Planned Parenthood leaked video (1 Viewer)

[Kal El]

And if you got them full rights you would have laws against all abortions. You say they are humans, then treat them as such.

Humans (and even the Bible) are against you on such matters though.

How so?

Which part?

The part about the Bible being against laws stopping abortions.

I meant how the Bible treats a lost/killed unborn... and one that the parents didn't even want to lose.

i.e. Not considered the same as a human life.

(and please dont now go and quote it and add some wack religious spin to it. )

How does the Bible treat such an unborn child?

Take it to the local judges for a possible fine... the same as livestock or property.

Not an eye-for-eye, not the murder/killing of a person.

Where is this in the Bible?

 

[[icon]]

Yeah, corporal punishment is really applicable here. Awesome argument.

Color me shocked you're completely missing the point

 

[[icon]]

Pretty sure Leviticus supports planned parenthood's actions in this video (as long as they're not Jewish, of course):

You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

 

[Hang 10]

Yeah, corporal punishment is really applicable here. Awesome argument.

Color me shocked you're completely missing the point

Your completely nonsensical point that you need to be a Christian to be against abortion?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Where is this in the Bible?

Early. Right at the onset.

And its pretty straight forward that only if a woman wanted to keep the child... nobody is even fined (let alone penalized) for ending the pregnancy that was unwanted.

 

[Hang 10]

Aren't their laws against late term abortions?

And if you got them full rights you would have laws against all abortions. You say they are humans, then treat them as such.

Humans (and even the Bible) are against you on such matters though.

I guess you must agree with every law on the books if citing one is proof of anything.

 

[[icon]]

Deuteronomy takes it one step further... why sell the babies when you can EAT Them!!!

The most tenderhearted man among you will have no compassion for his own brother, his beloved wife, and his surviving children. He will refuse to give them a share of the flesh he is devouring – the flesh of one of his own children – because he has nothing else to eat during the siege that your enemy will inflict on all your towns. The most tender and delicate woman among you – so delicate she would not so much as touch her feet to the ground – will be cruel to the husband she loves and to her own son or daughter. She will hide from them the afterbirth and the new baby she has borne, so that she herself can secretly eat them. (Deuteronomy 28:45-57 NLT)

 

[Kal El]

Pretty sure Leviticus supports planned parenthood's actions in this video (as long as they're not Jewish, of course):

You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

In other words, you're hiring someone to work in your house. That was how the Israelites treated slavery, either as a way to get out of debt, or as restitution for a crime they committed.

 

[Parrothead]

Deuteronomy takes it one step further... why sell the babies when you can EAT Them!!!

The most tenderhearted man among you will have no compassion for his own brother, his beloved wife, and his surviving children. He will refuse to give them a share of the flesh he is devouring – the flesh of one of his own children – because he has nothing else to eat during the siege that your enemy will inflict on all your towns. The most tender and delicate woman among you – so delicate she would not so much as touch her feet to the ground – will be cruel to the husband she loves and to her own son or daughter. She will hide from them the afterbirth and the new baby she has borne, so that she herself can secretly eat them. (Deuteronomy 28:45-57 NLT)

Next week on Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern

 

[[icon]]

YAY BIBLE!

Who wants more guidance on the treatment of children from the Good Book!

 

[Kal El]

Where is this in the Bible?

Early. Right at the onset.

And its pretty straight forward that only if a woman wanted to keep the child... nobody is penalized for ending the pregnancy that was unwanted.

I'm afraid you're going to have to be a bit more specific than that.

 

[[icon]]

Pretty sure Leviticus supports planned parenthood's actions in this video (as long as they're not Jewish, of course):

You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

In other words, you're hiring someone to work in your house.

Okay dude....

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Pretty sure Leviticus supports planned parenthood's actions in this video (as long as they're not Jewish, of course):

You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

In other words, you're hiring someone to work in your house. That was how the Israelites treated slavery, either as a way to get out of debt, or as restitution for a crime they committed.

BULLSHIT! Hire = spin spin spin.

 

[Kal El]

Deuteronomy takes it one step further... why sell the babies when you can EAT Them!!!

The most tenderhearted man among you will have no compassion for his own brother, his beloved wife, and his surviving children. He will refuse to give them a share of the flesh he is devouring – the flesh of one of his own children – because he has nothing else to eat during the siege that your enemy will inflict on all your towns. The most tender and delicate woman among you – so delicate she would not so much as touch her feet to the ground – will be cruel to the husband she loves and to her own son or daughter. She will hide from them the afterbirth and the new baby she has borne, so that she herself can secretly eat them. (Deuteronomy 28:45-57 NLT)

Next week on Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern

And the current record holder for taking a passage completely out of context! That passage is part of a warning about what the Israelites would do if they turned away from God.

