Now go sit in the corner.
Posted on 10/20/2005 11:19:11 AM PDT by Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A pro-life group that monitors corporate donations to Planned Parenthood says it wants Phillip McGraw, Ph.D, better known as Dr. Phil, to stop promoting the nation's largest abortion business. Dr. Phil's opinion on abortion is unclear the group says, but Life Decisions International is calling on him to stop touting the abortion business.
LDI points to a recent Dr. Phil television program in which two viewers expressed opposing view on distributing condoms in school. Dr. Phil asked the guest who opposed condoms if she was persuaded by the view that teenagers will have sex anyway.
The guest said she knew some teens will have sex anyway, but said distributing condoms wouldn't lower the rate of sexually transmitted diseases.
McGraw responded: "That is absolutely not true. It is on the decline. Unwanted pregnancy is on the decline." The guest said that was because of the success of abstinence programs.
Dr. Phil replied, "The fact is that the research does not support what you're saying. If you look at the massive studies that are nationwide, if you look at the Planned Parenthood studies, the fact of the matter is that kids who go through a thorough sex education program of which making condoms available with some anonymity…that kids do use them when they have them."
Douglas Scott, president of LDI, said he's concerned that Dr. Phil would promote the abortion business because it makes Planned Parenthood look like "an agenda-free, independent research agency."
"Planned Parenthood 'studies' (actually conducted by its Alan Guttmacher Institute [AGI] affiliate) are usually long on opinion and short on 'study.'"
Scott also said Dr. Phil has partnered with a pro-abortion group, the Children's Defense Fund, because of its advocacy on other issues.
"Not every CDF program is intrinsically destructive to children. Not every Planned Parenthood project is intrinsically destructive to children," Scott said. "But everything these groups do, no matter how small or innocuous on the surface, promotes an agenda. And that agenda is unquestionably destructive to children."
Most seemingly bright minds still do not understand the fact that abortion is a human rights issue far more grave than slavery, the Nazi holocaust, and our world's most abhorrent examples of genocide.
No matter what your opinion about when life begins, a unique individual human life is destroyed in every abortion. There is no escape from that fact. To believe otherwise is willful self deception. A deception required by the conscience of those who conspire in the premeditated murder the young for the sake of convenience.
I think Dr. Phil has an Oprah-esque following, and it makes me nervous. Too many people suck their stuff up and take their words as Gospel.
Looking at Planned Parenthood studies about abortion is like looking at ACLU studies about religion in a sense anyways.
I like that...don't mind if I borrow that line every now and then do ya?
I think Dr. Phil is fairly intelligent. His problem is a common American shortcoming. He relies too much on worldly and ever changing standards of morality, and not enough on a standard that has and will last through all time.
Go ahead and use it! I heard it first at an Oregon pro-life conference. I wish that I could attribute the quote to the gentleman. I believe he is a Pastor or Priest.
I challenge anyone to find a position more hypocritical than living a full and free life while advocating the status quo in abortion policy.
Condoms should be used to protect form pregnancies, transmitted diseases, etc duh! What is not included in the abortion issue is that there are some technical difficulties in pregnancy for some people. (Huh?) Some may say but yes there are problems. What about the women who have decided to get pregnant because they and their spouse or lover choose to? What would happen if a very pregnant lady found out that if she had a child it would kill her. I mean come on! There should be something to be done about that. Yes, a child will be killed but what about the mother she is already on this earth and may be able to safely have children later. Say, a woman is pregnant of her own free will and in the early stages she finds out from the doctor that the child will be brain dead when her date is due what should happen then? Nothing? People don't look at this side of the issue. So when abortion is legalized and a pregnant woman finds out she may die from giving birth and she can't have an abortion where are her rights does she not have the right to live?
I challenge anyone to find a position more hypocritical than living a full and free life while a complicit party in a abortion.
Now go sit in the corner.
