly what it infers. I just said a few posts ago that no one wants to kill fetuses. We all like life. The reason I am for abortion rights is because I have an optimistic view of human society. I do not believe that the world is one of sin and degradation and that we must live above it, I think the world has a lot of good to offer and I believe people generally want to do what is best. From this perspective, it is hard for me to believe that enough people will "abuse" the right to an abortion to justify restricting its availability. The woman carrying the child has a life too, and her concerns must be taken into account. To you, it is simply "interrupting life," but this statement itself dehumanizes the being and experience of the woman, including her moral considerations and very difficult decision. Just because you wouldn't make the decision doesn't mean other people don't have the right to make it.

And I'm sorry, but when you have something inside your body feeding off of you, then your body should also be considered in any decision. I don't need a double blind study to tell me that a woman's body is effected by pregnancy.

Finally, on the issue of overpopulation and global warming, the world simply disagrees with you. There are 7 billion people on the planet right now, and they are stretching our resources to the limit. I read an article today that stated there would be a massive clean water shortage by the year 2080 and zero oil in 100 years. Animals are going extinct and plant life is suffering from desertification. Sea wildlife are also suffering because of global warming. I'm sure it would be nice to have your own little quarter acre of land in Australia, but physical space is not really what I am talking about when I refer to overpopulation.

I think you are on the wrong side of science when you take the position that global warming is a lie. Check out Al Gore's movie. It's pretty good.

With regards to language choices and "killing fetuses", yes, I used the word "kill" as opposed to "terminate". The same way my motorcycle has a "kill" switch and someone can "kill" an interview by walking away. Semantics are not terribly persuasive, although it is a tactic.

Finally, with regard to the Sanger quotes, this is totally irrelevant to me. Planned Parenthood is not Margaret Sanger. Planned Parenthood does not advocate eugenics. Planned Parenthood does not advocate vasectomies for criminals. Planned Parenthood has not stated any opposition to the mormon community or children. This discussion is about Planned Parenthood and abortion rights, not Margaret Sanger. I don't agree with margaret Sanger on most of those quotes, but I don't think that prevents me from supporting a very helpful international medical organization.

Edited November 18, 2008 by PeterVenkman

[pam]

From this perspective, it is hard for me to believe that enough people will "abuse" the right to an abortion to justify restricting its availability.

I would have to disagree with this argument. I had a friend years ago that had 4 abortions. She was extremely promiscuous. Treated sex very casually. Her response to me when I talked to her about possibly using birth control was...why worry about all of that when I can just get an abortion? She used abortion as a form of birth control per se.

That was just one person in a world of billions. I would be hard pressed to believe that she was the ONLY one or one of a very few that had this same thought pattern.

May I add. Where did she go for these abortions? Planned Parenthood.

Edited November 18, 2008 by pam

[ADoyle90815]

I personally think that if a mother is likely to die if a pregnancy continues, then it's best to have an abortion, as awful as that is. To me, it's better than having children who were already here grow up without a mother. Also, if the fetus/baby dies in the womb for natural reasons and isn't removed during a miscarriage, then it's best to to remove the dead tissue/body. I also think that in cases of rape, it would be like having the woman raped again to carry a pregnancy she didn't want. Things like Plan B do prevent the likelyhood of that happening in most cases.

Even though I'm pro-choice in a sense, I don't think it should be used as a form of birth control, and that adoption is an acceptable alternative if someone isn't able or willing to care for a child. I don't like that if there's a positive result for Down syndrome and other genetic disorders, the pregnancy is ended after doctors strongly advise mothers to do that. I think it was 5%-10% of mothers refuse to have an abortion in that case. In case you haven't realized, I'm not LDS nor do I have any desire to become one as I approve of abortion in rare cases as mentioned.

[bytor2112]

Finally, I think you are on the wrong side of science when you take the position that global warming is a lie. Check out Al Gore's movie. It's pretty good.

Bahahahahhahah .....A pretty good piece of comedic fiction..... and the idea of overpopulation was debunked as junk science years ago.

From this perspective, it is hard for me to believe that enough people will "abuse" the right to an abortion to justify restricting its availability.

Forty-two million abortions per year doesn't count as abuse? :eek: Particularly since 93% are done for convenience? Funny, how your opinions outweigh the churches opinions. I wonder if your logic will pass with the Saviour at the great judgnment bar?

Edited November 18, 2008 by bytor2112
darn s keeps sticking!!!!

[bytor2112]

Adding to my post regarding guidance from The Prophet......we are also very fortunate to have some very clear guidance from our Catholic friends and the Pope.:)

[Guest ceeboo]

Adding to my post regarding guidance from The Prophet......we are also very fortunate to have some very clear guidance from our Catholic friends and the Pope.:)

:):) :):) :):)

THE CATHOLIC CEEBOO