Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

[aris2chat]

your avatar is offensive and threatening. Are you suggesting more people should be shot?

That that work in clinics have family and friends. They provide services for the community. It is a woman's choice to walk into a clinic, no one is dragging her kicking a screaming by her hair into the clinics.

It is her body and if she is not ready to carry and give birth, that is her right to choose. Not all women should be mothers, and not all even wants to be told when they have to be mothers. If a woman finds out she is pregnant and decides she is going to drink and take drugs the whole nine months because she is unhappy, the fetus/infant will be the one to suffer. It is her right to care for her body or not, but people want to force her to carry a fetus she has no love or desire. Not only are 'you' making her carry and child, but you would control her habits and actions during those months as well? She could be so depressed that she jumps in front of a car or crash her car into a tree. 'You' care to have a fetus carried to term, but not for what happens to the women or the fetus during or after the term...........then you want to shoot doctors and clinic workers for doing their work and helping the women??????

So you would kill without trial or law to save a fetus the women does not even want? You would risk her life by ruining her and forcing her to carry a child? If she is so depressed, she might kill the child or just let it die after birth, and then what, jail?

How many lives are you going to destroy to save a fetus that the male partner implanted in the first place?

Why should women suffer for 15 minutes of a male's pleasure?

Back street abortions are dangerous which was the intent if providing clinics for women. Send them back to the streets and there will be more deaths on your hands.

There is no guarantee that if a women were to carry and give birth that the child would go to a good home, grow up happy and live a long healthy life and be an upstanding member of the community.

Hormones do strange things to women during pregnancy, and after. For some it is almost like being semi bi-polar for nine months. A woman has to really want to be a mother and get all the care and attention she deserves during that time. Hormones also make a women see and touch the baby or reject it totally after birth. They affect the breasts to produce milk, which can be quite painful sometimes. Pregnancy is not a piece of cake for women, and when they call it labor, they mean just that. It can last a couple of days unless the baby goes into distress.

If men cannot carry a fetus and give birth, they should not tell a woman to, if it is not her desire to do so.

No, it is not her body.....it's her child's body and she has no right to have it murdered and it's parts sold to the highest bidder. As to my avatar I'm DElighted you find it "offensive and threatening". It shows you jump to idiotic conclusions same as your rant about murdering the unborn. But because I'm a kind and caring fella and to ease your brittle little mind, the .357 ISN'T LOADED....or is it?

Not till it leaves her body and it takes its first real breath after seperation. Doctors treat the mother and she has the right to request treatment or refuse. If doctors tell her take meds or to do something, it is her choice. If the dr says bed rest and she gets up and goes skydiving, it is her choice. The fetus is part of her body and she can care for it or care less about it. She can seek medical care or carry on a wild lifestyle.

The baby is only a patient is the women seek care for it and follows through. Till it is born, the mother is the patient of record and only that name is the one to speak to the doctor and make decisions

 

[aris2chat]

It's because I looked it up, I know it's not 98%. Now why aren't you answering my questions?

Where do you get your 98% figure from?

And why are you against Teri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed when you feel it's ok to terminate a pregnancy with a similar prognosis?

I'm guessing somewhere around 80% if it was born premature. Not my field of medicine. But when carried to term (the end of the pregnancy), what are the chances of survival??? I've said this many times and you keep seeming to miss it, which means you don't understand, or don't want to understand the argument.

Because that wasn't your analogy. Your analogy was .... would it be ok to terminate the life of a person like Teri Schiavo if doctors said she had a 98% chance of a full recovery in 3 months. In terms of an unborn child, that's like asking if it's ok to terminate a pregnancy if doctors said the 27 week old embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive in 3 months.

I knew you didn't know what the hell you're talking abiut.

How does that change the argument. I'm confused as to why you can say it's not ok to pull the plug at 98%, and not be able to give an answer on 80%? Because that was not the original number I gave? Which I have not been speaking to a 27 week premie, but I gave that number anyway.

So faun, what is it that happens when you carry a baby to term...a very large majority of the time you deliver a baby. Which is where the argument comes into place with the doctors saying, my original number, 3 months and Sheri tiavo will recover. Does it change the argument if I were to say 6 months and Sheri will recover? Is it ok to pull the plug? No, it doesn't change the argument

You really have no clue what you're talking about. Now you're denying that you were speaking of a 27 week old embryo -- but -- your analogy began with a situation where an a born child had a 98% chance of surviving 3 months later ... 40 weeks of gestation minus 3 months equals the 27th week.