 

[cstu]

" post="18200133" timestamp="1437490916"]Proof even God hates illegitimate babies:

So it is with a woman who leaves her husband and presents him with an heir by another man. For first of all, she has disobeyed the law of the Most High; second, she has committed an offense against her husband; and third, through her fornication she has committed adultery and brought forth children by another man. She herself will be brought before the assembly, and her punishment will extend to her children. Her children will not take root, and her branches will not bear fruit.

(Sirach 23:22-25 NRSV)

Not part of the Bible I have, so for all we know, it could have been written by a guy who got cuckolded.

Sirach is accepted as part of the Christian biblical canons by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and most of Oriental Orthodox. The Anglican Church do not accept Sirach as canonical but only should be read, "for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine."[5] Similarly, the Lutheran Churches include it in their lectionaries, and as a book proper for reading, devotion, and prayer. Its influence on early Christianity is evident, as it was explicitly cited in the Epistle of James, the Didache (iv. 5), and the Epistle of Barnabas (xix. 9). Clement of Alexandria and Origen quote from it repeatedly, as from a γραφή, or holy book.[6] The Catalogue of Cheltenham, Pope Damasus I, the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), Pope Innocent I, the second Council of Carthage (419), and Augustine all regarded it as canonical, although the Council of Laodicea, of Jerome, and of Rufinus of Aquileia, ranked it instead as an ecclesiastical book.[6] It was finally definitively declared canonical in 1546 during the fourth session of the Council of Trent.[6]

 

[Hang 10]

Again, you don't have to be religious to view abortion as barbaric. What do those versus have to do the actual topic?

 

[[icon]]

What if the child curses at you... then you can kill it, right?

If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

 

[Kal El]

Pretty sure Leviticus supports planned parenthood's actions in this video (as long as they're not Jewish, of course):

You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

In other words, you're hiring someone to work in your house. That was how the Israelites treated slavery, either as a way to get out of debt, or as restitution for a crime they committed.

BULLSHIT! Hire = spin spin spin.

Read what the rest of the passage says about the practice. They must be treated fairly, they can be released when their debt has been repaid, and they can choose to stay in the position.

 

[Scoresman]

I stopped reading the Bible when it told me I couldnt "spill my seed". That's too much to ask right there.

 

[[icon]]

Again, you don't have to be religious to view abortion as barbaric. What do those versus have to do the actual topic?

You might want to spend more time reading and less time typing, then this will all be clear to you. The answer is in plain view in this thread if you're literate, GB.

 

[Kal El]

" post="18200133" timestamp="1437490916"]Proof even God hates illegitimate babies:

So it is with a woman who leaves her husband and presents him with an heir by another man. For first of all, she has disobeyed the law of the Most High; second, she has committed an offense against her husband; and third, through her fornication she has committed adultery and brought forth children by another man. She herself will be brought before the assembly, and her punishment will extend to her children. Her children will not take root, and her branches will not bear fruit.

(Sirach 23:22-25 NRSV)

Not part of the Bible I have, so for all we know, it could have been written by a guy who got cuckolded.

Sirach is accepted as part of the Christian biblical canons by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and most of Oriental Orthodox. The Anglican Church do not accept Sirach as canonical but only should be read, "for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine."[5] Similarly, the Lutheran Churches include it in their lectionaries, and as a book proper for reading, devotion, and prayer. Its influence on early Christianity is evident, as it was explicitly cited in the Epistle of James, the Didache (iv. 5), and the Epistle of Barnabas (xix. 9). Clement of Alexandria and Origen quote from it repeatedly, as from a γραφή, or holy book.[6] The Catalogue of Cheltenham, Pope Damasus I, the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), Pope Innocent I, the second Council of Carthage (419), and Augustine all regarded it as canonical, although the Council of Laodicea, of Jerome, and of Rufinus of Aquileia, ranked it instead as an ecclesiastical book.[6] It was finally definitively declared canonical in 1546 during the fourth session of the Council of Trent.[6]

I have never heard of that passage before in my life, and as such, I don't consider it to be part of the Bible.

 

[Hang 10]

Again, you don't have to be religious to view abortion as barbaric. What do those versus have to do the actual topic?