Mistake number one.
no i am not stupid thank you apparently you need to grow up and look at how things really are!
There is so much wrong with your post it's hard to know where to begin...
There is "something" that can be be done about the extraordinarily rare situation you mention in which a "very pregnant woman" finds out that delivering her baby would kill her. Very few people fail to recognize the need for safe and legal MEDICALLY NECESSARY terminations. The issue for most people of good conscience is with abortion on demand because a woman and/or her partner in conception do not care to follow through on the rather wonderful consequences of their perhaps ill-considered actions. To frame the debate on abortion as a choice between a child's right to live v. the mother's is disingenuous in the extreme.
The child, like the mother, is "already on this earth": Children are not conceived on another planet or somewhere in outer space.
FInally, and again, it is a very, very unlikely situation in which a woman suddenly finds out that if she gives birth she will die. Fear of death is not why most women who have abortions have them. Fear of responsibility, perhaps, fear of the real world, sure, but not fear of death. Children don't generally kill us, they just cost us money and sleep and our girlish figures. As opposed to abortions, the cost of which is so much higher.
I am not against the pro-life movement. I am just stating that medical issues are not even brought up that concern womens rights in the Pro-Life movement.
I know a child in a mothers'womb is on this earth. I was stating that a woman rights should be thought of too. Apparently I failed to mention that "accidents" of pregnancies should not be used as an excuse to have an abortion.
I agree, protect the LIFE of the mother at all costs. The problem I see is that abortion is legal and available for ANY reason at any stage of development. About 96% of abortions happen for reasons other than the health of the mother, the health of the baby, rape, or incest. In other words, about 3800 children per day die because a boy and a girl said "whoops, how did that happen? I can't deal. Let's kill it." The real hardship cases are about 160 per day.
Dr. Phil is P.T. Barnum with a degree.
I agree about rapes,and incest. Women who have been through this should be allowed to have abortions. If all abortions are considered illegal what will happen to these people?
"I wish that I could attribute the quote to the gentleman. I believe he is a Pastor or Priest."
Wouldn't happen to be Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests For Life, would it? I've heard him before and he is really good.
what about if the baby turns wrong or is not getting enough air?
"I agree about rapes,and incest. Women who have been through this should be allowed to have abortions."
So, you agree an innocent child should be punished for the crime of his/her father? This is not a pro-life position. Studies also don't bear out that this is what women pregnant in such circumstances want.
http://www.afterabortion.info/rape.html
"For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion.1 This evidence alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims."
I agree, protect the survival of the mother. This is a tiny percentage of abortions but an important issue. Almost everyone in the pro-life movement will agree with you on that point. The other 99% of abortions needs to stopped!
In America one out of four pregnancies is aborted. Our birth rate has fallen below the number required to maintain our population. Between 42 and 44 million people have died for "a woman's right to choose." This is a signifigant economic, demographic, and moral issue. If you were an enemy of America, you could not do much better than the implementation of Planned Parenthood's policies.
I agree with your post ."Fear of responsibility, perhaps, fear of the real world, sure, but not fear of death. Children don't generally kill us, they just cost us money and sleep and our girlish figures. As opposed to abortions, the cost of which is so much higher." Children are expensive and I look forward to having them when I am married and ready. No, they don't generally kill us. They are children though.
"Say, a woman is pregnant of her own free will and in the early stages she finds out from the doctor that the child will be brain dead when her date is due what should happen then?"
Have the baby! Doctors have been wrong, and even if the baby is stillborn or dies shortly after birth, the parents will have those precious moments with the child, a child who can teach the parents alot about love and sacrifice, if they are open to it. Ever heard the story about Sen. Rick Santorum and his wife, Karen? Read on:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61804-2005Apr17.html
Fr. Frank Pavone is a wonderful man. I have watched his T.V. show too. We should all think and speak as clearly as he does. He was not the Priest at our conference.