I have said many times carried to term. I'm pretty sure you brought up the 27 weeks. I'll ask again, carried to term what is chances of survival? Doesn't get much simpler than that. You have really missed the point.

Even if you are correct with your assertions, which I don't know why you're subtracting months, just splitting hairs. At 80% do you still kill Sherri?

Hyp:
If a married couple have sex, even protected sex and it fails, Her health is an issue and she should not carry a child or risk her life, can she choose to have an abortion or carry the child, die and leave a husband an child alone? Why can't the husband and wife choose each other for a long life and not have children?

Not all women can or should carry and give birth. not all women want to. Now many opt for a serogate to carry the child instead.......and the serogate can then keep the child of their seed and experience as her own.

Every woman and life situation is unique and only she can make the choice for what is best for her and her life.

You can't make a blank statement that all women have to carry every pregnancy term no matter what. Life is not like that and nor should outsiders expect every women to be mandated breeding machines when many times that man is not around in the picture. Not all men are willing to step forward, or they lie about their circumstances (ie.not married, job, healthy, vasectomy, etc.).

There has to be safe options for women available. You can't just ban the procedure for every circumstance without exceptions and individual agreement between patient and doctor. Rape, cancer, mental deficiency, birth defect, life of mother........................

Get out of a woman's medical records and stop demanding that medical treatment be only one way and not individual to the patient. Stop forcing women into slavery for nine months or 19 yrs. Stop practicing medicine on the message boards without a license or patient history. Stop legislating medical care rather than letting the doctor and patient decide the care.

Stop enslaving others. Choice, free choice is part of our rights for good reason. Life liberty and happiness begin with the woman and not a few cells that are a tumor inside a woman. Woman first, fetus/infant second with consent of woman. Infant is only first after it is born, not before.

 

[sakinago]

How does that change the argument. I'm confused as to why you can say it's not ok to pull the plug at 98%, and not be able to give an answer on 80%? Because that was not the original number I gave? Which I have not been speaking to a 27 week premie, but I gave that number anyway.

So faun, what is it that happens when you carry a baby to term...a very large majority of the time you deliver a baby. Which is where the argument comes into place with the doctors saying, my original number, 3 months and Sheri tiavo will recover. Does it change the argument if I were to say 6 months and Sheri will recover? Is it ok to pull the plug? No, it doesn't change the argument

You really have no clue what you're talking about. Now you're denying that you were speaking of a 27 week old embryo -- but -- your analogy began with a situation where an a born child had a 98% chance of surviving 3 months later ... 40 weeks of gestation minus 3 months equals the 27th week.

I have said many times carried to term. I'm pretty sure you brought up the 27 weeks. I'll ask again, carried to term what is chances of survival? Doesn't get much simpler than that. You have really missed the point.

Even if you are correct with your assertions, which I don't know why you're subtracting months, just splitting hairs. At 80% do you still kill Sherri?

I got the 3 month period from you. You're the one introducing a 3 month period to recover and comparing that to a baby being born.

"uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery in 3 months with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever if you can see where I'm going with this. Nowbe consistent."​

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. That much is clear.

Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?

WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?

Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.

You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) IN 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born IN 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?

Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.

I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.

 

[aris2chat]

your avatar is offensive and threatening. Are you suggesting more people should be shot?

That that work in clinics have family and friends. They provide services for the community. It is a woman's choice to walk into a clinic, no one is dragging her kicking a screaming by her hair into the clinics.

It is her body and if she is not ready to carry and give birth, that is her right to choose. Not all women should be mothers, and not all even wants to be told when they have to be mothers. If a woman finds out she is pregnant and decides she is going to drink and take drugs the whole nine months because she is unhappy, the fetus/infant will be the one to suffer. It is her right to care for her body or not, but people want to force her to carry a fetus she has no love or desire. Not only are 'you' making her carry and child, but you would control her habits and actions during those months as well? She could be so depressed that she jumps in front of a car or crash her car into a tree. 'You' care to have a fetus carried to term, but not for what happens to the women or the fetus during or after the term...........then you want to shoot doctors and clinic workers for doing their work and helping the women??????

So you would kill without trial or law to save a fetus the women does not even want? You would risk her life by ruining her and forcing her to carry a child? If she is so depressed, she might kill the child or just let it die after birth, and then what, jail?

