11 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Planned Parenthood
This post may contain affiliate links from which I will earn a commission. Learn more in our disclosure.
Depending on what your perspective is, Planned Parenthood is known either as a women's healthcare provider or an abortion mill. Whatever your thoughts are, I think you'll be surprised by the information in this post.
At the time of the writing of this post, there were bunch of undercover videos released implicating PPFA in the apparent selling of infant body parts.
These videos have drawn a lot of attention from both the “pro-life” and the “pro-choice” side, with the pro-life side stating that Planned Parenthood has committed felonies by selling human body parts, and many on the pro-choice side stating that the parts are for medical research, and/or that the videos have been doctored.
I am personally disgusted by these videos, but there are many other things about Planned Parenthood that I think deserve the attention of the media and of all U.S. citizens.
Whatever side of the “life/choice” debate you are on, I hope that you will read these, think about them, and keep an open mind as you do so.
I am more than happy to respond to any and all comments, on both sides of the debate. I did my best to do thorough research and encourage conversation about all of these points.
I'd love to hear what you think about this information.
11 Facts About Planned Parenthood
1. A large amount of Planned Parenthood's income comes from abortion.
Despite the fact that PP supporters continually claim that abortions comprise only 3% of the services that they provide, abortions are a large part of their income. In fact, Planned Parenthood made approximately $163,826,500 from abortions in the 2013 – 2014 year, assuming approximately $500 per abortion, which is a low-end estimation. A second-trimester abortion can cost well over $1,000. For a more detailed explanation of how the 3% claim is inaccurate, go here or here.
Basically, stating that abortion is only 3% of PPFA's operation is similar to saying that car sales are only a small percentage of a car dealership's business. Of course, the dealership provides financing, washes cars, does service on cars, and leases cars, but the primary reason for a car dealer to be in existence is to sell cars.
2. Prenatal Services amount to only 0.27% of all of Planned Parenthood's services.
One of the big claims that PPFA makes is that they provide all kinds of services, besides just abortions, including valuable prenatal services. However, they provide almost none of these. Only 18,684 in 2013 – 2014.
3. Over 46% of Planned Parenthood's income comes from taxpayers.
According to Planned Parenthood's annual report (2013 – 2014), they took in $528,400,000 from “Government Health Services Grants and Reimbursements.” This amount represents 46.12% of their total income.
4. Planned Parenthood has provided low-dose birth control pills, planning for failure and more abortions
See the documentation here, and here. The pills are either received at a PPFA clinic, or PPFA gives out a prescription for the woman to receive them elsewhere.
5. Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, Targeted the Elimination of Blacks, Jews, and More.
Here are some quotes attributed to her:
– Referring to immigrants and Catholics, she wrote: “[They’re] an unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”
– “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” — Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
– “[Slavs, Latin, and Hebrew immigrants are] human weeds … a deadweight of human waste … [Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a] menace to the race.” — Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review
6. Planned Parenthood's Founder Advocated Mandatory Sterilization
– “Give dysgenic groups [people with ‘bad genes'] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization. — Margaret Sanger, April 1932 Birth Control Review.
7. Planned Parenthood has Aided Sex Trafficking
PPFA has a history of aiding and abetting sex trafficking of girls as young as 14.
8. Planned Parenthood Has Strong Ties to Euthanasia
There are many ties between The American Birth Control League (which later became Planned Parenthood) and the National Society for the Legalization of Euthanasia.
9. Planned Parenthood Is Independently Wealthy.
In their 2013-2014 Annual Report, they cite over $1,000,000,000 (1 billion) in net assets. I feel that their continuing to receive federal (taxpayer) funding when they have this amount of resources at their disposal is unethical, particularly when our nation is currently $18 trillion in debt. Here is the current debt clock so you can see the current status of our debt to other nations: https://www.usdebtclock.org/.