McGraw responded: "That is absolutely not true. It is on the decline. Unwanted pregnancy is on the decline." The guest said that was because of the success of abstinence programs.
Kind of a dumb argument. Abstinence programs versus condom distribution in school is a false dichotomy. There are any number of other reasons why STDs & pregnancy would go down. Teens may be practicing more abstinence on their own, or they may be just as sexually active but more selective about partners, or STDs may be in decline in the general adult population, or teens may be using condoms or contraceptives acquired outside of school, or a dozen other things.
In any case, such trends are irrelevant to the public policy issue of schools distributing sexual aids. Either it's the business of tax-funded educational institutions to distribute condoms, or it's not. I have never seen anything to move me from the 'not' position.
Perhaps YOU haven't looked at this side of the issue. I have never met a pro-lifer that was unwilling to make a legal exception for true life-and-death scenarios (which are quite rare, btw).
I agree about rapes,and incest. Women who have been through this should be allowed to have abortions. If all abortions are considered illegal what will happen to these people?
The same things, presumably, that happen to anyone else who is prevented from committing murder.
I agree. I remember the high school sex ed classes where we were exposed the government's view of recreational sex. The overall lasting message was that "we think that most of you are or will be sexually active in the near future." We, as the government sanctioned authority, have pooled the best minds and research. Our position is that you should use condoms as a responsible method of exercising safe sex." "Wink wink, we won't tell you parents. Don't you want to?" The message is devastating to young minds in the midst of puberty, many of whom have been brought up in religious homes where the exact opposite is taught
Thanks for your post. You taught me something new. My abortion position has been only to save the life of the mother. You have given me more validation for my position.
Rape and inscest (as I recall) is a very piece of the abortion industry pie. That is the boogeyman that pro-abortionists use to silence their opponents. Besides, what's with your fixation on punishing an innocent baby for a crime that it didn't commit?
I've always wondered why they call it "Planned" parenthood.
"I agree, protect the survival of the mother. This is a tiny percentage of abortions but an important issue. Almost everyone in the pro-life movement will agree with you on that point."
OK, I know this will probably not be a popular viewpoint, and I'll likely get flamed (if anyone is still following this thread), but I, and the Catholic Church (and possibly other Christian denominations) disagree. One can never licitly obtain a direct abortion. There is a principle called the doctrine of double effect. I don'think this is a Catholic source, though unsure, but here is a good article on this. It's a long article, so I'll post the section dealing with how it works after the link:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_08natlaw.html
"The principle of double effect holds that it is morally allowable to perform an action that has a bad effect only under the following conditions:
1. Once again, the action to be performed must be good in itself, or at least indifferent. This is evident, for if the act is evil of its very nature, nothing can make it good or indifferent. Evil would then be chosen directly, either as an end or as a means to an end, and there could be no question of merely permitting or tolerating it.12 If the action is fundamentally and inherently morally illicit, then it cannot be morally permitted regardless of any good intentions or goals, or under any good circumstances.
Application: The act of abortion of its very nature is inherently evil, because it is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being. This would apply to all abortions, including those in the case of rape and incest (and to those involving human fetal and human embryo research, and human cloning). Therefore it is never morally permissible to undergo an abortion procedure. The principle of double effect as applied to the case of abortion renders abortion procedures morally illicit, since the action by its very nature is evil. However, other possible medical actions, e.g., the giving of chemotherapy or the removal of a cancerous uterus - morally good or at least neutral acts - could be permitted in order to save the life of the mother, even if it could possibly result in the unintended death of the unborn child, as long as all of the other three following conditions are also met.13
2. The evil effect must not be directly intended for itself but only permitted to happen as an accidental by-product of the act performed.14
Application: In the case of abortion procedures, the death of the unborn child is directly intended, and therefore is morally illicit. On the other hand, in the use of chemotherapy or the performance of a hysterectomy to remove a cancerous uterus, etc., the death of the unborn child may not be directly intended, but only permitted or allowed as a possible by-product.15
3. The good intended must not be obtained by means of the evil effects. The evil must not be an actual factor in the accomplishment of the good.16
Application: In the case of abortion procedures, the death of the unborn child may not be used as a means of limiting family size, preventing birth defects, enhancing a career, etc. (all legitimately good or neutral ends or goals in themselves).17 On the other hand, the curing of the potentially deadly disease of cancer could be obtained by means of the morally acceptable actions of the administration of chemotherapy or the performance of a hysterectomy. The death of the unborn child is not the means used to cure the cancer.