How many lives are you going to destroy to save a fetus that the male partner implanted in the first place?

Why should women suffer for 15 minutes of a male's pleasure?

Back street abortions are dangerous which was the intent if providing clinics for women. Send them back to the streets and there will be more deaths on your hands.

There is no guarantee that if a women were to carry and give birth that the child would go to a good home, grow up happy and live a long healthy life and be an upstanding member of the community.

Hormones do strange things to women during pregnancy, and after. For some it is almost like being semi bi-polar for nine months. A woman has to really want to be a mother and get all the care and attention she deserves during that time. Hormones also make a women see and touch the baby or reject it totally after birth. They affect the breasts to produce milk, which can be quite painful sometimes. Pregnancy is not a piece of cake for women, and when they call it labor, they mean just that. It can last a couple of days unless the baby goes into distress.

If men cannot carry a fetus and give birth, they should not tell a woman to, if it is not her desire to do so.

No, it is not her body.....it's her child's body and she has no right to have it murdered and it's parts sold to the highest bidder. As to my avatar I'm DElighted you find it "offensive and threatening". It shows you jump to idiotic conclusions same as your rant about murdering the unborn. But because I'm a kind and caring fella and to ease your brittle little mind, the .357 ISN'T LOADED....or is it?

If the woman does not want to carry a fetus to term and give birth, make the man carry it!
When 3D printers can produce a working uterus that can be transplanted into a man and have a fetus in the first few weeks of conception implanted, then make the man give up work for appointments and sickness, good food only, no drinking, not dangerous activities, not travel in the last few weeks, often not being able to keep a job during pregnancy, employers not covering prenatal or other medical care...................

Make a man carry for nine months for each time he wants sex up to 12 or so times............

Let the man raise the children while keeping a full time job and getting the kids out t school, sports, music, etc., every day in sickness and health or the father and all children....................

Tell him he has no choice in his life now or the next 19 yrs.

Tell him he has no rights over his own body.

Tell him he is limited to only certain types of medical treatment.

Are you out of your mind??????

Stop telling a woman any and all of the above.

Teach men to get a vasectomy and carry proof and only reverse it when the woman signs a contract to be a parent in full equal partnership for life, even if the couple can't live together after a certain point.

Implant a male 'pill' under the skin of his testicles till both members agree they are ready to be parents. Make him go though the hormones each month and during the nine months of gestation and longer if nursing. Let men suffer breast pain. Let men get stretched out of shape and then expected to fit in a sexy swimsuit a month later.
Let men live with stretch marks that don't fade. Let men waddle out of deformity and can't get in or out of a seat by themselves.

No man should tell a woman when to have a baby or that she has no choice. Women are not property, they are human beings.

Stay out of her womb, body or life.

Live you own life and stop telling her she cannot live her own.

Are you going to ban artificial and extraordinary means to have children? Why tell a woman she has to have children then?

Women have it tough enough already without more demands by those who do not know her.

 

[aris2chat]

You really have no clue what you're talking about. Now you're denying that you were speaking of a 27 week old embryo -- but -- your analogy began with a situation where an a born child had a 98% chance of surviving 3 months later ... 40 weeks of gestation minus 3 months equals the 27th week.

I have said many times carried to term. I'm pretty sure you brought up the 27 weeks. I'll ask again, carried to term what is chances of survival? Doesn't get much simpler than that. You have really missed the point.

Even if you are correct with your assertions, which I don't know why you're subtracting months, just splitting hairs. At 80% do you still kill Sherri?

I got the 3 month period from you. You're the one introducing a 3 month period to recover and comparing that to a baby being born.

"uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery in 3 months with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever if you can see where I'm going with this. Nowbe consistent."​

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. That much is clear.

Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?

WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?

Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.

You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) IN 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born IN 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?

Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.

I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.

Many people have life directives for medical treatment. Quality of life is more important than quantity. Not all those in the last years of life are getting good care or can care for themselves. Living in a hospital is not pleasant and can be very expensive for the patient and family. Family can't be there 24/7 for the loved one.

Medical choices have to be made by the patient and/or family. Doctor need to advise them when enough is enough, not fatten their bank accounts by having life support for the next ten, twenty or thirty years. At some point the body and the family have to move on with life.

Even after a baby is born, the mother/parent has to make the medical choices for not just the child but for the family as well. Till a child is an adult it really does not have much say in its care, parents do. Why should a pregnancy be any different. The woman/mother makes the decisions, not the children. Kids would eat sugar and never go to school if they dictated their own lives.

