Planned Parenthood leaked video (1 Viewer)

[tommyboy]

lets be clear, i'm pro legal abortion.

i'm anti Planned Parenthood though, based on what they're doing.

 

[tommyboy]

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.

well, we could argue this all day but its not worth it. All I can say is you sure show a complete lack of empathy for whomever the father may be.

 

[timschochet]

lets be clear, i'm pro legal abortion.

i'm anti Planned Parenthood though, based on what they're doing.

You called them monsters, and apparently want them killed.

 

[Scoresman]

I dont think I've ever seen so much hyperbole in one thread before.

 

[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.

well, we could argue this all day but its not worth it. All I can say is you sure show a complete lack of empathy for whomever the father may be.

No, that's not true. I'm very empathetic, believe me. I was the father of an aborted fetus and that was not what I wanted. But legally speaking, empathy can play no part. The father gets no say.

 

[rockaction]

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.

well, we could argue this all day but its not worth it. All I can say is you sure show a complete lack of empathy for whomever the father may be.

No, that's not true. I'm very empathetic, believe me. I was the father of an aborted fetus and that was not what I wanted. But legally speaking, empathy can play no part. The father gets no say.

Oh dear. Here we go.

My condolences, by the way. I was not consulted when an old girlfriend used an abortifacient, and I was unhappy about it, too.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I for one am glad we're having this debate....

THIS will be the thread where the ProLife/ProChoice crowds will find common ground, and unite under one viewpoint!!!!11!!

I CAN FEEL IT IN MY BONES

I know, kumbaya, but...

We would all agree if PP was acting illegally by selling tissue, organs and limbs for profit, that that would be a problem, right?

Anyone have any problem with a state doing an audit of PP's financial transactions to see if they are charging more than basic costs of preservation and transportation? It is kind of weird how the PP doctor negotiates with herself (albeit having been bated into it) by essentially saying it'll cost $75 no $50 no $100, there's obviously no cost accounting going on here.

Also, PP says they are actually paying mothers to abort, what do we think of that?

 

[Van Dyman]

I dont think I've ever seen so much hyperbole in one thread before.

This thread contains more hyperbole than any other thread that has existed or will exist in any universe, real or imagined.

 

[tommyboy]

lets be clear, i'm pro legal abortion.

i'm anti Planned Parenthood though, based on what they're doing.

You called them monsters, and apparently want them killed.

its called hyperbole. I like the "gas truck" comment ever since I heard Sam Kinison sing it about his ex girlfriend.

they are monsters though, I can't imagine haggling over aborted baby parts.

 

[dgreen]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

 

[Hang 10]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

Both are disgusting but it poses a great moral conflict of interest if PP is trying to profit off this practice.

 

[rockaction]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

This is a great way for the discussion to go, even if I disagree with it.

I think that the thinking is that profit motive with respect to mortality is so largely ingrained in either our altruistic makeup or sense of Western morality that we only make special exceptions for those that profit off of or speak ill of the dead.

eta* For instance, funeral homes are businesses that a wide, wide majority of people accept but generally agree should be run with a high sense of decorum and competency and sympathy. Only very dark comedy goes there, even. (Cue Knoxville and the hearse right now.)

 

[joffer]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

This is a great way for the discussion to go, even if I disagree with it.

I think that the thinking is that profit motive with respect to mortality is so largely ingrained in either our altruistic makeup or sense of Western morality that we only make special exceptions for those that profit off of or speak ill of the dead.

eta* For instance, funeral homes are businesses that a wide, wide majority of people accept but generally agree should be run with a high sense of decorum and competency and sympathy. Only very dark comedy goes there, even. (Cue Knoxville and the hearse right now.)

It's the woman's attitude that makes my skin crawl. I don't have any problem if they are donating organs/tissue for medical research. I don't really have a problem if they are selling them in order to stay open, because I think they provide valuable services to poor women. If they are actually turning a profit because of it, yeah that's where I start to have a problem. Why? I guess because I see legal abortion as a necessary and unfortunate tragedy. And I'd rather not see anyone "profit" from that.

 

[shader]

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?

What if our honest opinion is that they are murderers? Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

This is a great way for the discussion to go, even if I disagree with it.

I think that the thinking is that profit motive with respect to mortality is so largely ingrained in either our altruistic makeup or sense of Western morality that we only make special exceptions for those that profit off of or speak ill of the dead.

eta* For instance, funeral homes are businesses that a wide, wide majority of people accept but generally agree should be run with a high sense of decorum and competency and sympathy. Only very dark comedy goes there, even. (Cue Knoxville and the hearse right now.)