10. Planned Parenthood Does Not Provide Mammograms
Contrary to popular belief, the organization only refers for mammograms but has no mammography equipment in any of its clinics.
11. Planned Parenthood's President, Cecile Richards, Earned Almost $600,000 in 2013.
Cecile Richards, PPFA's President earnings in 2013 were $590,928.
The average of the Top 10 PPFA Affiliate's CEO salaries is over $300,000. You can see several charts detailing this information here. (Note — this article was removed after the publication of this post, but you can see information on high-paying jobs at PPFA here.)
UPDATE 8/8/15:
12. Planned Parenthood Targets Minorities
PPFA is willing to accept donations that are earmarked for specific minorities. Listen to the recordings at the bottom of this article.
Conclusion:
This is, of course, not a debate about whether or not abortion is right or wrong, though I am fine talking about that issue. This is merely about concerns I have about Planned Parenthood. About them as a corporation and about what they and their supporters say about them in defense of their practices.
Did you know about any of these facts?
Please share to get the truth out.
I was trained as a Women’s Health NP in 1990, it was a good program we were not trained in abortion just women’s health. Family Planning or contraception NP . You are correct with this article, they fired me for sending women to the ER who were bleeding and threw my referrals to the ER in the garbage. Planned Parenthood and Choices are about “white women making big money on abortions”. I hope they are defunded. I seen the videos and they are disgusting, I seen a 2nd trimester abortion and the MD ripped the fetus apart, he couldn’t even go to the bathroom he did so many. I walked out of Choices in the middle of the day and yes it is Blacks and minorities that they are selling fetal parts to Bio research companies.
Terrible. Can I ask who fired you? Planned Parenthood?
OK – that worked – here’s the last part:
As for the alleged statements by Margaret Sanger, both Politifact and Snopes have good articles debunking that she ever said them or intended what abortion opponents have twisted her words around to imply:
https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/nov/14/pat-robertson/pat-robertson-absurdly-says-sanger-king-conspired-/
https://www.snopes.com/margaret-sanger-weeds/
Hello again, Julie.
Thanks again for reading. Both of those sites are left-leaning for sure, but that doesn’t mean that they are inaccurate. However, there are some very important facts that they omit.
Politifact points out that DuBois and Bethune are black and that since they were on a committee with Sanger that they wouldn’t be for exterminating blacks. That, however, is not true. You can see more in this article: https://www.blackagendareport.com/black_eugenics_sterilization_black_poor
I will paste a quote from the article here:
I’d be interested in hearing what you think. Thanks again.
Can you really complain about her sites being left-leaning when your own sites are biased and are right-leaning? That’s kind of hypocritical for you to do if you wont address your own bias.
Hi Caitlin. Thanks for reading. I’m not complaining about it–just stating a fact. Of course bias enters in to any writing but that doesn’t mean that the writing is influenced towards inaccuracy. Of course I am biased. I’m also willing to admit that I am wrong. Hope that helps and please feel free to point out any inaccuracies that you see.
Don’ know if i’m Commenting in the right place. Maafa found at Maafa21.com is a very interesting documentary on the Eugenics movement. It can be viewed online or ordered as a dvd.
You are commenting in the right place. Thanks for reading and for adding to the conversation.
Why is “Snopes” the final word on anything, who even runs that site?
Sanger was a sicko who was Hitler’s biggest fan she hated who he hated, she targeted African Americans and tried to wipe them out of this country at the very least. She was horrible. Cruel and vile and it breaks my heart every time I read or hear about her.
Ladies, get your heads out of the sand about her if nothing else, she was a monster.
They should NOT be the final word. They are for sure liberals and have not so great things in their background. This from a recent post by Food Babe:
Snopes. A liberal ally that cannot be trusted.
Because you are depending on sources that are opposed to abortion for many of the arguments you are making here, I’d just like to offer your readers some more balanced information.
