in the Senate.....you've pretty much got it:

Forty-one senators have pledged to filibuster any bipartisan spending bill that includes an amendment to strip federal funding from Planned Parenthood, threatening an impasse with House conservatives.

The group, led by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), includes thirty-nine Democratic senators and two Independents, Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Bernie Sanders (Vt.)�

The group outlined their opposition in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and GOP leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), asking Reid and McConnell to �stand with us against extreme proposals by some members of the House to eliminate support for women�s health and family planning programs and providers that service millions of women and families.��

Reid has already declared the Planned Parenthood rider would not be part of a final deal with the House on 2011 spending levels.

After Schmuckie Schumer's remarks about talking points from his masters, this is what really stands out. Once you learn the language...

the day is coming...........

silly bastards, they have already been serviced.

Video of 14 year old kid in a planned parenthood office

That's a documentary from 1984. I don't like abortion, but am just sayin'...

Ohio will be voting on the "heartbeat" bill soon.
A real test against Roe V Wade

Steve - I know I'm slow, but ..

You support a Florida pastor�s right to free speech, but you don't support a woman's right to have an abortion. The former has major ramifications while the second is between the woman, the doctor and, God.

Abortion is none of the government�s business including financing it.

( Abortion is none of the government�s business including financing it.)nor ours!!!!
i dont feel any taxpayer money should be used,but also we shouldnt be able to tell a women what she can or cant do, jmo

the Senators aren't voting on whether abortion should be legal.....the US congress has never had the opportunity to do that. This is simply an issue of whether the abortionists at Planned Parenthood (what an Orwellian name for an abortion mill) will continue to pocket hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars every year.

All this free speech and woman's choice talk conveniently leaves out any mention of the life and rights of the unborn person. The woman made a choice to lie on her back with her legs open doing the wild monkey dance knowing full well she might be making an unwanted baby. Why should a baby be killed because of the bad choice of a woman? "between the woman, the doctor, and God" leaves the baby out of the discussion, and the baby is the one whose very life is on the line.

I don't like the government getting involved in things any more than necessary but do realize that the government does generally attempt to see that the lives of individuals are not snuffed out just because someone does not want to be inconvenienced.

Agree 100 percent.

does that include not telling little women that they don't get to live?

The little women don't have a choice while the big women do. Nobody protects the rights of the little women to make choices or even to have any.

Rather a harsh comparison, free speech to baby killing. GW

life starts at the moment of conception and if you deny that you seriosly have a moral compass so f'ed up you won't fine your way and i pity you

Cowboy:
Best guess is that remarks was not directed at me, if it was, suggest you reread the post. GW

no oldtimer just a general comment, for some reason abortion is a sore spot that gets me fired up

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." Ronald Reagan

I am pleased that it does. Sad situation when so many think otherwise. GW

PPH is building a new 8 million dollar facility in Eugene Oregon. I can't remember how many thousand "clients" they claim to have helped last year. They have some PC name for the place. Center for families etc. It's just so wrong. Ken

i think what gets me about abortion is (and I've been thinking alot) my wife and i lost our first child about 2 months into the pregnacy, never before has something impacted my life like this. I lost a piece of my life that day and for someone to say it wasn't really a life or it didn't have a soul has some sort of major mental defect, you can't tell me when they show that first image on that little Black and white you don't feel something and if you don't you are no better than the Charles Mansons of this world. Now I know many women have made big mistakes we all have but to support the evil that is abortion is just sick I don't care how the baby got there it is still a life it has a soul. i guess on an up side that little soul never as to suffer in this world and no the trials and tribulation that we all deal with but life is a gift from God and who are we to stop it in it's pure innocense

+ a million

Agree - 100%. The government has no business in the bedroom.

However, I recongnize that if unplanned kids are born to young, poor girls, the kids may suffer from neglect and we (the taxpayer) may need to raise the kid (welfare or foster homes).

Free speech, whether or not used judiciously, is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Abortion - the killing of a child - is not a right. It has been deemed legal by judicial action.

Should we wish to give taxpayer funding to support the actions of a group that unwisely uses free speech for its purposes (say, maybe, those folks in that Florida church?). Hey - it's a guaranteed right !!

