Profiting from Infanticide: Planned Parenthood Makes 86% of Revenue from Abortions...

[occupied]

I think you should mind your own business and quit telling people what God wants as if you have a private line. It's an ugly brutal world out there, work to make unwanted pregnancies a thing of the past with contraception, education and social support rather than trying to police wombs and not giving a shit after the cord is cut.

You're the one who brought up God, psycho.

Twisted hateful rightwing Christianity is behind every bit of your total disregard for new born babies.

Why wouldn't we love both?

I'm not getting this at all. You come up with this political line that we hate babies once they are born? You getting a Hollywood moment here? I did promo for a living. This boat won't float.

The exact same political party is trying to save fetuses and cold-bloodedly murder the programs that help people raise a kid in poverty. Where the hell have you been?

What programs are they trying to kill...give specifics!

All of them have been dying by a thousand cuts in the red states that work the hardest to control women's reproduction.

 

[koshergrl]

I think you should mind your own business and quit telling people what God wants as if you have a private line. It's an ugly brutal world out there, work to make unwanted pregnancies a thing of the past with contraception, education and social support rather than trying to police wombs and not giving a shit after the cord is cut.

You're the one who brought up God, psycho.

Twisted hateful rightwing Christianity is behind every bit of your total disregard for new born babies.

Why wouldn't we love both?

I'm not getting this at all. You come up with this political line that we hate babies once they are born? You getting a Hollywood moment here? I did promo for a living. This boat won't float.

The exact same political party is trying to save fetuses and cold-bloodedly murder the programs that help people raise a kid in poverty. Where the hell have you been?

What programs are they trying to kill...give specifics!

lolol

 

[Vandalshandle]

Meanwhile...never fear...God suffers for the innocents....and so will you.

OH NO! Not the GOD threat!!!!!!!!

 

[tinydancer]

So you think we should kill them...to protect them.

You people truly are insane. This is what happens when we refuse to teach ppl right from wrong, while at the same time closing nuthouses and letting criminals roam at large.

I think you should mind your own business and quit telling people what God wants as if you have a private line. It's an ugly brutal world out there, work to make unwanted pregnancies a thing of the past with contraception, education and social support rather than trying to police wombs and not giving a shit after the cord is cut.

You're the one who brought up God, psycho.

Twisted hateful rightwing Christianity is behind every bit of your total disregard for new born babies.

Why wouldn't we love both?

I'm not getting this at all. You come up with this political line that we hate babies once they are born? You getting a Hollywood moment here? I did promo for a living. This boat won't float.

The exact same political party is trying to save fetuses and cold-bloodedly murder the programs that help people raise a kid in poverty. Where the hell have you been?

You can't adopt them.

We have thousands of First Nations children being housed in hotels. In Winnipeg. We can't adopt them. We're not allowed to. We're not allowed to.

 

[koshergrl]

You're the one who brought up God, psycho.

Twisted hateful rightwing Christianity is behind every bit of your total disregard for new born babies.

Why wouldn't we love both?

I'm not getting this at all. You come up with this political line that we hate babies once they are born? You getting a Hollywood moment here? I did promo for a living. This boat won't float.

The exact same political party is trying to save fetuses and cold-bloodedly murder the programs that help people raise a kid in poverty. Where the hell have you been?

What programs are they trying to kill...give specifics!

All of them have been dying by a thousand cuts in the red states that work the hardest to control women's reproduction.

Yeah, you've got nothing, except hatred of fertile women and a desire to kill babies. Yuck.

 

[Vigilante]

Let it be known, occupier thinks the best way to protect babies is to kill them. Thanks for being honest.

The best way to protect babies is to actually give a shit about them AFTER they are born. As long as the right is trying to kill social programs I cannot believe you care about babies, only placing women back in their rightful place as slaves to their reproductive systems.

It’s a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)

Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).

Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her

.Empty pro-choice challenge of the day: ‘Why don’t you pro-lifers adopt more?’

That's an awful lot of hair splitting there. Charity is just not stepping up here so we have social programs, you people would ban abortion and kill welfare with a single stroke of a pen if you had the chance.

That's a socialist lie! ...No specifics?

 

[koshergrl]

Meanwhile...never fear...God suffers for the innocents....and so will you.

OH NO! Not the GOD threat!!!!!!!!

Just remember, I didn't bring Him into this. I'm just responding to occutwats insane rant.

 

[tinydancer]

They take them away from their families and house these babies in hotel rooms.

 

[Vigilante]

You're the one who brought up God, psycho.

Twisted hateful rightwing Christianity is behind every bit of your total disregard for new born babies.

Why wouldn't we love both?

I'm not getting this at all. You come up with this political line that we hate babies once they are born? You getting a Hollywood moment here? I did promo for a living. This boat won't float.

The exact same political party is trying to save fetuses and cold-bloodedly murder the programs that help people raise a kid in poverty. Where the hell have you been?

What programs are they trying to kill...give specifics!

All of them have been dying by a thousand cuts in the red states that work the hardest to control women's reproduction.

Another socialist lie... still NO specifics, only Bullshit from bullshitters!

 

[Vigilante]

Meanwhile...never fear...God suffers for the innocents....and so will you.

OH NO! Not the GOD threat!!!!!!!!

Are you afraid there might actually be one?

 

[RDD_1210]

Meanwhile...never fear...God suffers for the innocents....and so will you.