It's the woman's attitude that makes my skin crawl. I don't have any problem if they are donating organs/tissue for medical research. I don't really have a problem if they are selling them in order to stay open, because I think they provide valuable services to poor women. If they are actually turning a profit because of it, yeah that's where I start to have a problem. Why? I guess because I see legal abortion as a necessary and unfortunate tragedy. And I'd rather not see anyone "profit" from that.

I do like the response, but I do believe that PP cannot legally sell human tissue, organs and parts to stay open, they are limited to the costs of preservation and transfer, and that's it. Also, supposedly, according to PP:

Deborah Nucatela was speculating on the range of reimbursement that patients can receive after stating they wish to donate any tissue after a procedure

Is PP paying mothers?

 

[Scoresman]

Is this the act of PP as an organization or the act of one or more individuals working at PP?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Is this the act of PP as an organization or the act of one or more individuals working at PP?

Was it an act or a conversation over lunch?

 

[Quez]

Does the father of the fetus get any of the $30?

 

[[icon]]

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?

What if our honest opinion is that they are murderers? Why is this so hard to understand?

That is YOUR opinion. The Supreme Court, and the majority of Americans, disagree with you.

Therefore your opinion + 50c gets you a cup of coffee when it comes to anyone else's lives but your own.

How is that so hard to understand?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

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?

What if our honest opinion is that they are murderers? Why is this so hard to understand?

I certainly wouldn't want to live in a society that allows murder. Why do you want to?

 

[Van Dyman]

I for one am glad we're having this debate....

THIS will be the thread where the ProLife/ProChoice crowds will find common ground, and unite under one viewpoint!!!!11!!

I CAN FEEL IT IN MY BONES

I know, kumbaya, but...

We would all agree if PP was acting illegally by selling tissue, organs and limbs for profit, that that would be a problem, right?

Anyone have any problem with a state doing an audit of PP's financial transactions to see if they are charging more than basic costs of preservation and transportation?

Also, PP says they are actually paying mothers to abort, what do we think of that?

If the money helps them provide better care or more care (especially in places that currently have no service available), then it's a good thing.

An audit would be fine. Medical service providers should operate within the bounds of our law. If PP did something illegal, they should be punished. BTW, anyone know the actual punishment for whatever law they allegedly broke?

Paying patients to abort? Only if they are legally required to do so. As long as abortion is impossible or very difficult to find in many regions, the money should go to fixing that. Once that is fixed, I wouldn't care if they split the money with the patients who pay out of pocket. Certainly not applicable to patients whose services are paid by insurance or charitable contributions.

 

[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?

What if our honest opinion is that they are murderers? Why is this so hard to understand?

That is YOUR opinion. The Supreme Court, and the majority of Americans, disagree with you.

Therefore your opinion + 50c gets you a cup of coffee when it comes to anyone else's lives but your own.

How is that so hard to understand?

Because nine lawyers in 1973 don't get to determine a national debate and deter the valid opinion of the majority of Americans that disagree with the subsequent jurisprudence that flowed from that decision?

And I say this as a sort of now-ardent pro-choice guy who hates abortion but can't imagine the enforcement and subsequent entanglements that flow therefrom.

 

[[icon]]

We would all agree if PP was acting illegally by selling tissue, organs and limbs for profit, that that would be a problem, right?

May be an unpopular opinion but...

• PP is partially funded by tax dollars.

IF PP is distributing tissue for research purposes:

• To research done on federal grants = Should be sold at cost

• To private sector companies operating on a for profit basis = feel free to make a profit to help ease the demand of PP for Tax dollars.

 

[[icon]]

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?

What if our honest opinion is that they are murderers? Why is this so hard to understand?

That is YOUR opinion. The Supreme Court, and the majority of Americans, disagree with you.

Therefore your opinion + 50c gets you a cup of coffee when it comes to anyone else's lives but your own.

How is that so hard to understand?

Because nine lawyers in 1973 don't get to determine a national debate and deter the valid opinion of the majority of Americans that disagree with the subsequent jurisprudence that flowed from that decision?

Less than 20% of americans currently view Abortion as something that should be illegal in all circumstances.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

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?

What if our honest opinion is that they are murderers? Why is this so hard to understand?

