Posted on 12/19/2001 9:24:32 AM PST by IM2Phat4U
The compassionate partner supports his girlfriend in her choices about an unintended pregnancy, including the choice to have an abortion, even if he doesn't agree with her choice. Although he may share his feelings about abortion with his partner, he respects and accepts her decision, too. In whatever way he can, he tries to help pay for the abortion. He may attend medical appointments with her, participating however he can. And he helps his partner get her life back to normal after the abortion.
Out tax dollars at work!
And a dude who's got to fork over 20% of his salary in child support is not affected in the least, huh?
The nonsupportive partner is the guy who rejects any responsibility for the pregnancy.
Y'know, I'm not in the pro-life camp, but this is b.s. A guy who doesn't want his partner to have an abortion, if he is willing to help take care of the baby, is accepting responsibility for the pregnancy.
The little bit about one being "cooler than the other" is a clever touch, for better or worse.
A true conservative would want to prevent high birth rates among the parasitic classes. All you frothing pro-choice zealots tend to forget the social costs of state run orphanages and rampant infanticide, which we would revert to under your scheme. The budget for PP is a fraction of what those costs would be.
Legal? Unfortunately yes. Safe? Not on your life.
And if I was in that situation, I would refuse under any circumstand, legal or not, to pay for it.
I'd post more, but I'll keep my trap shut here before I get myself in trouble.
My mom is more hardline on this issue than I am. I know more women that are pro-life than guys. There are twice as many people on earth as there should be,
Who the hell decides that? If you think there are too many people on the earth, maybe you should contribute yourself to moving toward the goal by offing yourself.
and our gov't. policies are directed toward devolving the gene pool, such as free fertility treatements for welfare recipients.
The budget for PP is a fraction of what those costs would be.
1. PP shouldn't be funded period. Not one red cent. That's MY money, damn it.
2. PP not only receives tax money, they fund political ads against people I want elected.
Hogwash. Grinwis continues to spout the PP party line. No mention of the abortion/breast cancer link. Murdering defenseless babies is a cash cow for PP, nothing more. Anyone who thinks they give a damn about their clients welfare is a fool.
Here is the solution to unwanted pregnancies: "NO SEX UNTIL YOU ARE MARRIED". That goes for both males and females.
During the election campaign of 1999-2000, the Planned Parenthood was among the most ardent supporters of pro-choice agenda and of the presidential bid of Democrat Al Gore. “We've seen our [abortion rights and family planning] issues beaten on relentlessly by Congress since 1994, and the White House stepped in to save the day every time. If we lose the White House, there would be no place to go," said Nina Miller, director of Planned Parenthood’s political arm (Source: The Washington Post, November 3, 2000).
In their ads, the group has targeted Republican and swing voters, especially women, who are often pro-choice.
In the last month of the campaign the group aired a number TV ads in ten battleground states warning that the Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush" is willing to appoint Supreme Court justices" who oppose abortion (Source: Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN), November 5, 2000; Chicago Sun-Times, July 30, 2000).
On October 3, 2000 Planned Parenthood launched a $ 7 million ad campaign in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Washington, Oregon, and Nevada trying to convince voters that George W. Bush is a threat to abortion rights. "Here in Texas, (George W.) Bush tried to cut family planning funding and replace medically accurate sex education with abstinence only and says he wants to ban abortion," says one of the group's volunteers in a group’s ad (Source: Business Week, October 23, 2000; U.S. News & World Report, October 23, 2000).
In September 2000, the group also ran ads – first of two new ones featured four Republican women voters who express disappointment in Bush for his anti-abortion views. The second ad introduces a doctor who says that "Bush does not trust women to make their own choices." Both ads warn the viewers that Bush could appoint anti-abortion Supreme Court justices and cut funding for family planning (Source: National Journal Group Inc., September 3, 2000).
The prospect of Nader spoiling the presidential race for Gore has prompted Planned Parenthood to begin airing an extra $ 1 million of television advertising to try to thwart the Green Party nominee's White House bid.
The Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s involvement into the presidential race has started in July with a cable television ad, targeting Texas Governor George W. Bush. The ad emphasizes Bush’s claim that he “will do everything in my power to restrict abortions.” The 30-second ad began running July 12 and continued through out the Republican National Convention. The group planned to spend $2,5 million on this ad buy (Source: The Washington Post, July 14, 2000 , National Journal, Inc., July 2000)
In addition, the group got involved into other races as well. In California’s 49th Congressional District Planned Parenthood Action Fund came out with a commercial warning viewers that Brian Bilbray, a three-term Republican incumbent, is against a woman's right to choose abortion (Source: The San Diego Union-Tribune, October 29, 2000).
Well, it's a lot safer now that it's legal. When it was illegal, it was much more risky.
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.