When the parent is the one that cannot make the choices, it is then up to the adult child to make them. Till that time, parents are the boss, so to speak. Till a child is an adult out on it's own supporting itself, the parents decide what, when, how, etc. including medical treatment, feed, care, etc. Kids do not tell parents. A good family will discuss things, but the parent is the final say.

Fetus do not dictate to the woman, she is the one in control of her body. She decides what care to give the fetus, or not. She can decide to live or not. She can decide if she is ready to be a mother or not. There are many ways to die, mentally and physically. Woman mental health is as important as her physical. If she is not mentally ready, no one should force her.

There are too many child brides, child abuse/rapes, too many preteen and teen sex, to many mentally immature or depressed people having sex (w/wo drugs and alcohol)

Not everyone should have to suffer the rest if their lives for something out of control, including failed birth control or change in medical health of the woman.

How is finding out a fetus has a birth defect and will suffer and live only a short time, if at all, and make a woman carry the fetus to term, pay physically, mentally and financially for the care of the fetus and mourn the fetus and possibly break when the fetus could have been terminated and the couple have another safer option for a healthy child that could get their full love and support through life? Why dies the fetus/infant have to suffer if there is an option? Do you expect to make pets and owners suffer till the pet finally expires? Do they have no choice but going bankrupt in the process and have to take time off work or loose their job to care for the pet that is going to be in pain and die soon? Every pet owner has no more choice in their life to decide what they do? You going to force a pet to go through chemo or other extraordinary measure and not understand why their owner is making them suffer? An owner can't make the pain stop? Why do others outside of the situation mandate what happens and not let the individuals, vets/doctors decide what is right for all?

16 billion people in the world of every type and you want to legislate a set if rules without exception for everyone to be programed to follow? Sorry but those are 16 billion individuals, unique and their choices need to be just as unique and individualized. They are not assembly line cars. Even they can be temperamental and some are just lemons, factory defaults that can't be fixed and can cause major accidents and take lives.

Justice is not a one size fits all, that is why we have juries and judges.

Why is medicine any different? There are extenuating circumstances there as well.

 

[vmgram427]

Aris2chat that is such a crock of shit. Women need to be more responsible when opening up and letting the man hit a homerun. I'm not saying the man who is looking to score should be carrying a pocket full of condoms and when it's time put the fricking thing on. Maybe I grew up during the days when the phrase "No Glove No Love"


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[aris2chat]

Aris2chat that is such a crock of shit. Women need to be more responsible when opening up and letting the man hit a homerun. I'm not saying the man who is looking to score should be carrying a pocket full of condoms and when it's time put the fricking thing on. Maybe I grew up during the days when the phrase "No Glove No Love"


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

but women are the ones that have to be the rock to a man twice her size?

teach the man, don't punish the woman

glove helps prevent STD as well, but birth control is the woman's responsibility?

Get men to stay zipped.

woman's health and needs comes before some government decision to deny her a choice and dictate to her t be a slave for months or years

 

[HenryBHough]

OK, we get why the (blanket) Indian girl was named "Running Fawn". Now how about the Indian boy-child named "Broken Rubber"?

 

[sakinago]

Aris2chat that is such a crock of shit. Women need to be more responsible when opening up and letting the man hit a homerun. I'm not saying the man who is looking to score should be carrying a pocket full of condoms and when it's time put the fricking thing on. Maybe I grew up during the days when the phrase "No Glove No Love"


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

but women are the ones that have to be the rock to a man twice her size?

teach the man, don't punish the woman

glove helps prevent STD as well, but birth control is the woman's responsibility?

Get men to stay zipped.

woman's health and needs comes before some government decision to deny her a choice and dictate to her t be a slave for months or years

Be consistent, if men have so day in women's choice , then they should not be responsible for a child that they did not want.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Aris2chat that is such a crock of shit. Women need to be more responsible when opening up and letting the man hit a homerun. I'm not saying the man who is looking to score should be carrying a pocket full of condoms and when it's time put the fricking thing on. Maybe I grew up during the days when the phrase "No Glove No Love"


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

but women are the ones that have to be the rock to a man twice her size?

teach the man, don't punish the woman

glove helps prevent STD as well, but birth control is the woman's responsibility?