That is YOUR opinion. The Supreme Court, and the majority of Americans, disagree with you.

Therefore your opinion + 50c gets you a cup of coffee when it comes to anyone else's lives but your own.

How is that so hard to understand?

Because nine lawyers in 1973 don't get to determine a national debate and deter the valid opinion of the majority of Americans that disagree with the subsequent jurisprudence that flowed from that decision?

Less than 20% of americans currently view Abortion as something that should be illegal in all circumstances.

This isnt Iran you ###### ####ers.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We would all agree if PP was acting illegally by selling tissue, organs and limbs for profit, that that would be a problem, right?

May be an unpopular opinion but...

• PP is partially funded by tax dollars.

IF PP is distributing tissue for research purposes:

• To research done on federal grants = Should be sold at cost

• To private sector companies operating on a for profit basis = feel free to make a profit to help ease the demand of PP for Tax dollars.

Ok, not debating here, but just to be clear, at least on your second point, if the law limits payment for costs of preservation and transfer only, you would still be in favor of the above 2nd point which appears to go outside that?

What if PP funds go into physician salaries?

 

[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?

What if our honest opinion is that they are murderers? Why is this so hard to understand?

That is YOUR opinion. The Supreme Court, and the majority of Americans, disagree with you.

Therefore your opinion + 50c gets you a cup of coffee when it comes to anyone else's lives but your own.

How is that so hard to understand?

Because nine lawyers in 1973 don't get to determine a national debate and deter the valid opinion of the majority of Americans that disagree with the subsequent jurisprudence that flowed from that decision?

Less than 20% of americans currently view Abortion as something that should be illegal in all circumstances.

That's sort of a narrow set of circumstances. What about second or third trimester abortions?

Granted, I'm not an expert on the topic, but it would seem that those two, minus rape or incest, garner significant public support for illegality.

 

[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?

What if our honest opinion is that they are murderers? Why is this so hard to understand?

Because it isn't. It's a dishonest opinion, I believe.

Earlier in this thread Ka El, who is as pro-life as anyone here, stated that he hoped that women who had had abortions in the past and now regretted that decision were counseled. That's not the way we treat murderers in our society. Sure, you have ministers visit them on death row, but first you make sure they ARE on death row, or facing a long prison sentence.

I don't believe that any of you pro-lifers would ever call for imprisonment or death as a proper punishment for women who commit abortion or doctors who commit abortion or, in this case, people who offer consultation to women who are considering abortion. And that's why I believe that when you call them murderers, it's dishonest.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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?

What if our honest opinion is that they are murderers? Why is this so hard to understand?

That is YOUR opinion. The Supreme Court, and the majority of Americans, disagree with you.

Therefore your opinion + 50c gets you a cup of coffee when it comes to anyone else's lives but your own.

How is that so hard to understand?

Because nine lawyers in 1973 don't get to determine a national debate and deter the valid opinion of the majority of Americans that disagree with the subsequent jurisprudence that flowed from that decision?

Less than 20% of americans currently view Abortion as something that should be illegal in all circumstances.

This isnt Iran you ###### ####ers.

Isn't this redundant? Illegal under some or all circumstances is running at 68%. Illegal under certain circumstances is running at 49%. That could be in the 3rd trimester, the 2nd, the 1st, when the mother is a minor, etc., isn't that what everyone debates every day? The pro-choice vs pro-life lines have been squiggling up and down past each other since 1996, the country can't make up its mind. It's almost as though we should vote on it on a state by state basis. Nah.

 

[timschochet]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

Both are disgusting but it poses a great moral conflict of interest if PP is trying to profit off this practice.

They're not.

Let's be clear: Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization. There are no investors who get a dividend, no stock market listing, no salaries that are dependent on income, NO INCOME. Any money received by PP, either through donations, fees, or government aid, goes straight into PP. It's deliberately dishonest to suggest that anyone is attempting to "profit" here.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Im playing and teasing Sheik Ali-abdul-Saints.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Im playing and teasing Sheik Ali-abdul-Saints.

Ok, ok, I'll bow out. The moral and philosophical issues involved here interest me. I don't think there's any harm in hashing these things out. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

Both are disgusting but it poses a great moral conflict of interest if PP is trying to profit off this practice.

It's deliberately dishonest to suggest that anyone is attempting to "profit" here.

He used the word IF, not IS

 

[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?

What if our honest opinion is that they are murderers? Why is this so hard to understand?