Concomitantly, should we wish to give taxpayer funding to support a group that willingly kills babies - and makes millions doing it? (Although it is not a right - it is judicial action.)

There is a lot more to abortion than just yes or no...a few will need financial help, but that doesn't give the clinic or the doctors the right to rape the tax payers either.

The problem is in the "accepted" premise that we have no right to tell a woman what to do with her own body. The problem is, though the child is IN her body, it is NOT her body. The genetic makeup is different. Should be pretty simple to understand. Truth is, you CAN'T do anything you want with your own body. Suicide, for example, is illegal. Why? What power authorizes the government to say you are, or are not allowed to take your own life? The tactic of incrementally changing the language of an argument until the premise is twisted is prevelent in the left, particularly. Basically lying. Changing "baby" to "fetus" (even using the medical term/spelling foetus to further dehumanize) puts some distance between a small human and the adult making the decision. To deny that the baby IS human, was ALWAYS human,can ONLY be human and is alive, is just foolish. The small human was alive when you started, dead when you ended, and you did it. Killing human beings is murder. The left has even gone to the length of determining the legal definition of when life begins. To my mind, this is akin to determining that, under certain circumstances, the number 2 is to be interpreted as 3, under the law. Absurd.

Ja, und next we need a final solution for dealing with the mentally defective and degenerate......

That list is going to be LLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGG....

I have a serious problem with the govt funding Planned Parenthood and I also have a serious problem with those who want to force women to have babies which will likely mean Billions more in entitlements as well as more strains on healthcare thru free services.


I mean does anyone even look at the demographics of those getting abortions? From what I could find, 42% of women having abortions are poor not to mention Black and Latina women have the highest abortion rates(Guttmacher Institute).


So the way I see it those that oppose our govt paying for Planned Parenthood will turn a blind eye once the issue turns to the govt funding of those millions of babies who will end up being all of our responsibility. I just don't understand how some can't see that or just choose to ignore it.

Oliver Wendell Holmes was right in Buck v. Bell. It may not be politically correct... thought factually correct ought to be enough.

That it ain't, says much as to what's wrong with our society.

That sorta has some Nazi undertones to it but in theory I can't say I completely disagree.

It's been cast as "Nazi" by the left, but simply put, he wasn't wrong.

I read an article recently that abortions were down (12%?)....you know why?...according to the article it is because of the use of those 3D ultra sounds....those of you who have seen them know that they look like a photograph....guess having that sucked out is harder after you see the facial features.....

[quote=rrroae]I have a serious problem with the govt funding Planned Parenthood and I also have a serious problem with those who want to force women to have babies which will likely mean Billions more in entitlements as well as more strains on healthcare thru free services.


Here we have a problem. Actions have consequences. Nobody is forcing women to have babies. Plenty of contraceptives out there - many available for free. Personal discipline and a sense of responsibility is required. We also need to stop making it profitable for the underpriviliged to have babies. Heck, it's a dang business! Cut a lot of those entitlements, and eventually, it will no longer be profitable. AND - (you're gonna love this)

allow the church back into society. Christian, as well as most other religions, preach morality and responsibility. They also set up a cool system where a man and a woman get married, and share the "burden" of their children. Children, by the way, should not be a surprise if you are having sex. Ultimately, that's what it is for. The pleasure part was probably intended as a marketing device. Removing morality, and replacing it with government programs and progressive ideals, has been a measurable detriment to American society. Basically - you play, you pay. The left has been trying to create a "no fault" life. Impossible, and inferior. Obviously.

.gov pays them to have kids, and pays for them not to do so.

Cut out both of those, and see what happens to the abortion rate.

Lotsa false notions; The greatest one is that we need to fund bad behavior or it will get worse and that those who do not wish to do so are somehow the suspect, heartless ones.

What is most ironic is the fact that it is demanded a woman has a choice, yet some cannot have the choice (and I dare say right) not to fund it....

I'd say it would be cheaper for me to pay for the abortion from my tax dollars than the kid....

but with that statement you are depriving a child of life, and trust me there are millions of parents that would love to adopt a kid, but DFS is messing that up daily try to rehabilitate their drug addicted whore mothers

There are millions of kids in adoption agencies and orphanages right now.