You might want to spend more time reading and less time typing, then this will all be clear to you. The answer is in plain view in this thread if you're literate, GB.

It's clear that you're just trolling. Have a good day, chief.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Then get them legally recognized as a human person with all the rights of one. And quit the total bull#### side arguments where you force your sensibilities on others.

Sensibilities? More like science. Seriously, at what point do you consider an unborn baby a life? 1st trimester? 2nd trimester? 3rd trimester? Or you crazy enough to say out of the womb?

Currently they have all the rights at birth.

Actually, that's not correct, Roe states:

For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

- Roe vs Wade

According to the USSC, they can have rights starting at viability. When does a human growth (fetus which is growing into a baby) become "viable" is the question.

 

[[icon]]

Again, you don't have to be religious to view abortion as barbaric. What do those versus have to do the actual topic?

You might want to spend more time reading and less time typing, then this will all be clear to you. The answer is in plain view in this thread if you're literate, GB.

It's clear that you're just trolling. Have a good day, chief.

So, not literate then. You too, Mayweather.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

If it chooses.*

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If it chooses.*

Are there any states which do not ban abortion after viability based on when they judge when that is? I don't think you can do an abortion on DDay -1 (ie the day before the expected delivery), can you? I am pretty sure even the most liberal state provides some limitations.

If so obviously there is a point in time - viability - when every state recognizes that it's "too late" and this is a protected human life form, of some sort.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

 

[timschochet]

i don't really feel comfortable having Icon on my side here.

 

[[icon]]

i don't really feel comfortable having Icon on my side here.

Hey, Kai El is right.... if the Bible says so, we gotta be good Christians and do it!



If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

I'll have the "Stoning kids for Jesus" Tshirts made up this weekend... It'll be fun!

 

[Kal El]

i don't really feel comfortable having Icon on my side here.

Hey, Kai El is right.... if the Bible says so, we gotta be good Christians and do it!

This is the story of my life on this board, but I feel as though I missed something.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Aren't their laws against late term abortions?

And if you got them full rights you would have laws against all abortions. You say they are humans, then treat them as such.

Humans (and even the Bible) are against you on such matters though.

I guess you must agree with every law on the books if citing one is proof of anything.

No I don't. I do not even cite that law as for my reasoning. Just that the Bible takes a similar stance as I do. As does human history and medical history.

If you are being honest and trying to get them direct personhood status it would at least be worthy of some respect.

 

[rockaction]

i don't really feel comfortable having Icon on my side here.

Here's a bone for you. I loathe Planned Parenthood from the day they swabbed my genitals and got me to consent by cheerily announcing I had chlamydia or gonorrhea or something. Told me my girlfriend was cheating on me. She wasn't, and I was fine; just had acidic urine.

Damn you, PP. :shakes fist:

 

[shader]

Let's start with this right away.

http://m.snopes.com/pp-baby-parts-sale/

I posted the statement from PP..You are correct, they aren't selling them. They are claiming to donate them. I edited my post. I guess selling for profit would be even more disturbing but without actual proof, I'll withdraw my claim. Still disgusting.

Nevermind I take it back. Looks like they were selling them. Disgusting. I wonder if snopes will update....likely not

 

[shader]

I think Planned Parenthood performs a good public service. Quite often they are the only refuge for poor women, raped girls, battered teenagers, victims of incest, who have nowhere else to go.

I can't really comment on the accuracy of this story. I won't pretend that, purely within the context of the video, it's not disturbing. But I strongly doubt that it's at all representative of any common practice that goes on. And it doesn't take away from the fine work PP does.

If killing babies is a public service, they do a great job!

 

[shader]

Hey I feel uncomfortable about videos that show awful things happening in an area that I support......I know, I'll make up false attacks on the bible! That'll make me feel better!

 

[[icon]]

Made up? False? Link to the made up bible quotes please.

Kai El says we need to follow the word of the good book. I was just getting some more words to follow pertaining to the treatment of children once we are forced to have them.

 

[shader]

Made up? False?

Out of context, using scriptures that aren't in the bible, and more importantly, nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I'm not going to go through each of the scriptures, because you have no desire to see it anyway except the way that fits your agenda, which is an agenda that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

 

[[icon]]

Made up? False?

Out of context, using scriptures that aren't in the bible, and more importantly, nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I'm not going to go through each of the scriptures, because you have no desire to see it anyway except the way that fits your agenda, which is an agenda that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Kai El says we need to follow the word of the good book. I was just getting some more words to follow pertaining to the treatment of children once we are forced to have them.