That is YOUR opinion. The Supreme Court, and the majority of Americans, disagree with you.

Therefore your opinion + 50c gets you a cup of coffee when it comes to anyone else's lives but your own.

How is that so hard to understand?

Because nine lawyers in 1973 don't get to determine a national debate and deter the valid opinion of the majority of Americans that disagree with the subsequent jurisprudence that flowed from that decision?

Less than 20% of americans currently view Abortion as something that should be illegal in all circumstances.

This isnt Iran you ###### ####ers.

Not sure why you're celebrating this.

The popularity of abortion rights aren't relevant. Almost everyone on both sides of this issue consider it to be a matter of right and wrong. The fact that more people are on "my side" of this issue, currently, doesn't make my side any more "right" nor the other side any more wrong.

And I have to say I really hate this sort of thinking. It bothered me profoundly when I read that Court experts said that Anthony Kennedy believed that gay marriage was Constitutional all along, but waited for years until popular opinion matched his beliefs. That's not the way it's supposed to work. He's supposed to issue decisions regardless of what the public believes.

 

[timschochet]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

Both are disgusting but it poses a great moral conflict of interest if PP is trying to profit off this practice.

It's deliberately dishonest to suggest that anyone is attempting to "profit" here.

He used the word IF, not IS

But it can't be an if, because PP is non-profit.

 

[[icon]]

Isn't this redundant? Illegal under some or all circumstances is running at 68%. Illegal under certain circumstances is running at 49%. That could be in the 3rd trimester, the 2nd, the 1st, when the mother is a minor, etc., isn't that what everyone debates every day? The pro-choice vs pro-life lines have been squiggling up and down past each other since 1996, the country can't make up its mind. It's almost as though we should vote on it on a state by state basis. Nah.

No.. it's not. It's a flawed poll in that someone like me who is pro choice (except 3rd trimester and partial birth abortions) and someone who's pro-life (except for rape) fall in the same bucket. The point of that statement is someone like shader, who's screaming about murder, is clearly outside that bucket. I'm letting him know, he's on a very small island.

 

[Hang 10]

Tim has a problem with hyperbole in a rational discussion but repeatedly calling the other side dishonest is just fine. #### off, Tim.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

Both are disgusting but it poses a great moral conflict of interest if PP is trying to profit off this practice.

It's deliberately dishonest to suggest that anyone is attempting to "profit" here.

He used the word IF, not IS

But it can't be an if, because PP is non-profit.

Just because a company/organization is non-profit doesn't mean they aren't always looking to generate additional revenue.

 

[Hang 10]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

Both are disgusting but it poses a great moral conflict of interest if PP is trying to profit off this practice.

It's deliberately dishonest to suggest that anyone is attempting to "profit" here.

He used the word IF, not IS

But it can't be an if, because PP is non-profit.

Just because a company/organization is non-profit doesn't mean they aren't always looking to generate additional revenue.

See the Clintons.

 

[timschochet]

Tim has a problem with hyperbole in a rational discussion but repeatedly calling the other side dishonest is just fine. #### off, Tim.

Repeatedly? I'm not calling any PERSON dishonest. And I'm not doing it repeatedly.

I've been very specific- the argument that abortion is murder is a dishonest argument. I am not calling YOU dishonest for making that argument, because I don't know if you've really thought it out. But it's a dishonest argument all the same, so long as we define murder as the deliberate, intentional, wrongful killing of another human being.

 

[njherdfan]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

Both are disgusting but it poses a great moral conflict of interest if PP is trying to profit off this practice.

It's deliberately dishonest to suggest that anyone is attempting to "profit" here.

He used the word IF, not IS

But it can't be an if, because PP is non-profit.

I'm about as pro-choice as they come, but I think the word "profit" here is used in its vernacular sense of increased revenue. In the same way colleges are non-profits but then charge exorbitant tuition to pay for their expenses, I'm sure PP would prefer to take in more, rather than less, money, if only to open new clinics or hire more security.

 

[timschochet]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

Both are disgusting but it poses a great moral conflict of interest if PP is trying to profit off this practice.

It's deliberately dishonest to suggest that anyone is attempting to "profit" here.

He used the word IF, not IS

But it can't be an if, because PP is non-profit.

Just because a company/organization is non-profit doesn't mean they aren't always looking to generate additional revenue.

See the Clintons.

Well I don't buy it for the Clintons, either.