(Apparently, placing too many links makes my comment look like spam, so I’m going to try breaking it up)
This in-depth WaPost fact check agrees with your point about the 3% figure being misleading but also shows how the Susan B. Anthony List figure of 94% is also very misleading: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-parenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/
Again, you are correct about PP not providing mammograms, but a much better explanation for why that is (other than pure speculation found on a religious web site) can be found in another WaPost fact check:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/02/the-repeated-misleading-claim-that-planned-parenthood-provides-mammograms/
Hi there, Julie. Thanks for reading and for commenting.
Did something happen w/ your comment in that you think it was regarded as spam?
I don’t know what percentage is accurate but it is MUCH higher than 3%. And I would argue that if abortion were no longer offered at PPFA clinics, then the organization would close down.
Regarding the mammogram issue, I’m not sure what point that article makes other than to show that it doesn’t happen. Is there something you would like to point out specifically? I will maintain that First Things is regarded as a very reputable publication by many academicians, despite its leanings.
Thank you so much for this post! I really appreciate you compiling all of this. I am a very passionate pro lifer and and agree that this organization does not need government funding. This organization was founded on ending the lives of innocent, unborn babies, and that is still their cash cow. Even though there are a lot of argumentative and uninformed people posting on this article, you have answered every comment with respect and with knowledgeable replies ? Please keep writing and posting great articles! Even if you can change one heart on the abortion debate I believe it is worth it! Thank you!!
You are so welcome. Trying to be objective. If I am wrong about something I want to know it. I do find many of these facts to be pretty hard to deny, however.
Thank you so much for all the work, time, and effort. I especially like the way that you are willing to respond and actually listen to everyone, including those that disagree with you. Unfortunately the latter are so narrow minded that they are unable to use logic, much less try to use any supporting evidence for their view point.
(I would say with in the last year I heard a radio program about an organization, (religious?), that went to colleges, and showed pictures of aborted babies and changed peoples minds. I remember thinking I would like to find out more about this organization. By any chance have you heard of it? )
And again thank you for your time and professionalism, I don’t think I would remain so polite.
Thanks for commenting. I don’t know about that group for sure but this one is very very solid: https://prolifetraining.com/ We know several of the instructors personally. Michael Spencer used to be pro-choice. His story and teaching are very compelling.
Almost all of these are blatant lies about Planned Parenthood. Where do you vet your information? It is against the law for any federal funding to pay for abortions. They are paid for by individuals and donations only. Any funding the federal government supplies is used for healthcare and screenings – not for abortions.
Hello Maggie.
I don’t think that these are lies but I’m willing to dialogue about it and correct information if I am wrong.
Regarding the federal funds, here is how I see it. Almost all / many of PPFA’s services are tied to abortion in some way or another. So even if you are funding the other services and not the abortions directly, the abortions are still being funded. Additionally, let’s suppose that PPFA does fundraising in general. Of course if the gov’t subsidizes their other services then there is more general funding available to pay for the abortions. Here is an analogy – if ISIS had a home for poor people, would it be OK for our gov’t to subsidize that?
Please let me know what other statements you think are blatant lies and I am happy to address them. Thanks.
Because I pay taxes and my taxes go toward funding wars, are you saying that I’m murdering children overseas? Your logic is flawed. If the federal government is paying PP for a breast exam that was administered by the same company that performs abortions, it is incorrect to say that the federal government is funding abortions.
Hi Katie. Thanks for reading. Yes, I do think that by funding wars we can say that our money is contributing to that which is why I’m not for many wars. I think many of them are for alternative purposes than national self-defense and so they are wrong. There is a lot going on in the military that is just unethical — as is the case in many arenas.
As for the funding of breast exams, my understanding is that PPFA doesn’t do them at all. But yes, what I am saying is that by funding a group that performs abortion, particularly to the extent that PPFA does (and how so much of what they do is tied to abortion) then the gov’t is funding abortion. Let’s use an analogy – would you be OK supporting a childcare system run by Hitler? I don’t think so. If Hitler had a side business of providing childcare to his nation, I think people would recoil from supporting it. Does that help? Thanks again.