 

[shader]

Made up? False?

Out of context, using scriptures that aren't in the bible, and more importantly, nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I'm not going to go through each of the scriptures, because you have no desire to see it anyway except the way that fits your agenda, which is an agenda that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Kai El says we need to follow the word of the good book. I was just getting some more words to follow pertaining to the treatment of children once we are forced to have them.

Picked all the "out of context" and negative ones, huh? Decided to overlook all the positive scriptures, I guess. Anyone, have fun with your rambling.

 

[[icon]]

Made up? False?

Out of context, using scriptures that aren't in the bible, and more importantly, nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I'm not going to go through each of the scriptures, because you have no desire to see it anyway except the way that fits your agenda, which is an agenda that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Kai El says we need to follow the word of the good book. I was just getting some more words to follow pertaining to the treatment of children once we are forced to have them.

Picked all the "out of context" and negative ones, huh? Decided to overlook all the positive scriptures, I guess. Anyone, have fun with your rambling.

Could you provide a list of the parts of the bible that you guys follow unwaveringly as the infallible word of God, and then a list of the ones you ignore?

It's hard to keep up sometimes. TIA.

 

[tommyboy]

these people are monsters, i hope they all slide under a gas truck

After the first video was released last week in which Dr. Deborah Nucatola also appears to negotiate the price of fetal body parts, Planned Parenthood insisted that the price Nucatola mentioned was only related to the costs incurred by Planned Parenthood with no profit involved. In the Nucatola video, however, she is seen and heard explaining that the Planned Parenthood affiliates in the body parts business wanted to do more than “break even.”

and

At the end of the video, like Nucatola, Gatter talks about changing the abortion technique to get intact specimens, changing from a rather violent suction method that would destroy tissue to what she calls an IPAS, which is a reference to a nonprofit company that makes and distributes “manual vacuum aspirators” which would be a less harmful way to get at the internal organs. She said there would be protocol issues with the patient but that she saw no problem with it. She calls it a “less crunchy” way to get intact organs.

At the end of the tape provided by CMP, Gatter jokes about wanting “a Lamborghini” for body parts.

 

[[icon]]

these people are monsters, i hope they all slide under a gas truck

After the first video was released last week in which Dr. Deborah Nucatola also appears to negotiate the price of fetal body parts, Planned Parenthood insisted that the price Nucatola mentioned was only related to the costs incurred by Planned Parenthood with no profit involved. In the Nucatola video, however, she is seen and heard explaining that the Planned Parenthood affiliates in the body parts business wanted to do more than “break even.”

and

At the end of the video, like Nucatola, Gatter talks about changing the abortion technique to get intact specimens, changing from a rather violent suction method that would destroy tissue to what she calls an IPAS, which is a reference to a nonprofit company that makes and distributes “manual vacuum aspirators” which would be a less harmful way to get at the internal organs. She said there would be protocol issues with the patient but that she saw no problem with it. She calls it a “less crunchy” way to get intact organs.

At the end of the tape provided by CMP, Gatter jokes about wanting “a Lamborghini” for body parts.

While I agree there are some terrible comments in there... care to elaborate on your issue with the bolded?

 

[tommyboy]

these people are monsters, i hope they all slide under a gas truck

After the first video was released last week in which Dr. Deborah Nucatola also appears to negotiate the price of fetal body parts, Planned Parenthood insisted that the price Nucatola mentioned was only related to the costs incurred by Planned Parenthood with no profit involved. In the Nucatola video, however, she is seen and heard explaining that the Planned Parenthood affiliates in the body parts business wanted to do more than “break even.”

and

At the end of the video, like Nucatola, Gatter talks about changing the abortion technique to get intact specimens, changing from a rather violent suction method that would destroy tissue to what she calls an IPAS, which is a reference to a nonprofit company that makes and distributes “manual vacuum aspirators” which would be a less harmful way to get at the internal organs. She said there would be protocol issues with the patient but that she saw no problem with it. She calls it a “less crunchy” way to get intact organs.

At the end of the tape provided by CMP, Gatter jokes about wanting “a Lamborghini” for body parts.

While I agree there are some terrible comments in there... care to elaborate on your issue with the bolded?

its illegal (1)Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

i'm more upset by the idea that anyone can make money off aborted babies. I don't think we'd treat dogs this way, let alone humans. How ####### disgusting. Furthermore, this broad admits the best results come from late term partial birth abortions. My God.

In the first video, as LifeNews reported, new undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted unborn children and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts. Nucatola is an Obama administration adviser.