Ain't like there's a shortage...

yes but DFS will not allow them to be adopted with out trying to put them back with there biological mother it can take months and years to adopt and oten times the child is taken back because the bio say they have parental rights, it is very disencouraging for anyone trying to adopt. I have seen many people get heartbroken over this issue because DFS alway has the final say never mind the confusion it causes for the child be put with new parents that live in a crack house after spending 2 years in a loving home with parent that really care it come down to the Bio's wanting there gov check and DFS readily handing it out.

They ain't all that way, and there certainly ain't a shortage of kids waiting to be adopted.

i'm sure they are not all that way and no there is no shortage of kids "wanting to be adopted" but there are a lot of idiots who stand in the way

How the hell can Lieberman call himself a man of God and support funding abortions?

Lie-bermann is a political whore. Pure and simple.

Just like every other (R), (D), (I), (WTFever) up there in Washington.

Amen!

straw man argument anyway.....statistically, it's not young, poor girls who have abortions, they have babies. No stigma in the hood, and a meal ticket for life.

Should this be a cost-benefit analysis? How much is a human life worth? How much is your life worth?

The main question concerns when life starts. If you think it starts as soon as a baby completely makes its way out of the birth canal or is completely pulled out of a cut in a woman's abdomen, then whatever you do to the unborn is acceptable, is just up to the woman in whose body it is growing, and should be no business one way or the other of the government. If you think that the life has begun before a complete birth, then whether that life can be terminated on a whim is no more the choice of the woman than whether she can kill the baby after it has been born and is as much a concern of the government as whether a person can kill another human. When did your life start?

I wonder if retroactive abortion should be allowed up to age 21 and over the age of 75. If we are killing people for our convenience or to maximize a cost-benefit analysis, then there are other age groups besides the unborn that should be considered. Perhaps include groups that do not fit into our idea of what a normal person should be. Mental or physical defects could land a person in a disposable category. Let us not forget the ethnic and religious categories that might displease those who make and enforce the rules. Pray right or die. I seem to remember reading in the history books about a society that did something like this in Germany back in the 1930's and 1940's.

I am all for the government killing enemies to our country and criminals who kill innocent people but don't think our government should be involved in ending the lives of innocent people of any age.

criminalizing abortion worked pretty well for the first 75 years of the 20th century. No women had abortions, no one died from botched bortions.... I fully expect that re-criminalizing it will be a success as well, like Prohibition.

why don't you ask the thirty million Americans murdered since Roe v. Wade what they think of it? Oh, that's right, you can't.

rhetoric is a poor substitute for reality.

Would be more cost efficient to reward welfare mothers for not having children. No rewards for having children/ pay for tube ties.

Like finished goods, were buying babies overseas and their being killed here. Think your congressmen look stupid, look around they are a true representation of the American voters. :(GW

Amen, and amen.

+1, it's a self enriching game. They're all a POS in my book.

Were not living in the first 75 years of the 20th century. We have been blessed with birth control devices, monthly pills, education and day after pills for many years. Seems there should be another answer rather than just killing babies. GW

You're wrong on that point, good Sir.
It's a spiritual defect. Everything begins in the realm of the spirit, including life itself. From there it enters the realm of the physical.
That people support a woman's "right" to make decisions pertaining to "her body" while bluntly and willfully disregarding the rights of the child inside her body is easily the biggest testament to a spiritual defect I can imagine.
"you will know them by their works."

Anyone with any sense whatsoever automatically deduces the woman forfeited a portion of the right over her own body when she chose to create a second life inside of it. At the moment of conception her body became the life support system of an additional life, one that is not her own. To call it a "decision over her own body" exposes utter moral depravity and a completely dysfunctional moral compass. Such disregard for human life sounds like something strait out of the koran.



It's much worse than foolish.
It's evil.

Evil is defined as something which causes chaos and/or calamity. Could there be a bigger calamity in life than death?

There are better answers but neither side wants to go there.

We need focus our energy on preventing unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place and if an unwanted pregancy does happen, encourage people to "choose" life.

Good point.

There are preventative measures available. When measure(s) chosen fail it is not the fault of the life created during the failure and that life should not be punished for it. Especially not punished with the death penalty... The simple and inarguable fact is, there is one fail proof measure that could have been selected, abstinence. A second simple and inarguable fact is also clear, that option was NOT selected.