4. There must be a resonably grave reason for permitting the evil effect. If the good is slight and the evil great, the evil can hardly be called incidental. If there is any other way of getting the good effect without the bad effect, this other way must be taken.18
Application: In the case of abortion procedures, to maintain a slim figure, to have a child of a certain sex, to prevent the birth of a child with defects, or to evade social embarrassment would not be reasonably grave reasons for permitting the unintended and unavoidable death of the unborn child. On the other hand, to give chemotherapy or to perform a hysterectomy in order to remove a cancerous uterus, etc., to preserve the life of the mother (who is also an innocent human being) would be a reasonably grave rason for permitting or allowing the unintended and unavoidable death of the unborn child. If there is any other reasonable medical treatment available to save the life of the mother which would not entail undo harm or death to the unborn child, then it must be chosen instead.19
And finally, note that these examples of "other medical actions" are not morally licit unless all four conditions of the principle of double effect are fulfilled. If any one of them is not satisfied, even though the other three are, those medical actions are morally wrong."
"I agree, protect the survival of the mother. This is a tiny percentage of abortions but an important issue. Almost everyone in the pro-life movement will agree with you on that point."
OK, I know this will probably not be a popular viewpoint, and I'll likely get flamed (if anyone is still following this thread), but I, and the Catholic Church (and possibly other Christian denominations) disagree. One can never licitly obtain a direct abortion. There is a principle called the doctrine of double effect. I don'think this is a Catholic source, though unsure, but here is a good article on this. It's a long article, so I'll post the section dealing with how it works after the link:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_08natlaw.html
"The principle of double effect holds that it is morally allowable to perform an action that has a bad effect only under the following conditions:
1. Once again, the action to be performed must be good in itself, or at least indifferent. This is evident, for if the act is evil of its very nature, nothing can make it good or indifferent. Evil would then be chosen directly, either as an end or as a means to an end, and there could be no question of merely permitting or tolerating it.12 If the action is fundamentally and inherently morally illicit, then it cannot be morally permitted regardless of any good intentions or goals, or under any good circumstances.
Application: The act of abortion of its very nature is inherently evil, because it is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being. This would apply to all abortions, including those in the case of rape and incest (and to those involving human fetal and human embryo research, and human cloning). Therefore it is never morally permissible to undergo an abortion procedure. The principle of double effect as applied to the case of abortion renders abortion procedures morally illicit, since the action by its very nature is evil. However, other possible medical actions, e.g., the giving of chemotherapy or the removal of a cancerous uterus - morally good or at least neutral acts - could be permitted in order to save the life of the mother, even if it could possibly result in the unintended death of the unborn child, as long as all of the other three following conditions are also met.13
2. The evil effect must not be directly intended for itself but only permitted to happen as an accidental by-product of the act performed.14
Application: In the case of abortion procedures, the death of the unborn child is directly intended, and therefore is morally illicit. On the other hand, in the use of chemotherapy or the performance of a hysterectomy to remove a cancerous uterus, etc., the death of the unborn child may not be directly intended, but only permitted or allowed as a possible by-product.15
3. The good intended must not be obtained by means of the evil effects. The evil must not be an actual factor in the accomplishment of the good.16
Application: In the case of abortion procedures, the death of the unborn child may not be used as a means of limiting family size, preventing birth defects, enhancing a career, etc. (all legitimately good or neutral ends or goals in themselves).17 On the other hand, the curing of the potentially deadly disease of cancer could be obtained by means of the morally acceptable actions of the administration of chemotherapy or the performance of a hysterectomy. The death of the unborn child is not the means used to cure the cancer.