Hi again, Katie. So I was thinking about your comment again – isn’t the question you posed about taxes funding wars overseas precisely the argument that many use? They think that we shouldn’t be paying for and committing those wars b/c we have the blood of innocent people on our hands?
Wrong.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/10/02/are-american-taxpayers-paying-for-abortion/#59659d916a4b
I just read your article and loved it, especially the video on point #12. God bless Donald Trump and Mike Pence for planning to defund Planned Parenthood! Unborn lives matter!!
Thanks for the kind words about the post.
What this article really says:
1. The author argues 3% is big not small.
2. The author does not know how to read financial statements or do math and argues that the PP did not provide enough prenatal care.
3. Yes, they receive federal funding. It’s pretty redundant to point that out, but to understand why the government chooses to fund them (you know, beyond, with more we can do more) read https://www.theatlantic.com/…/planned-parenthood…/405922/
4. Assumptive statement regarding Plan B. Yes, they give out Plan B pills, you know, so there won’t be a need for an abortion.
5. The dead person who founded PP is no longer running the organization.
6. I repeat, the dead person who founded PP is no longer running the organization.
7. Investigating journalists operated a multi-state sting in 2011 (that’s 5 years ago) in which they posed themselves as being sex traffickers and minors. The source claims that PP has an institutional blind eye to sex-trafficking. PP coordinated the reports from the involved offices and reported to the FBI and that’s when they found out it was a hoax. I feel confident that there are specific policies in how to identify and report suspected sex traffic victims that come into PP. I can only imagine how many pimps care enough about their inventory to take them to the clinic. I’m glad that clinic is there to provide them with whatever care they need. Being a sex slave is hard enough much less without access to healthcare.
8. I repeat, the dead person who founded PP is no longer running the organization. This association was in 1938. I think this is really reaching for substance.
9. Independently wealthy is a term used for individuals. Yes they have assets. Also, see my previous link to why we fund PP. If the debt is part of this argument, then let’s stop funding absolutely all healthcare simply because we are in debt. No.
10. When the PP facility does not have mammogram equipment, they provide referrals and help low-income patients find grants and assistance to pay for a mammogram. Sorry, they don’t do enough to satisfy you. Guess if they had more money….
11. Yes, people that run organizations make money and compared to the salaries of other CEOs and Board members, they are making far less.
12. I loved this point because the title of the article says there are 11 things I don’t know; but, now here is this mysterious 12th. Yes, PP accepts donations earmarked for minorities because minorities are disproportionately impacted by the lack of access to healthcare. Is it so wrong that a contributor wants to help an underserved minority group? If PP relied solely on contributions and received no federal grants, would you still be angered that contributions weren’t donated the way you think they should be? Are you contributing to any organization that provides these services so that it does not have to receive federal funds?
This article does not support your argument. I stand resolved that federal grant money going to PP allows more women access to healthcare and I’m ok that said healthcare sometimes includes abortions.
Hi there. Thanks for taking the time to comment. For ease of replying I am going to copy and paste your comment here so I can address each item in order.
1. The author argues 3% is big not small.
2. The author does not know how to read financial statements or do math and argues that the PP did not provide enough prenatal care.
3. Yes, they receive federal funding. It’s pretty redundant to point that out, but to understand why the government chooses to fund them (you know, beyond, with more we can do more) read https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/planned-parenthood-economic-benefits/405922/
4. Assumptive statement regarding Plan B. Yes, they give out Plan B pills, you know, so there won’t be a need for an abortion.
