1960s Planned Parenthood Brochure says that Abortion Kills a Baby

At the time they were promoting the new rage, birth control pills.

http://politichicks.com/2015/08/bombshell-planned-parenthood-brochure-abortion-kills-the-life-of-a-baby/

Advertisements

30 responses to “1960s Planned Parenthood Brochure says that Abortion Kills a Baby

  1. Willis Eschenbach

    I’m sorry, but when did Planned Parenthood ever say that an abortion ended up with a live baby? How is this news? What am I missing here?

    w.

    • @Willis–
      Are you this dense, or just obdurate? In selling birth control in the flyer, PP distanced it from abortion, which in that flyer was considered bad.

      But then, ti became legal–just like slavery and prohibition, I guess.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        So your expectation was that back when abortion was illegal, PP would discuss it in the same terms as after it became legal?

        When it was illegal, PP discussed abortion in a certain way because it was illegal. When it became legal, they no longer discussed it in the same way, because it had become a legal option.

        Why is that a surprise?

        And could you lay off the insults like “dense’ and “obdurate”? Not all people share your beliefs, but that doesn’t make them either dense or obdurate. Most of the time it just means they’ve looked at the situation and come to different conclusions. Your descent into personal attack does not reflect well on your own perception of the strength of your arguments. My experience is that when a man starts throwing mud, it’s because he’s decided that he’s out of real ammunition.

        w.

        • @Willis–You’re bringing the insults on yourself.

          “So your expectation was that back when abortion was illegal, PP would discuss it in the same terms as after it became legal?

          When it was illegal, PP discussed abortion in a certain way because it was illegal. When it became legal, they no longer discussed it in the same way, because it had become a legal option.

          Why is that a surprise?”

          Substitute “slavery” for abortion in the above, and see how that plays out. BTW–that’s the proof that you’re an atheist. You obviously do not believe in objective morality. I guess that same sex marriage was wrong until it became legal, right?

          Only an atheist can possibly believe that nine justices trump God. So, you’re a “believer” who denies the very first commandment.

          In the words of Dr. Johnson: I’m sorry, sir, but you’re just too simple.

          MDS–out.

  2. This is news because Planned Parenthood now says it’s just a clump of cells.

    • @bucephelus–
      This “Willis” guy is either a paid troll, or one more of those aging “rational man” atheist scientists I would occasionally meet in grad school.

      One fun thing to do in that era was to ask them where the specificity came from in transfer RNA. They would endlessly explain the mechanism of the codons, and protein synthesis, but their heads would explode when I asked where the specificity came from.

      Bear in mind that proteins–aka enzymes–are required to synthesize the transfer RNA–BUT, the t-RNA directs the amino acids to synthesize the proteins, which catalyze the synthesis of the t-RNA. Oh dear.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        Michael, I am indeed a rational man and a scientist, although not an atheist … you seem to think this is some kind of an insult.

        As to where the specificity in RNA “came from”, I have no idea what you mean by “where it came from”. Where does a rock “come from”? Where does a sunset “come from”?

        Regards,

        w.

        • @Willis–
          You didn’t see the circular “logic”? As to insult…only the atheist part.

          The Jimmy Watson clones would always argue that the specificity resides in the t-RNA…only, how can it, if the t-RNA itself has to be synthesized, in accordance with the enzyme, coded by the t-RNA itself??

        • @Willis–
          Perhaps no one has ever told you this, so now I will: If you are pro-abortion, you are a functional atheist. Period.

          • Willis Eschenbach

            A “functional atheist”? I know a number of very religious people who are also pro-abortion … and if you think you know from a distance their inner mind and thoughts and can see into their hearts well enough to tell them that you know better than them and that they don’t really believe in God … well, then, you must think you are God.

            Is a person who thinks they are God religious?

            w.

            • @Willis–
              “I know a number of very religious people who are also pro-abortion” Priceless.

              Uh, Willis: Which religion would that be? Satanism?

            • Willis Eschenbach

              Michael D. Shaw | August 2, 2015 at 4:48 pm |

              @Willis–
              “I know a number of very religious people who are also pro-abortion” Priceless.

              Uh, Willis: Which religion would that be? Satanism?

              Uh, Michael, sounds like you think that no person who believes in God ever got an abortion, and that anyone who gets an abortion doesn’t believe in God.

              Given the number of Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, and other women who have had abortions, both those I know and the millions more that I don’t know, I fear you are committing the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Look it up. And yes, I know it is a sin for Catholics … and if you think that there are no Catholic women who have had abortions, think again. They go back to the church, confess their sins, do their penance, and continue to be part of the Church. Their priest thinks they are religious and believe in God, they know they are religious and believe in God … and you? Near as I can tell, you think you are God and can see into their souls and tell them and the priest that they don’t believe in God. But of course, I can’t see into people’s hearts in the God-like way that you claim to be able to do, so that’s just my guess about you.

              I would also advise you not to try your line of bull on a religious woman who has gotten an abortion … she may not be as forgiving of your unbridled arrogance as I am.

              Finally I do admire your gall in believing that you can determine peoples’ beliefs from their actions without ever meeting them. You are indeed religious, but in your case you seem to think that you are God and can tell what is in a persons heart.

              You don’t know jack-shit about what is in my heart, Michael or anyone else’s heart. I would call YOU the atheist, because truly religious people don’t delude themselves into believing that they have God’s powers and can tell people’s inmost thoughts just from their actions.

              You have no clue what I do or don’t believe, Michael. Your claim that you do is rampant egomania.

              w.