But to your point, of course they're trying to generate additional revenue in several ways. If you find this particular way reprehensible, that's fine. I"m not too comfortable with it myself. But let's not call it profit.

 

[timschochet]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

Both are disgusting but it poses a great moral conflict of interest if PP is trying to profit off this practice.

It's deliberately dishonest to suggest that anyone is attempting to "profit" here.

He used the word IF, not IS

But it can't be an if, because PP is non-profit.

I'm about as pro-choice as they come, but I think the word "profit" here is used in its vernacular sense of increased revenue. In the same way colleges are non-profits but then charge exorbitant tuition to pay for their expenses, I'm sure PP would prefer to take in more, rather than less, money, if only to open new clinics or hire more security.

The reason it's an important distinction, IMO, is because people are using the word "profit" as a pejorative, as if there's these greedy PP guys in a back room somewhere, eagerly waiting to sell body parts for cash, and salivating over all the money that's going to come pouring in.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

Both are disgusting but it poses a great moral conflict of interest if PP is trying to profit off this practice.

It's deliberately dishonest to suggest that anyone is attempting to "profit" here.

He used the word IF, not IS

But it can't be an if, because PP is non-profit.

Just because a company/organization is non-profit doesn't mean they aren't always looking to generate additional revenue.

See the Clintons.

See everybody about everything.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

Both are disgusting but it poses a great moral conflict of interest if PP is trying to profit off this practice.

It's deliberately dishonest to suggest that anyone is attempting to "profit" here.

He used the word IF, not IS

But it can't be an if, because PP is non-profit.

Just because a company/organization is non-profit doesn't mean they aren't always looking to generate additional revenue.

See the Clintons.

Well I don't buy it for the Clintons, either.But to your point, of course they're trying to generate additional revenue in several ways. If you find this particular way reprehensible, that's fine. I"m not too comfortable with it myself. But let's not call it profit.

Ok, instead of profit we can call it additional revenue a non-profit organization generated over and above what they originally budgeted.

 

[timschochet]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

Both are disgusting but it poses a great moral conflict of interest if PP is trying to profit off this practice.

It's deliberately dishonest to suggest that anyone is attempting to "profit" here.

He used the word IF, not IS

But it can't be an if, because PP is non-profit.

Just because a company/organization is non-profit doesn't mean they aren't always looking to generate additional revenue.

See the Clintons.

Well I don't buy it for the Clintons, either.But to your point, of course they're trying to generate additional revenue in several ways. If you find this particular way reprehensible, that's fine. I"m not too comfortable with it myself. But let's not call it profit.

Ok, instead of profit we can call it additional revenue a non-profit organization generated over and above what they originally budgeted.

That's fine.

 

[shader]

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?

What if our honest opinion is that they are murderers? Why is this so hard to understand?

That is YOUR opinion. The Supreme Court, and the majority of Americans, disagree with you.

Therefore your opinion + 50c gets you a cup of coffee when it comes to anyone else's lives but your own.

How is that so hard to understand?

Ah, using the supreme court as moral validation I guess?

So I assume that if the supreme court changes and declares that abortion is murder, you'll be fully on board, right?

 

[(HULK)]

I honestly think that the people living 200 years from now will look back at abortion as a barbaric practice. (These future people only get pregnant when intentional as their birth control is rock solid).

Much like those who were "on the wrong side of history" in the gay marriage debate, those who are pro-choice will also be on the wrong side of history.

I find abortion due to inconvience of the child to be morally wrong. Health/rape/incest... I think its a much greyer area. And again, I'm an atheist, not some fundamentalist.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

Both are disgusting but it poses a great moral conflict of interest if PP is trying to profit off this practice.

It's deliberately dishonest to suggest that anyone is attempting to "profit" here.

He used the word IF, not IS

But it can't be an if, because PP is non-profit.

Just because a company/organization is non-profit doesn't mean they aren't always looking to generate additional revenue.

See the Clintons.

Well I don't buy it for the Clintons, either.But to your point, of course they're trying to generate additional revenue in several ways. If you find this particular way reprehensible, that's fine. I"m not too comfortable with it myself. But let's not call it profit.

Ok, instead of profit we can call it additional revenue a non-profit organization generated over and above what they originally budgeted.

That's fine.

Which to most non-profits is considered profit. Hope that helps.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I honestly think that the people living 200 years from now will look back at abortion as a barbaric practice.

I think many people 200 and 2000 years ago felt the same away... but let people make their own decisions.