Get men to stay zipped.

woman's health and needs comes before some government decision to deny her a choice and dictate to her t be a slave for months or years

"Be a rock to a man twice her size"? No, she's the one who should be a rock to HERSELF. Personally, as a woman, I'm not dumb enough to count on anyone but me to have my best interests at heart. And what does "twice her size" have to do with anything?

Birth control is both partners' responsibility, but her personal well-being most definitely is HERS.

 

[Faun]

You really have no clue what you're talking about. Now you're denying that you were speaking of a 27 week old embryo -- but -- your analogy began with a situation where an a born child had a 98% chance of surviving 3 months later ... 40 weeks of gestation minus 3 months equals the 27th week.

I have said many times carried to term. I'm pretty sure you brought up the 27 weeks. I'll ask again, carried to term what is chances of survival? Doesn't get much simpler than that. You have really missed the point.

Even if you are correct with your assertions, which I don't know why you're subtracting months, just splitting hairs. At 80% do you still kill Sherri?

I got the 3 month period from you. You're the one introducing a 3 month period to recover and comparing that to a baby being born.

"uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery in 3 months with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever if you can see where I'm going with this. Nowbe consistent."​

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. That much is clear.

Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?

WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?

Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.

You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) IN 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born IN 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?

Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.

I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.

There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.

 

[Faun]

Aris2chat that is such a crock of shit. Women need to be more responsible when opening up and letting the man hit a homerun. I'm not saying the man who is looking to score should be carrying a pocket full of condoms and when it's time put the fricking thing on. Maybe I grew up during the days when the phrase "No Glove No Love"


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

but women are the ones that have to be the rock to a man twice her size?

teach the man, don't punish the woman

glove helps prevent STD as well, but birth control is the woman's responsibility?

Get men to stay zipped.

woman's health and needs comes before some government decision to deny her a choice and dictate to her t be a slave for months or years

Be consistent, if men have so day in women's choice , then they should not be responsible for a child that they did not want.

When men get pregnant, they will be entitled to the same choices as women in terms of terminating their parental obligations.

 

[sakinago]

I have said many times carried to term. I'm pretty sure you brought up the 27 weeks. I'll ask again, carried to term what is chances of survival? Doesn't get much simpler than that. You have really missed the point.

Even if you are correct with your assertions, which I don't know why you're subtracting months, just splitting hairs. At 80% do you still kill Sherri?

I got the 3 month period from you. You're the one introducing a 3 month period to recover and comparing that to a baby being born.

"uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery in 3 months with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever if you can see where I'm going with this. Nowbe consistent."​

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. That much is clear.

Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?

WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?

Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.

You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) IN 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born IN 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?

Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.

I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.

There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.

An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Planned Parenthood Can No Longer Offer Cancer Screenings To Poor Women In Texas. Thanks, GOP

Of course, leading the idiocy parade in the attack on Planned Parenthood is the state of Texas. That state has actually been working overtime to defund Planned Parenthood since before the videos ever hit the news. Now,the Texas Tribune reports that, as of September 1, poor women in Texas will no longer be able to receive breast and cervical cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood offices.

In May, a budget compromise in the Texas legislature changed the way funds were allocated for a joint state-federal program that provides cancer screening for poor, uninsured women

Addicting Info Planned Parenthood Can No Longer Offer Cancer Screenings To Poor Women In Texas. Thanks GOP

Tell us again Republicans how there is no war on women!!

Statistics from 2014 show just how badly poor women in Texas stand to get hurt. According to the Texas Tribune:

• Planned Parenthood received 12.7 percent of taxpayer funding for cancer screenings over the past two years
• 16 percent of 11,567 pap smears that were done in 2014 were done at Planned Parenthood clinics
• Out of 2,165 women diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer through the screening program in 2014, 161 of them, or 7.4 percent, were diagnosed at a Planned Parenthood clinic

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

We need Charleton Heston more than ever. This is appalling.

Fetal Parts Sold for Scientific Research on Cosmetics Flavor Enhancers - Aleteia

 

[bucs90]

 

[bucs90]

What Tha fuck!!! Says Coca Cola, Campbell's soup, Nestle....and others...all had flavorings that contained kidney cells from aborted fetuses!!!! We've been consuming dead babies!!! Fucking liberals should burn in hell.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

What Tha fuck!!! Says Coca Cola, Campbell's soup, Nestle....and others...all had flavorings that contained kidney cells from aborted fetuses!!!! We've been consuming dead babies!!! Fucking liberals should burn in hell.

This is unimaginable.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this

 

[FA_Q2]

!