4. There must be a resonably grave reason for permitting the evil effect. If the good is slight and the evil great, the evil can hardly be called incidental. If there is any other way of getting the good effect without the bad effect, this other way must be taken.18
Application: In the case of abortion procedures, to maintain a slim figure, to have a child of a certain sex, to prevent the birth of a child with defects, or to evade social embarrassment would not be reasonably grave reasons for permitting the unintended and unavoidable death of the unborn child. On the other hand, to give chemotherapy or to perform a hysterectomy in order to remove a cancerous uterus, etc., to preserve the life of the mother (who is also an innocent human being) would be a reasonably grave rason for permitting or allowing the unintended and unavoidable death of the unborn child. If there is any other reasonable medical treatment available to save the life of the mother which would not entail undo harm or death to the unborn child, then it must be chosen instead.19
And finally, note that these examples of "other medical actions" are not morally licit unless all four conditions of the principle of double effect are fulfilled. If any one of them is not satisfied, even though the other three are, those medical actions are morally wrong."
So that people don't realize that Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill.
In the past several weeks, I learned that both my husband and my mother (both very conservative, but not activists) thought that PP was supposed to help couples get pregnant. Both said, "Well, the name means that they are helping women with a plan get pregnant...right?" Both were quite surprised when I informed them that PP helps women plan pregnancies by aborting all the pregnancies in which they were too lustful to keep their pants zipped or too lazy to use a condom.
Here is a Q&A to the priest mentioned earlier in this thread, Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests For Life. There are several questions at the link that offer some real life examples that we have been discussing; i.e., life of the mother, rape, and incest.
http://priestsforlife.org/questions.html
Sorry for the double post. I guess the first one was slow, so I thought it didn't go through.
Holy Toledo!!!! Where have they been? I've known what PP did since I was in grade school and we didn't even have one where I lived (don't know now though).
Some of the social services here reccommend giving up the baby for adoption rather than aborting it. Ditto on your last sentence.
There was a recent case where a child was brought to term implanted on the outside of the uterus. The doctors did not know this was a unique case until near the end of the pregnancy. Many doctors would have recommended an abortion in such a case. The baby was perfectly healthy and a low risk to mom aside from the surgical delivery.
Thank you for posting such educational and useful information. I am curious, do you feel called to this fight as I do?
Actually, I didn't think you would be the one most likely to flame away. I wouldn't have been as surprised if "freedom fighter for all" would have.
"I am curious, do you feel called to this fight as I do?"
Yes, I do. 46 million lives have been snuffed out, with millions of more being the walking wounded, women who in many cases have been sold a bill of goods that career must come before all else, or that have been pressured by parents, peers, boyfriends/husbands. All too often, told that it's just a blob of tissue (yes, sadly this lie is still told in some abortion mills), these women abort their babies and then suffer the emotional scars for the rest of their lives. So, even if I get a lot of grief over my openness of my pro-life beliefs, so be it. I speak out on the internet, in person, where pro-life t-shirts, even in possibly hostile territory, like my big union, Democrat workplace. I also try to be informed on the issues. It amazes me, for example, how many people have no idea what, exactly, partial birth abortion entails. By giving them the truth, you can really open some eyes, and hopefully move hearts. One good site for information is from the Elliot Institute, under the direction of researcher, David Reardon:
http://www.afterabortion.info/
Another good site is the Priests for Life site:
http://www.afterabortion.info/
This is especially good for reading the testimonies of post-abortive women and the hell many go through as a result of "choice."
So, keep working hard to end abortion. It truly is a matter of life or death.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.