5. The dead person who founded PP is no longer running the organization.
6. I repeat, the dead person who founded PP is no longer running the organization.
7. Investigating journalists operated a multi-state sting in 2011 (that’s 5 years ago) in which they posed themselves as being sex traffickers and minors. The source claims that PP has an institutional blind eye to sex-trafficking. PP coordinated the reports from the involved offices and reported to the FBI and that’s when they found out it was a hoax. I feel confident that there are specific policies in how to identify and report suspected sex traffic victims that come into PP. I can only imagine how many pimps care enough about their inventory to take them to the clinic. I’m glad that clinic is there to provide them with whatever care they need. Being a sex slave is hard enough much less without access to healthcare.
8. I repeat, the dead person who founded PP is no longer running the organization. This association was in 1938. I think this is really reaching for substance.
9. Independently wealthy is a term used for individuals. Yes they have assets. Also, see my previous link to why we fund PP. If the debt is part of this argument, then let’s stop funding absolutely all healthcare simply because we are in debt. No.
10. When the PP facility does not have mammogram equipment, they provide referrals and help low-income patients find grants and assistance to pay for a mammogram. Sorry, they don’t do enough to satisfy you. Guess if they had more money….
11. Yes, people that run organizations make money and compared to the salaries of other CEOs and Board members, they are making far less.
12. I loved this point because the title of the article says there are 11 things I don’t know; but, now here is this mysterious 12th. Yes, PP accepts donations earmarked for minorities because minorities are disproportionately impacted by the lack of access to healthcare. Is it so wrong that a contributor wants to help an underserved minority group? If PP relied solely on contributions and received no federal grants, would you still be angered that contributions weren’t donated the way you think they should be? Are you contributing to any organization that provides these services so that it does not have to receive federal funds?
This article does not support your argument. I stand resolved that federal grant money going to PP allows more women access to healthcare and I’m ok that said healthcare sometimes includes abortions.
So can I ask if you think it’s OK to kill 3 month old babies outside of the womb for any reason? And if not, why is it different just b/c the baby is inside the womb? That is the pressing question as far as I can discern it. Thanks again for reading and commenting. I hope to hear back from you.
A) A baby in the womb is not a baby. It’s a fetus dependent on it’s mother’s body.
B) Why are pro-lifers so against birth control? Better access to birth control= only wanted pregnancies= less abortions.
C) About the Pill “aborting” fetuses. Even without being on the Pill, it’s actually pretty common for a fertilized egg not to implant and to be excreted. And even if it does implant, it’s actually pretty common for it to be rejected. And this happens so frequently it can mistaken for a period, not a failure of implantation.
D) And my major point: We have a thing called bodily autonomy. If you’re not a registered organ donor, even if you’re perfectly healthy and something happens to you, your organs can not be donated to save someone else’s life and sustain there body. So why should a living, breathing woman be forced to sustain a pregnancy that she doesn’t consent to either? In the case of abortion restrictions, a pregnant woman– or really any woman no matter her pregnancy status– has less of a right to her body than a corpse. Factor in sexual assault rates and stuff like that, we women are really better off as a corpse.
Hi Olivia. Thanks for reading and for commenting.
I have a few thoughts –
A. What makes the baby in the womb not a baby – its dependency? Then if that’s the case isn’t it OK to kill 1 week olds b/c they are dependent on their mother? Is it OK to kill a person who is dependent on life support or a ventilator or oxygen or insulin? If not, why not?
B. Pro-lifers are not against birth control. They are typically against birth control that potentially kills a fetus. I personally am against birth control that is unhealthy and much of it is just that as it messes with gut health and hormones and even puts copper in a woman’s body.
C. Yes, of course that is the case but in the case of the pill doing that you are causing the death whereas in the case that you mentioned of an implantation not happening, that would be considered to be an “act of God.”
D. Killing a baby / abortion is totally different than organ donation b/c the person donating organs is not making a decision that might take someone else’s life. To follow your analogy, if I don’t donate money to someone in need of funds for their cancer research and they die b/c I didn’t donate, am I guilty of murder? I don’t think so.
