Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Planned Parenthood founder: Republican Party is pro-choice
Peoria Journal Star ^ | 9/23/05 | Elaine Hopkins

Posted on 09/23/2005 3:20:12 PM PDT by Crackingham

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: Stirner
How does a grandson end up with his grandmother's last name?

I have my grandmothers last name. My father's mother?

21 posted on 09/23/2005 3:47:59 PM PDT by Old Seadog (Birthdays start out being fun. But too many of them will kill you..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Stirner
How does a grandson end up with his grandmother's last name?

Sanger was her married name. I forgot what her maiden name was.

Margaret was the youngest of 11 or 12 children in an Irish-Catholic family. If we are to believe Margaret's account, her father was an abusive drunk.

I'm willing to venture that even her abusive, drunk father didn't murder his own children.

My favorite Margaret Sanger quote:

The most merciful thing a large family can do for one of its infant members is to kill it.

Wonder if she was ever thankful that her supposedly abusive, drunk father didn't kill her, seeing as she was an infant member of a large family.

What a bitter, socialist SHREW.

She makes Hillary look almost human.

22 posted on 09/23/2005 3:52:54 PM PDT by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

All this obscures the difference between an abortion and saving the life of the mother in a way that results in the death of the baby. Apparently, most Freepers don't either. Example: In an ectopic pregnancy, the doctor could go in and unwrap the baby from the umbilical cord. The baby is most likely going to die. As opposed to performing an abortion, which is going into the womb with the express purpose of killing the baby by cutting it up and extracting it.


23 posted on 09/23/2005 3:53:35 PM PDT by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002

His grandmother was actually not endorsing abortion.


24 posted on 09/23/2005 3:54:09 PM PDT by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
If the pro-life message is removed from the GOP platform, there will be a mass exodus from the Republican Party. I'll be right up front too. Roughly 95% of all abortions have nothing to do with rape, incest or saving the life of the mother. Those abortion killings are carried out strictly for personal social reasons. Most abortions are undertaken as methods of birth control. If the "three exceptions rule" were followed for all abortions, that would be a huge victory for the pro-life movement in America today.
25 posted on 09/23/2005 3:55:00 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure the borders;punish employers who hire illegals;halt all welfare handouts to illegals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

I'm most certainly "pro-choice". I just happen to believe that the "choice" is made BEFORE conception. After conception, birth is the only option!

Mrs


26 posted on 09/23/2005 3:55:25 PM PDT by proudmilitarymrs (If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
I support abortion rights in some circumstances -- specifically, when the mother's life is in clear and present danger, I think it should be the mothers call. I think that circumstance hardly makes me "pro-choice" or a supporter of broader abortion rights.
27 posted on 09/23/2005 3:55:58 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roylene
What universe does this 73 percent exist?

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it was higher than 73%. Or, to put it another way, I wouldn't be surprised if fewer than 27% of people would oppose the removal/destruction of an embryo/fetus which was implanted within the fallopian tube. There is at present no technology which can rescue such an embryo/fetus, and the only course of action to minimize severe risks to the mother is to remove it as soon as practical.

On the other hand, I would be very surprised if even 50% of Democrats favor allowing child molesters to have the evidence of their crimes anonymously disposed of in abortion mills. Any effort to stop such things, however, is met with loud howls by PP et al.

28 posted on 09/23/2005 3:58:33 PM PDT by supercat (Don't fix blame--FIX THE PROBLEM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: roylene
Sanger said polls show 73 percent of registered Republicans support abortion rights in at least some circumstances.

What universe does this 73 percent exist?

Sadly, that is probably not as wrong as many here seem to think. I think the vast majority of REPUBLICANS (as opposed to true-blue conservatives) do favor abortion in some circuimstances. Whether it is 73 percent or not, I do not know, but if I had a dollar for every time I heard or read "I am against abortion, except [but]..."