Women who screw get knocked up. That is a fact. It's the most commonly used method of getting knocked up. Everyone knows that so I'm sure it comes as no surprise....
What is it about Americans these days believing they should have no responsibilities in life? and that everyone else should take up the slack for them as though it's owed to them? What is that, anyway?
Oh, I remember now.
It's a liberal thing...

Liberals don't seem to like the consequences of their actions, do they.

If you ain't got the equipment to grow one ,or carry one.
Then you shouldn't have anything to say about it.
....Kinda reminds me of the ding dong dogooder from Indiana.
standing up in the house talking about wanting to defund planned parenthood.
Female house member stands up and says she had used planned parent hood to end a problem pregnancy.
Of course the dogooders never think about stuff like that.
If its got a hartbeat just let the mother die.



dave

Besides the monetary factor.
In many cases it can save a unwanted baby from a life of horror.

by giving him a life of....death? which do you think the baby would prefer?

Just a word to the wise...

If you are pro-life and regularly support large non-profits such as the American Cancer Society, or the Susan G. Koman foundation, you may want to re-think that. I am discovering that many of these outfits that collect money for charitable causes are run by progressives of the same ilk as Planned Parenthood. They spread their contributions around to some surprising places.

Yes, the Founders were striving for guarantees....

Of course social acceptance for outright murder by scientifically and politically espousing "non human" has worked for many agendas throughout history.

Depends on if their future was forecast-able.

To cut to the short of it, you ever heard the anti abortion slogan sometimes used "You've never hear anyone say they wish they'd been aborted"....

After 27 years of counseling with youth,
I could testify to the fact that the slogan isn't true.

The baby can decide whether it wants to live or die after it gets old enough to determine whether life is worth living. Why should someone else decide that its life may not be worth living?

Why just kill the unborn that may lead bad lives? Why not go into depressed areas and kill children and adults who have unfortunate lives?

Women will die and still kill their unborn whether it is legal or not. Does that mean we should promote the killing of the innocent unborn just to keep someone from suffering from the consequences of their bad choices?

Wouldn't universal access to "The-morning-after-pill" end the vast majority of abortions? From what I've seen (and heard) it seems to - at least for most people.

I know that won't totally satisfy those who believe that a zygote is a baby - but I'd guess that most people who are against abortion - are more concerned about the termination of life on fetuses that have developed bones, a spine, a brain, a heart, skin etc. Correct?

I mean, that in the world of compromise that we live in - and in a world where we don't necessarily get everything we want, legally speaking, if a fetus is going to be terminated - wouldn't it be preferable to terminate the fetus's life while it was still a tiny collection of individual cells, smaller than the period under the question mark that ends this sentence? While it had no bones, no brain, no heart, no skin, - just a collection of identical cells? That is - IF it is going to be terminated?

I say this, knowing that there is a small minority of hard-core woman's rightists, want to be able to terminate pregnancies right up until birth - whenever a woman so chooses - a position the vast amount of other people in society find untenable. I also know that there are hard-core anti-abortionists want every pregnancy carried to term, regardless of woman's physical or mental health, regardless of whether she was raped etc. I think that these people are also in a small minority.

Since those two ideas are totally mutually incompatible - and knowing that those two ideas will always be two total solitudes - wouldn't most people in society be better served by going after laws that actually have a chance of passing in the society that we live in today? Perfection is nice - but real politics is concerned not with the achievement of ideals - but rather, the achievement of the possible.

Up here, in the community that I live in, girls can get free birth control at the family planning clinic, located a block from the school. If a girl has a reason to think that that may have failed, they can get a free pregnancy test (with total confidentiality guaranteed), then she can get the so-called "morning-after-pill" if she should so choose - and only if that route also fails - do they even consider abortion - and if that is the route they choose - at least here that will happen at a much earlier stage of fetal development.