 

[parrot]

these people are monsters, i hope they all slide under a gas truck

In the Nucatola video, however, she is seen and heard explaining that the Planned Parenthood affiliates in the body parts business wanted to do more than “break even.”

And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that. Really their bottom line is, they want to break even.

 

[shader]

these people are monsters, i hope they all slide under a gas truck

After the first video was released last week in which Dr. Deborah Nucatola also appears to negotiate the price of fetal body parts, Planned Parenthood insisted that the price Nucatola mentioned was only related to the costs incurred by Planned Parenthood with no profit involved. In the Nucatola video, however, she is seen and heard explaining that the Planned Parenthood affiliates in the body parts business wanted to do more than “break even.”

and

At the end of the video, like Nucatola, Gatter talks about changing the abortion technique to get intact specimens, changing from a rather violent suction method that would destroy tissue to what she calls an IPAS, which is a reference to a nonprofit company that makes and distributes “manual vacuum aspirators” which would be a less harmful way to get at the internal organs. She said there would be protocol issues with the patient but that she saw no problem with it. She calls it a “less crunchy” way to get intact organs.

At the end of the tape provided by CMP, Gatter jokes about wanting “a Lamborghini” for body parts.

While I agree there are some terrible comments in there... care to elaborate on your issue with the bolded?

A "less violent" vacuum that kills babies but saves the organs? You want to know why people have an issue with this? How sick are some of you to blindly support this? It's the most inhumane, unbelievably sick thing I can even imagine.

 

[cstu]

its illegal (1)Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

i'm more upset by the idea that anyone can make money off aborted babies. I don't think we'd treat dogs this way, let alone humans. How ####### disgusting. Furthermore, this broad admits the best results come from late term partial birth abortions. My God.

In the first video, as LifeNews reported, new undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted unborn children and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts. Nucatola is an Obama administration adviser.

How do Animal Shelter's Dispose of the Bodies?

Animal Shelters vary in the ways they dispose of the bodies according to what they have available. There are three general methods of body disposal: Cremation, garbage, or sale. In any case the bodies are contained in special heavy duty plastic bags, sometimes many animals will be in the same bag.

Cremation allows for the shelter to burn the bodies of pets. However, not all animal shelters can afford this so many send the bagged bodies of animals to a special part of the city landfill (garbage dump). The third option is not as common as it use to be, and generally not done in the charity run shelters, but more common in city run “pounds” - this is when the bodies are sold to research labs, dissection supply companies, or rendering facilities where they may actually be rendered down and put into pet food (on the ingredient list - dead pets may be in meatmeal).

 

[shader]

Made up? False?

Out of context, using scriptures that aren't in the bible, and more importantly, nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I'm not going to go through each of the scriptures, because you have no desire to see it anyway except the way that fits your agenda, which is an agenda that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Kai El says we need to follow the word of the good book. I was just getting some more words to follow pertaining to the treatment of children once we are forced to have them.

Picked all the "out of context" and negative ones, huh? Decided to overlook all the positive scriptures, I guess. Anyone, have fun with your rambling.

Could you provide a list of the parts of the bible that you guys follow unwaveringly as the infallible word of God, and then a list of the ones you ignore?

It's hard to keep up sometimes. TIA.

If you're honestly interested to know how a bible believer feels about the scripture you quoted about "eating afterbirth" or whatever it was....just ask. If you don't honestly want to know, then lets not waste our time and move on.

 

[timschochet]

So far in this thread, Planned Parenthood has been called baby murderers, monsters, and compared to Mengele.

How can we have an honest and rational discussion when this sort of rhetoric is used?

 

[rockaction]

So far in this thread, Planned Parenthood has been called baby murderers, monsters, and compared to Mengele.

How can we have an honest and rational discussion when this sort of rhetoric is used?

When the eugenic arguments used in the past to support abortion practices in America change?

I mean, it can be rewritten, but that will be tough.

Regardless, I'm pro-choice now, but that comes from the problems of enforcement and legal and procedural concerns that would come with banning abortion rather than any sort of sympathetic feeling toward the activist lunatics and their philosophical underpinning for providing women with a service to kill their babies.

 

[timschochet]

rockaction, eugenic arguments might be used by some professor in an ivory tower somewhere, but most people that are pro-choice don't use them.

I'm pro-choice for moral reasons:I believe a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy if she so chooses and the state has no right to interfere. Whether or not the fetus is actually a baby is irrelevant to me. So long as it's in her body, the woman has the right to terminate.