29 posted on 09/23/2005 3:59:30 PM PDT by Señor Zorro ("The ability to speak does not make you intelligent"--Qui-Gon Jinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

His Grandmother may not have endorsed abortion , but he sure is.


30 posted on 09/23/2005 4:00:05 PM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Señor Zorro
Sadly, that is probably not as wrong as many here seem to think. I think the vast majority of REPUBLICANS (as opposed to true-blue conservatives) do favor abortion in some circuimstances. Whether it is 73 percent or not, I do not know, but if I had a dollar for every time I heard or read "I am against abortion, except [but]..."

What would you suggest that a doctor should do if a sonogram reveals a developing embryo within a fallopian tube? Not supposed to happen, but sometimes it does. Assuming enough diagnostics were done to confirm the real situation, what course of action would you suggest?

31 posted on 09/23/2005 4:01:27 PM PDT by supercat (Don't fix blame--FIX THE PROBLEM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
The answer, he said, is to put reproductive freedom in a biological context, "about wanting children, healthy babies and grandchildren," so that all children are wanted.

So if a child isn't perfect, by their definition healthy, they cannot possible be wanted?

This isn't about the "fringe" running the Republican Party. Anything but. The Republican Party has boomed largely because pro-Life Faith based folks have left the Democrats because of their moral bankruptcy. Disingenous soul. Why don't you break down those numbers of when Republicans in Majority accept abortion? Rape, Incest and life of the mother. Which is what the President stated when he ran for election in 2000, because that was the mainstream and remains mainstream thought of the Republican Party.

What this is really about is that they own the Democrats, but because they own the Democrats, the Democrats have lost power. So now they want the Republican Party too.

I'm putting this warning out now. McCain getting support from Indy's and Dems in 2000 will not be the end. There are going to be people trying to use our primaries to get the candidate of their choice to sabotage conservatives. WE need to vote in force in 2008 in the primaries to outnumber these interlopers.

32 posted on 09/23/2005 4:21:45 PM PDT by Soul Seeker (Barbour/Honore in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; Question_Assumptions; Reagan Man; supercat; rocksblues; sgtbono2002
An ectopic pregnancy has nothing to do with the baby being wrapped up in the umbilical cord. Fertilization of the egg usually occurs in the Fallopian tubes. The fertilized egg/zygote would normally continue down to the uterus where it implants. In an ectopic pregnancy, the implantation has occurred someplace other than the uterus, such as in the Fallopian tube or in the endometrial lining. This is threatening to the woman and the baby because these areas are not designed for carrying a baby to term. They can't generally support the extra weight and they also usually can't contribute to the formation of a normal placenta. But you are correct in saying that the motivations are different.

As for the comment about "We've got to be rid of the shame", this is a standard tactic of the left. It's part of the whole attitude that being judgemental in any way is by definition bad. We can't judge anyone, therefore bringing morality into a discussion is forbidden. This then allows all sorts of behavior to be promoted without having to justify it.

I think the 73 percent figure is probably correct and is due to the exceptions that you have all mentioned. They are legitimate exceptions but they also represent the backdoor to allowing a lot of elective abortions. All a woman has to do is get a willing doctor to say that carrying the pregnancy to term would threaten her health. The way around this would be that any legislation must explicitly define what constitutes such risk in the same way that clinical death should be defined for purposes of terminating life support. Allowing the politicians to just get away with broad phrases like "posing a risk to the life or health of the mother" just won't cut it.

If you think about it, the exceptions to the rule are the way that most things liberal or socialistic get passed. The very great majority of people, when questioned specifically about various issues are lopsidedly conservative....but we've all got our little exceptions. How many times have we all heard "I don't believe the government has any business doing this or that or the other....except for..."

33 posted on 09/23/2005 4:28:48 PM PDT by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

Murder is still murder, no matter what the circumstances. And what ever happened to parents putting their children before themselves? About the "three exceptions rule," there would be no way to prove them, and therefore legislation against the rest of abortions would be useless. McCain has said in such cases the women should be given the benefit of the doubt, but I don't expect a murderer not to be a liar as well.


