Planned Parenthood: When Life Begins Not ‘Really Relevant’ in Abortion Debate

[jimnyc]

And this is from the president of PP no less. Is she certifiable? I think that is and always was the main debate - when does life begin.


The president of the country’s largest abortion provider said she didn’t think the matter of when life begins is pertinent to the issue.

“It is not something that I feel is really part of this conversation,” Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood told Fusion’s Jorge Ramos on Thursday. “I don’t know if it’s really relevant to the conversation.”

When pressed, Richards said that in her view life began for her three children when she delivered them.

She explained that the purpose of her organization is not to answer a question that “will be debated through the centuries,” but to provide options for pregnant women.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/372236/planned-parenthood-president-when-life-begins-not-really-relevant-abortion-debate

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And this is from the president of PP no less. Is she certifiable? I think that is and always was the main debate - when does life begin.



http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/372236/planned-parenthood-president-when-life-begins-not-really-relevant-abortion-debate



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100199391/roe-v-wade-is-40-today-it-has-poisoned-the-abortion-debate-and-polarised-america/
Roe v Wade is 40 today. This bad law has poisoned the abortion debate and polarised America

By Tim Stanley US politics Last updated: January 22nd, 2013
Roe v Wade turns 40 today. Whether you see the Supreme Court’s historic decision to legalise abortion as a triumph of women’s rights or a tragedy for the unborn, this is a good moment to stop and think about its consequences. Roe v Wade changed more than just the law.

Abortion polarises Americans like little else. For liberals, it’s a matter of women controlling their own bodies. For conservatives, it’s state sanctioned murder. Both views are informed by different understandings of the nature of human life and the role that religion should play in defining it. Both offer competing visions of the state’s role in the individual’s affairs. Liberals insist that they are the champions of liberty. But conservatives assert that the Supreme Court’s role in nationalising the issue and compelling states to change their laws makes them the true guardian of self-government. Moreover, if you accept that the fetus is a life then abortion falls in to the category of murder – and not even the most anarchic libertarian would tolerate legalised killing on the scale that has occurred since 1973. The number of abortions since then has been roughly 54 million – equivalent to the population of South Africa.

Roe v Wade has helped redefine the two party system along cultural lines. Prior to 1973, abortion was a state-by-state issue and prolifers and prochoicers could be found in either party (Ted Kennedy was staunchly against it and Ronald Reagan was vaguely for it). But Roe v Wade nationalised the issue and compelled the parties to take differing, competitive stands. Not only is abortion now in both party’s platforms but the language has become steadily radicalised over time. In 2012, the Republicans mentioned abortion 19 times in their manifesto. The Democrats only mentioned it five times, but their scrimping on the word count actually reflects a profound philosophical shift since Obama became president. The Democrats used to say that they wanted abortion to remain “safe, legal and rare.” Now, the word “rare” has now been dropped. The Obama generation of liberals refuse to acknowledge any ethical issue with abortions, so why bother to try to bring the numbers down? Those that choose already have many methods of preventing conception . The concept that its a necessary thing to be able to murder once conception occurs is insanity and surely indicative of a savage and barbaric demand too be allowed to murder based upon selfish desires. Dem/libs cater to that desire because they have no true decency or honor IMHO.-Tyr