OH NO! Not the GOD threat!!!!!!!!

Are you afraid there might actually be one?

Don't worry, there isn't.

 

[tinydancer]

Can you even actually believe we are arguing with left wing whackos over the profit margin of selling aborted fetal parts?

What's seriously wrong with this picture?

 

[Vigilante]

Meanwhile...never fear...God suffers for the innocents....and so will you.

OH NO! Not the GOD threat!!!!!!!!

Are you afraid there might actually be one?

Don't worry, there isn't.

Haters have to hate, and that from an agnostic!

 

[occupied]

Let it be known, occupier thinks the best way to protect babies is to kill them. Thanks for being honest.

The best way to protect babies is to actually give a shit about them AFTER they are born. As long as the right is trying to kill social programs I cannot believe you care about babies, only placing women back in their rightful place as slaves to their reproductive systems.

It’s a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)

Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).

Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her

.Empty pro-choice challenge of the day: ‘Why don’t you pro-lifers adopt more?’

That's an awful lot of hair splitting there. Charity is just not stepping up here so we have social programs, you people would ban abortion and kill welfare with a single stroke of a pen if you had the chance.

That's a socialist lie! ...No specifics?

When state budgets get tight everything that has to do with children gets trimmed first because they neither vote nor contribute to campaigns, education, day care, school lunches, child wellness, you name it. If you are unaware of this then you are a total dumbass. When a republican is looking for a budget cut the kids get cut first.

 

[RDD_1210]

Can you even actually believe we are arguing with left wing whackos over the profit margin of selling aborted fetal parts?

What's seriously wrong with this picture?

How much you had to drink tonight?

 

[daws101]

Has everyone lost their collective mind?

The bible says what motherfucker?

God's Not Pro-Life

All the chapter and verse where the BIble says abortion, infanticide, and child murder is fine.

If everything is God's will then all those babies dying of starvation and disease is on him.

Are you really saying that abortion saves babies? lolol.

I'm saying that if God cares so much about babies he has a shitty way of showing it because before the modern era a woman could expect half of her children to die before their first birthday. You want to talk about God? If everything is truly his will then he hates babies most of all.

So you think we should kill them...to protect them.

You people truly are insane. This is what happens when we refuse to teach ppl right from wrong, while at the same time closing nuthouses and letting criminals roam at large.

You should be grateful closing the mental hospitals put you on the outside.

 

[occupied]

Twisted hateful rightwing Christianity is behind every bit of your total disregard for new born babies.

Why wouldn't we love both?

I'm not getting this at all. You come up with this political line that we hate babies once they are born? You getting a Hollywood moment here? I did promo for a living. This boat won't float.

The exact same political party is trying to save fetuses and cold-bloodedly murder the programs that help people raise a kid in poverty. Where the hell have you been?

What programs are they trying to kill...give specifics!

All of them have been dying by a thousand cuts in the red states that work the hardest to control women's reproduction.

Yeah, you've got nothing, except hatred of fertile women and a desire to kill babies. Yuck.

I don't want to kill babes you sick fuck. I also do not feel it is any of my business what a woman does concerning her reproduction. I would much rather contraception be universally available and women be educated from an early age with factual information that it makes abortion a much more rare thing. Too bad people like you want to also remove access to contraception where possible and fill girl's heads with useless abstinence only sex education.

 

[Vigilante]

Let it be known, occupier thinks the best way to protect babies is to kill them. Thanks for being honest.

The best way to protect babies is to actually give a shit about them AFTER they are born. As long as the right is trying to kill social programs I cannot believe you care about babies, only placing women back in their rightful place as slaves to their reproductive systems.

It’s a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)

Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).

Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her

.Empty pro-choice challenge of the day: ‘Why don’t you pro-lifers adopt more?’

That's an awful lot of hair splitting there. Charity is just not stepping up here so we have social programs, you people would ban abortion and kill welfare with a single stroke of a pen if you had the chance.

That's a socialist lie! ...No specifics?

When state budgets get tight everything that has to do with children gets trimmed first because they neither vote nor contribute to campaigns, education, day care, school lunches, child wellness, you name it. If you are unaware of this then you are a total dumbass. When a republican is looking for a budget cut the kids get cut first.

More bullshit, with NO PROOF, just leftist lies! Thanks for playing!

 

[occupied]

The best way to protect babies is to actually give a shit about them AFTER they are born. As long as the right is trying to kill social programs I cannot believe you care about babies, only placing women back in their rightful place as slaves to their reproductive systems.

It’s a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)

Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).

Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her

.Empty pro-choice challenge of the day: ‘Why don’t you pro-lifers adopt more?’

That's an awful lot of hair splitting there. Charity is just not stepping up here so we have social programs, you people would ban abortion and kill welfare with a single stroke of a pen if you had the chance.

That's a socialist lie! ...No specifics?

When state budgets get tight everything that has to do with children gets trimmed first because they neither vote nor contribute to campaigns, education, day care, school lunches, child wellness, you name it. If you are unaware of this then you are a total dumbass. When a republican is looking for a budget cut the kids get cut first.

More bullshit, with NO PROOF, just leftist lies! Thanks for playing!

See ya, please put me on ignore if you do not like what I say.

 

[daws101]

Meanwhile...never fear...God suffers for the innocents....and so will you.

OH NO! Not the GOD threat!!!!!!!!

You bastard you beat me to it!