  3. Willis Eschenbach

    bucephelus | August 2, 2015 at 7:54 am

    This is news because Planned Parenthood now says it’s just a clump of cells.

    Thanks, bucephalus. Could you provide a citation for the claim that PP now say “it’s just a clump of cells”?

    w.

  4. @Willis–
    Gee, I would love to, only you can’t get on their website right now. Maybe they’re trying to remove anything incriminating??

    http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/ask-dr-cullins/pregnancy-q-a

    • Willis Eschenbach

      Thank, Michael. Any other excuses you’d like to offer?

      w.

      • Yo Willis–
        Did you even click the link to see that I was telling the truth? 16:49 EDT

        You should also check your own website, which isn’t working now either.

        • Willis Eschenbach

          Yo, Michael, I didn’t say I thought it wasn’t the truth. I said you were using as an excuse, as though that were the only source of information.

          Also, I don’t have a website of my own, so I fear your God-like ability to read my mind is doing about as well on that question as on the question of whether no truly religious woman has ever had an abortion …

          w.

          • Let’s see..

            P:P website should not be used as a prime source for PP positions???

            “Your” website being the one you use for your e-mail domain.

            As to “no truly religious woman,” pls stop with the silly word games. Please give me an example of such a person, although it is difficult to even have a rational discussion with someone who does not believe in objective truth.

            • Willis Eschenbach

              Michael D. Shaw | August 3, 2015 at 8:28 am | Reply

              Let’s see..

              P:P website should not be used as a prime source for PP positions???

              I didn’t say that the P:P website should not be used as a prime source for PP positions as you imply, nor did I suggest it.

              You said it. Those are your words, and those are your ideas.

              What I said was that PP wasn’t the only source of information out there.

              Please do not try to put words in my mouth. It won’t work, and just makes you look underhanded.

              In any case, still no citation, still no link, just empty words … the PP website has been up a couple of days now. What’s your excuse this time?

              As to “no truly religious woman,” pls stop with the silly word games. Please give me an example of such a person, although it is difficult to even have a rational discussion with someone who does not believe in objective truth.

              My mother was a truly religious woman, and she had an abortion after having four children because she knew she was losing it and that another child would push her over the edge and she’d lose all of her children.

              And if you claim that she was not a truly religious woman, I call you a goddamn nasty liar who is a disgrace to the human race for trying to smear a good, decent Christian woman.

              w.

    • Willis Eschenbach

      That headline is BS. What the woman said was:

      “Every woman has to make her own decision.” Pressed again to say when she thinks life begins, Richards said, “I’m a mother of three children. For me, life began when I delivered them. They’ve probably been the most important thing in my life ever since. But that’s my own personal decision, right?”

      She specifically identified that as HER OWN PERSONAL VIEW, and you (and the headline writer) are falsely implying that it is the view of Planned Parenthood … bad reporters, no cookies.

      w.

      • Wow…that is some MAJOR denialism by the pro-abortion video truthers.

        • Willis Eschenbach

          bucephelus, when the head of an organization speaks, sometimes they are speaking for the organization, and they are describing the ideas and creeds of the organization.

          Other times, though, they are talking just about their own views. In this case, the woman specifically said that she was NOT speaking for the organization, that it was her own personal view.

          Then along comes bucephelus and tries to sell her clearly-identified personal view to me as if it were the official position of Planned Parenthood … there is some denialism going on here, but it is you denying that her personal view is just that and not the official view of PP.

          w.

  5. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/planned-parenthood-lies-about-itself/article/41505

    “…clinic workers would purposefully avoid providing information on fetal development, what the child looked like, the child’s anatomical development and the pain he or she could feel. I was continuously reminded that when referring to the baby, the appropriate terminology was ‘clump of cells’…”

    • Willis Eschenbach

      Thanks, bucephelus. That is a quote from someone who hates Planned Parenthood virulently, and what I asked for was a quote FROM Planned Parenthood.

      w.

  6. Keep drinking that kool-aid Willis.

  7. Willis Eschenbach

    bucephelus | August 2, 2015 at 3:16 pm

    Keep drinking that kool-aid Willis.

    You are the one who made a claim and have been unable to find any quote from PP to back it up. Don’t blame me for your failure, that’s on you.

    w.

  8. Ok Willis I have to admit you are correct. I now admit that the claims made by Planned Parenthood employees and the Planned Parenthood president IN NO WAY represent the views of Planned Parenthood. I’m glad to set the record straight.

    • Willis Eschenbach

      Thanks for that, Bucephalus, but I didn’t say that at all. Nowhere have I made those claims. Those are not my words, they are yours.

      What I said was simple. If a person specifically tells you they are giving you their personal view, that means it is NOT THE POSITION OF THE ORGANIZATION.

      Bucephalus, I assume you work for someone. I also assume that what you post here is your personal view, and that I’d be a fool to ascribe your words to whoever you work for. And that’s all without you stating that explicitly.

      But if you were to specifically and clearly tell me Willis, this is my personal view, then it would be a huge error for me to ascribe your words to your organization.

      Now, the person from PP clearly stated that what she said was not the view of PP … and despite that clear statement, you keep insisting that you know better than her, that it’s not just her view, that it is the official view of PP.

      Sorry, but since she has to stand behind her words and you don’t, I fear I’m gonna believe her …

      Regards,

      w.

      • PP has to stand by their words. As we see in the brochure PP admits that abortion kills a baby. That is the official position of PP.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s