As for the rights of the mother, what about the rights of the baby – do those not matter? I know that you don’t think that a baby in the womb is fetus, then please tell me why not if you have another thought besides dependency. Here’s a question for you. If the baby in the womb isn’t a baby, but it’s a fetus (which is Latin for “baby”, by the way), then the baby comes out of the womb, you would call it a baby, right? Well, what if you then shove it back in? What is it then?
I’m not clear what you mean by women being better off dead b/c of sexual assault rates. Can you explain that, please?
I hope you will respond b/c I am totally willing to admit that I am wrong on this issue if someone can show me that I am wrong. It’s more in vogue to be pro-choice, so it would be a more socially comfortable position.
Long post here.
When referring to sexual assault rates, I was giving another example of how, as women, our body isn’t completely ours. Throw in the “male gaze,” objectification of women, etc., we don’t ultimately make our own choices. Television ads, beauty standards, and even governments made up of mostly men, make them for us. Going back to sexual assault, it is essentially someone (of any gender) acting on their perceived “right” to invade another person’s body. In comparing it with abortion laws, I was just giving another example of how an foreign body (in this case the government making the laws & people in favoring of outlawing abortion) is invading someone else’s body & forcing their views to the effect of changing someone’s life. When comparing that to organ donation, I was saying that women legally have more control over their bodies after death, than alive where a government can enforce laws telling women what they can do with their bodies or not.
Going back to the beginning of your post.
A) Killing 1-week old babies (and even extremely late term ones) or people on life support is not ok. A baby that has been born is dependent on adult humans in general, not necessarily its biological mother. The mother isn’t physically attached to the baby anymore and not using her body for things such as nutrients, energy, and excreting waste. People on insulin, life support, etc. are not directly attached and using someone else’s body to sustain their life. They’re relying on electricity and medical advancements.
B) If pro-lifers are so against birth control, why don’t they talk about only outlawing abortions and not about defunding Planned Parenthood, an organization that only provides abortions at a limited amount of locations? And why are pro-life conservatives trying to scrap the mandatory birth control coverage in the health plan that failed last week?
I agree that some methods are medically risky. Long-term use of the Pill hasn’t been studied very much. And I hear bad things about IUDs a lot, but they do work for some women. Condoms don’t have a significantly awesome success rate (though it is high- but consistent use is a problem), and methods such as fertility tracking and pulling out are just no good in general.
And birth control won’t fill a fetus. It will stop a cluster of cells, an embryo, from implanting. Only if it implants does it become a fetus, because only then it gets the nourishment it needs.
C) If we didn’t treat a diabetic with insulin or keep someone on life support, they would also die “by the act of God.”
D) Donating money is different than donating organs. Anybody can donate money, but for organs you have to be the right match. And the odds can be one in a million that somebody A) is a match, B) is also legally an organ donor, C) dies in a way that saves their organs, and D) that the receiving body doesn’t reject the donated organs. Plus, a pregnant woman is alive, and possibly being legally obligated to give her body as direct nourishment for 9 months, not including years of taking care of a child. A organ donor is deceased, and no longer needs their organs to survive, so someone else taking them and using them doesn’t affect them in any possible way.
E) I’ll admit here that I made a mistake in terms. A unborn human is a fetus 8 weeks after being fertilized. From the start it’s a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus. Even though it’s a fetus at 8 weeks until birth, it won’t survive on its own at the eighth week of gestation. And even though fetus is a Latin term, we don’t speak Latin. Our language is made of words from other languages, in a way that has not always preserved their exact original meaning.
I understand where you’re coming from, Adrienne.