34 posted on 09/23/2005 4:31:09 PM PDT by Tim Long
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
I understand your frustration, but nevertheless abortion is legal under US law. Any time the abortion numbers are reducced, that is a good thing. If abortions were limited to rape, incest and to save the life of the mother, we could do away with 95% of all abortions. I say that is a right to life effort worth praising.

Also, murder is a legal term that pertains to the killing of a person. A fetus is not a persson. So, as much as I agree with you that abortion is wrong, except in the case of saving the mothers life, and that abortion on demand is an abomination, it can't considered murder. Maybe in the Biblical sense, but certainly not in the modern legal textual term.

35 posted on 09/23/2005 5:01:23 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure the borders;punish employers who hire illegals;halt all welfare handouts to illegals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
The answer, he said, is to put reproductive freedom in a biological context, "about wanting children, healthy babies and grandchildren," so that all children are wanted.

Oh, I get it. So, someone decided to have a child and then when the child is, say, 5 years old no longer wants him/her, we should kill the kid. This way the remaning ones are all "wanted." Makes perfect sense.

36 posted on 09/23/2005 5:09:07 PM PDT by ExitPurgamentum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

37 posted on 09/23/2005 5:21:22 PM PDT by GloriaJane (http://music.download.com/gloriajane "Seems Like Our Press Has Turned Against Our Country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; sgtbono2002
His grandmother wanted to get rid of all the inferior members of society in any way possible, and promote licentious behavior for women.

She wanted to rid the world of unatics, blacks, Eastern Europeans, 'biological mistakes of race'......everyone but the superior white elites.

She was a real gem. And the pride of the present day left.

38 posted on 09/23/2005 5:46:54 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
That, of course, should be "Lunatics."
39 posted on 09/23/2005 5:47:36 PM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

Conceptually, aren't there at least two species of abortion?

I mean there are "elective" abortions, if you will, where the procedure is used in a sort of retro-contraceptive context, for want of a better term, (clearly the kind of abortion that is problematic for those who value the sanctity of life above all else), and there are "necessary" abortions, where mom's life is threatened, or a gestating fetus is the result of incest or rape, or incestual rape.

I appreciate the latter species of abortion is not "necessary" in the true sense of the word, and there may even be some latitude in the definition of "elective", but perhaps these terms might help to focus the issue a little better. That's why I employ them.

If we're talking about "necessary" abortions, I would hazard most people, regardless of their political stripe, would probably oppose their complete prohibition.

However, "elective" abortions are a root of significant division in our society. And this brings me to the issue of whether reproduction is a right.

If there is a reproductive right, isn't there a corollary right not to reproduce? And doesn't that mean the exercise of that right shouldn't be interfered with by the state, or the majority, or anyone?

Or is the right to reproduce not really a right, but simply a side-effect of sexual activity, sometimes wanted, sometimes not wanted? And if that's the case, is sexual activity between unrelated consenting adults something that needs to be regulated by the state, and crucially here in this context, in advance of conception?

That would clearly run counter to a minimally invasive notion of the role of government in a free republic, wouldn't it? And I'd hazard it would run counter to many people's idea of freedom, whether they believe in a right to privacy or not.

Its also uncontroversial to say people will have consensual sex with each other no matter what the state, or the majority, or other people say.

If one of those consenting unrelated adults ends up in a pre-natal state, and the other has no stake in the outcome, shouldn't she be able to elect not to reproduce?

Or does the authority of the post-natal "responsibility" outweigh the authority of the pre-natal "right"? And if so, what is the source of that authority?

Be very interested to hear responses from people that don't seek to donate that authority to their deity.


40 posted on 09/23/2005 5:49:57 PM PDT by uglybastard (Freedom is the individual's escape from peer review)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson