Planned Parenthood is Not Selling Baby Parts, You @!#$ing Idiots

a reply to: bbracken677

Yes, the source of the data is from PP's own records, but there is much more to the story and the numbers used to arrive at the 94% are disingenuous. Here is what politifact had to say on the issue:

Source

Not all of Planned Parenthood approximately 700 clinics offer prenatal services because prenatal care is not Planned Parenthood's focus. As a result, many pregnant women are referred to outside obstetricians or other health providers for prenatal care.

How many? It's impossible to know.

Planned Parenthood does not record how many pregnant patients are referred to outside health care providers, said Elizabeth Clark, a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman.

Smith said, "Almost 95 percent of all (Planned Parenthood's) pregnancy services were abortions."

An anti-abortion group puts the figure at 94 percent using a cherry-picked method that ignores the majority of Planned Parenthood's services, which aim to prevent pregnancies. The group describes "pregnancy services" as counting what Planned Parenthood does for women once they are already pregnant.

But Planned Parenthood does not fully track this number, making the claim a leap of logic based on insufficient information. What's most noticeably missing among the number of Planned Parenthood services used by pregnant women are the number of pregnancy referrals.

Planned Parenthood says it doesn't keep records of how many pregnant women are referred to outside healthcare providers. Without that information, we don't know an accurate percentage of "pregnancy services" that were abortions. Neither, however, does Smith.

We rate the claim False.

“Lily is blessed with all the right genetic material and she’s rich with DNA [for it].

Well goodie

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richard’s Daughter Helps Lead Hillary Clinton’s Campaign

www.lifenews.com...

Just a couple random thoughts (probably obnoxious) from a pro-choice, non-religious individual.

1. I'm curious how different this conversation and topic would be if a woman's pregnancy grew on the outside of her body. Maybe on her forehead. Would being able to see the growth process and forming child make a difference? I'm actually curious about that, but believe there would be a big difference.

2. I keep hearing about abortions in poor areas and about the "lack of education". Ummm...our near-ape ancestors eventually figured out that if they put this inside there, nine months later a baby comes out. Sure, it may have taken a bunch of such incidents before they got it...but they got it. WHERE IN THE WORLD DON'T PEOPLE KNOW THIS???

Sorry...just had to.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
2. I keep hearing about abortions in poor areas and about the "lack of education". Ummm...our near-ape ancestors eventually figured out that if they put this inside there, nine months later a baby comes out. Sure, it may have taken a bunch of such incidents before they got it...but they got it. WHERE IN THE WORLD DON'T PEOPLE KNOW THIS???

Sorry...just had to.

Knowledge isn't passed down genetically. So just because people in the past knew something doesn't mean their ancestors know it. I mean of course having sex and the results of it seem rather intuitive, but you know what they say, "Every time they make something idiot proof they just turn around and invent a better idiot."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Maybe we should take the same approach as the silica gel in the packets that come with electronics. "WARNING: Do not insert in vagina. Pregnancy may occur" underwear

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Thanks for that link. We know that Hillary and the Progressives have been pro abortion all along. Progressives embraced the depopulation agenda of the Rockefellers since the days of Margaret Sanger.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

being able to see the growth process and forming child make a difference? I'm actually curious about that, but believe there would be a big difference.

The answer would be no unless people start believing ultrasound. They know what is forming inside and we have ample evidence especially in late term. No, this is a case of society deliberately turning the other way because of the powerful pro choice lobby and the Progressive agenda(I mean Progressives of any party).

a reply to: Stormdancer777
Since 2009 conveniently when u no who occupied the WH. Now we know the real reason Occupier refused to vote for legislation which would have saved babies which still lived after a botched abortion.

a reply to: dawnstar

obamacare is a crap law that doesn't make healthcare cheap, it just mandates everyone have insurance, of which it is failing in that regard...

thank you at least we agree on this.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Even the unborn fetus is more than an unsprouted seed. Take the sprouted seed out of the soil and see what happens. From the moment of conception the fertilized human egg begins to develop, you know the whole blastocyst thing(you did get that in the advanced sex ed in public schools right?) and all the cell division process and so on.

stemcells.nih.gov...

First five days-this is what the sprouted human looks like. It has its own set of DNA

Unfortunately, the blastocyst with 150 cells is what the pro choice movement refers to as a "mass of cells". And it is at that point at five days, before the brain and the heart develop.
Oh by the way how do those sprouted mung beans taste in your salad?
Really the pro choice movement really knows how to destroy the mystery of life. I just cannot resist posting this.... www.youtube.com...

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus


Apparently until the mystical, magical event known as birth the fetus is not homo sapiens. Apparently the fetus is another species altogether, otherwise killing them would be murdering a homo sapien. Murdering a human, in other words.

Apparently the birthing process is a magical, mystical event at which point the fetus attains self-awareness and becomes qualified to be classified as homo sapien.

What a load of crap.

Some people eat their placenta after the birth of a child and we do not call that cannibalism in the strict sense since it was part of their body. If a woman were to request being able to eat her late-term aborted child would that be seen as cannibalism?

The thought makes one squeamish I am sure but if PP is selling parts of late-term babies then are they harvesting human beings? Apparently they are so in a sense this is a bit ghoulish. And if you would say that the hypothetical woman I mentioned would be a cannibal (she would be eating something far more advanced than a mere body part from her) then apparently in the process a baby was killed.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Thanks for taking my analogy to the extreme. I'm not going to rescind it though.

a reply to: edward777

That is a very very interesting point. It took me a day and a couple more readings to fully grasp where you were going, but I get it now.

And I also now understand why no pro-death advocate has not responded to your post.

Brilliant, thanks for your submission.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

February 3, 2019

Court affirms media was wrong: Those videos of Planned Parenthood dealing in baby parts were not deceptively edited

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling that allows Texas to strip Planned Parenthood of its Medicaid funding.

The decision, which is tied to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission’s call to have Planned Parenthood removed as a qualified Medicaid provider following the release of several damning undercover videos, should come as a major blow to not just the abortion provider, but also the press.

More at: www.washingtonexaminer.com... dited