Have you ever seen a picture of a ten week old fetus? It looks exactly like a baby, but it’s no bigger than a thumb. I actually saw it on a pro-life website. It was posted by a woman who had miscarried. It was a powerful image, and there’s probably hundreds more like it. But do the rights of a cluster of cells really outweigh the situation of woman who might lose her job because of her pregnancy? Or already has four kids and can’t feed them all? Or the woman you mentioned in your original post who died after a D&E procedure? She had a boyfriend who pushed her down the stairs, and another son. She knew that she didn’t want to bring a child into the world when there was scores of abuse going on at home, and to top things all off, she was pregnant with that abuser’s child. And what rights would that child have anyway that we’re providing them? We’ve seen that he/she definitely doesn’t have the right to feel safe in their own home. To have a loving father figure. The guarantee to have an education, food to eat. A healthy relationship for themselves when they get older.
That being said, women do not have abortions to kill babies. Women have abortions because they know, as a mother, they can’t provide the rights a living human being should have access to.
And it is not “in vogue” to be pro-choice. Pro-choice means that you have your opinion, that you could be against abortion and face an unplanned pregnancy and decide to carry it to term, but that you wouldn’t force that on anybody else. Supporting human rights and a person’s right to choose the direction their life goes in does not go in and out of vogue.
Hi again, Olivia. Forgive the delay in responding. I’ve had a full plate including surgery yesterday. So here are my thoughts in response to you:
Long post here.
When referring to sexual assault rates, I was giving another example of how, as women, our body isn’t completely ours. Throw in the “male gaze,” objectification of women, etc., we don’t ultimately make our own choices. Television ads, beauty standards, and even governments made up of mostly men, make them for us. Going back to sexual assault, it is essentially someone (of any gender) acting on their perceived “right” to invade another person’s body. In comparing it with abortion laws, I was just giving another example of how an foreign body (in this case the government making the laws & people in favoring of outlawing abortion) is invading someone else’s body & forcing their views to the effect of changing someone’s life. When comparing that to organ donation, I was saying that women legally have more control over their bodies after death, than alive where a government can enforce laws telling women what they can do with their bodies or not.
Going back to the beginning of your post.
A) Killing 1-week old babies (and even extremely late term ones) or people on life support is not ok. A baby that has been born is dependent on adult humans in general, not necessarily its biological mother. The mother isn’t physically attached to the baby anymore and not using her body for things such as nutrients, energy, and excreting waste. People on insulin, life support, etc. are not directly attached and using someone else’s body to sustain their life. They’re relying on electricity and medical advancements.
B) If pro-lifers are so against birth control, why don’t they talk about only outlawing abortions and not about defunding Planned Parenthood, an organization that only provides abortions at a limited amount of locations? And why are pro-life conservatives trying to scrap the mandatory birth control coverage in the health plan that failed last week?
I agree that some methods are medically risky. Long-term use of the Pill hasn’t been studied very much. And I hear bad things about IUDs a lot, but they do work for some women. Condoms don’t have a significantly awesome success rate (though it is high- but consistent use is a problem), and methods such as fertility tracking and pulling out are just no good in general.
And birth control won’t fill a fetus. It will stop a cluster of cells, an embryo, from implanting. Only if it implants does it become a fetus, because only then it gets the nourishment it needs.
C) If we didn’t treat a diabetic with insulin or keep someone on life support, they would also die “by the act of God.”
D) Donating money is different than donating organs. Anybody can donate money, but for organs you have to be the right match. And the odds can be one in a million that somebody A) is a match, B) is also legally an organ donor, C) dies in a way that saves their organs, and D) that the receiving body doesn’t reject the donated organs. Plus, a pregnant woman is alive, and possibly being legally obligated to give her body as direct nourishment for 9 months, not including years of taking care of a child. A organ donor is deceased, and no longer needs their organs to survive, so someone else taking them and using them doesn’t affect them in any possible way.
E) I’ll admit here that I made a mistake in terms. A unborn human is a fetus 8 weeks after being fertilized. From the start it’s a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus. Even though it’s a fetus at 8 weeks until birth, it won’t survive on its own at the eighth week of gestation. And even though fetus is a Latin term, we don’t speak Latin. Our language is made of words from other languages, in a way that has not always preserved their exact original meaning.
I understand where you’re coming from, Adrienne.
Have you ever seen a picture of a ten week old fetus? It looks exactly like a baby, but it’s no bigger than a thumb. I actually saw it on a pro-life website. It was posted by a woman who had miscarried. It was a powerful image, and there’s probably hundreds more like it. But do the rights of a cluster of cells really outweigh the situation of woman who might lose her job because of her pregnancy?
Or already has four kids and can’t feed them all? Or the woman you mentioned in your original post who died after a D&E procedure? She had a boyfriend who pushed her down the stairs, and another son. She knew that she didn’t want to bring a child into the world when there was scores of abuse going on at home, and to top things all off, she was pregnant with that abuser’s child. And what rights would that child have anyway that we’re providing them? We’ve seen that he/she definitely doesn’t have the right to feel safe in their own home. To have a loving father figure. The guarantee to have an education, food to eat. A healthy relationship for themselves when they get older.
That being said, women do not have abortions to kill babies. Women have abortions because they know, as a mother, they can’t provide the rights a living human being should have access to.
And it is not “in vogue” to be pro-choice. Pro-choice means that you have your opinion, that you could be against abortion and face an unplanned pregnancy and decide to carry it to term, but that you wouldn’t force that on anybody else. Supporting human rights and a person’s right to choose the direction their life goes in does not go in and out of vogue.
I should have added that I really appreciate the civil back and forth. There is truth here – and we should all be about finding it and not about demonizing the other side. Thank you!
I think my long response that I posted a couple minutes ago got intentionally deleted, but I wanted to add that no matter your stance, you are not necessarily “wrong” on this issue. You know what’s wrong for you and your family, which is awesome. But you have to let other people decide what’s right or wrong for them, even if it’s not the choice you’d decide on for you and your family.
Hi there, Olivia. I didn’t delete your post. I have just been swamped and your latest comment deserves more attention than I can give it today. We had a busy day including a funeral of a friend who was quite young. I will get back to you soon. I do, however, not think that killing is something that one can just decide is either right or wrong for them. Do you think that laws about stealing, murder, rape, vandalism, and terrorism should be left out of the legal realm so that people can decide what is right and wrong for them?
So when does the thing inside the womb become human? When it comes out from the uterus? What about when it is halfway out? Is it half human half lump of cells? What about when you have a surgery midway through pregnancy and you need to remove the baby temporarily? Is it human when temporarily removed from the womb, and when put back in, a lump of cells?
Most abortions are for the inconvenience (98%- check it out if you don’t believe me) meaning that the mother doesn’t want it, but it is a natural way of a human when you are born, you want life. The baby has its own DNA, the mother has no right to deprive it of life, it isn’t her body, she has no right to end the life. Although life offers no guarantees to whether the baby can do good or bad, abortion gives it no chance to impact the earth.
anyone who believes any of this is so stupid lol
What exactly here do you disagree with?
Educate yourself prior to making naive and uneducated statements. I agree with this author. Thank you for posting!
Bullcrap!! You’re spreading LIES!!
Why don’t y’all start a group that will adopt the unwanted babies. Then everyone will be happy.
Stupid disgracful article.
Hi Mary. Thanks for reading and for commenting.
Can you please tell me what part of the post you think is a lie? Or which parts?
I’m happy to dialogue about it and change something if it turns out I am spreading untruths.
As for adopting unwanted babies, I have gone to many churches where that is happening and currently am at one. There are many foster kids and adopted special needs kids. One of whom is a 2-3 year old on a feeding tube. So I am passionate about life in and out of the womb, which is how it should be. That being said, just because someone is passionate about the life of children in the womb and hasn’t adopted doesn’t mean that they are wrong – it could be that they already have a special needs child or that they are sick themselves and just can’t handle any more.
Please do respond and let me know what you think was a lie.