As a high school teacher, and as a parent of three young daughters (two of which attend the school, I teach at) - I'd like to think I'm "in the loop" as to what is happening with lots of the kids I teach. I tend to know which of my daughters friends are having sex, what protection they are using, and the consequences of any lapses in judgement. Around here, the "mistakes" are almost inevitably "dealt-with" - within days of the of "the original act". Even if that doesn't happen - other options usually are looked at, within weeks after the act, as the norm. In this town it is very very rare for a young girl to be visibly pregnant. Things are decided at a very early stage - thanks to so many options being on the table.

To those who resent paying for others mistakes - I hear you. I understand - but, to my mind, the societal cost of unwanted children greatly exceeds the cost of supplying young girls with options - at the first sign of pregnancy. You will all end up paying for unwanted children being brought into the world. You will pay for them being born, you will pay for the havoc they will wreck within the school system, you will pay for their own abortions - and for many, sadly, you will pay for the crimes they commit in your cities and towns and eventually - you will pay for their incarceration in prisons - and their own spawn's inprisonment.

I might also add we spend a lot of money in our school system by hiring professional nurses, who do all of the teaching of the school sex-ed classes, in grades 5, 7, 9, and 11 - with the emphasis on celibacy as being the only truly safe choice, but with all methods of birth-control studied - in age-appropriate detail. No questions go unanswered.

This method isn't perfect - and totally pleases no one. But, to my mind - what we do up here - seems to be the best option - in an area where no option is totally satisfying to all of the interested parties.

It's a long way from perfect - but it's the best method I've ever come across.

It's an area I won't debate - as I know I can never change anyone else's mind in matters that go to the very core of the things we all, as individuals, believe in.

I just presented this information - as another point of view - for what that's worth.

Even the Bible prescribes different penalties for killing a women with an infant - than killing a pregnant woman. Even back then, they had to wrestle with the idea of prescribing the appropriate penalty - for the act of destroying something having the potential to become a human - while knowing that it wasn't yet - a human.

People are going to have to understand if you get rid of abortion you're going to have to increase entitlements. There's no way in hell our country would ever let politicians cut both and if they did, it would be political suicide.

You Scott Peterson's lawyer, cause even Cali ain't buying that one?

If they really believe that, nothing stopping them from doing it retroactively. But that doesn't give you the right to kill them all on spec.

rrroae, Why is the government responsible for raising children? Why should we continue to encourage people to have children they can not support? We should be going in the opposite direction. It would only be considered to be political suicide if you are a liberal, and liberalism is what caused the problem in the first place.

How much is your life worth?

At what point do you take responsibility for your actions?

At what point do you hold others responsible for their actions?

They're not. Just talking political reality.


Of course maybe some have had luck convincing liberals to change their position.

That post is an interesting series of statements by a school teacher and parent, and may be indicative of how our society got into what, to many, seems like an insoluble dilemma. The post is long on seemingly practical logic and short on (devoid?) of morality.

In order to view such a modern societal tragedy (how many millions killed in this abortion Holocaust?) as a problem to be solved by the most practical technical and sociological means, and to quote current practices and results as evidence of the logical solutions, the person must first abandon the applicable and basic moral precepts. In doing so, one frees oneself from the restraints of moral law, which enables free-form thinking and posturing about what is most "logical".

Concomitantly, those who abuse and ignore moral principles lose the most valuable base and are forced to resort to practical logic in addressing issues far beyond cure or correction by logical means.

Who can argue the logic presented above - or rather - who even wants to argue it? Those seeking to kill Moses knew the logic, the Nazis knew the logic, Stalin was very logical - and on and on. All were long on logic and short on morality.

Many of us enjoy logical discourse and sensible/honest argument, but many will not enjoy or even engage if they have to abandon a basic moral premise in order to clear the playing field.

If we now "live in a world of compromise" as stated by the poster, it would be because we have taken the easy and cowardly way out of important moral strictures. Freedom (to base our solutions purely on logic) that is gained in such fashion seems to be a false and empty freedom.

Do I want to give up to the moral relativists? On what do we stand, to what extent do we value it, and to what extent are we teaching that foundation to our young ones? What are we giving them as a basis for thought and decisions? Are we promoting the god of logical practicality?? Not I.

You may not want moral relativists - but they are - by ALL accounts - the majority of the people who are presently living in North America.

It's why we have the present laws that we do.

You might be willing live in a society where a MINORITY can enforce its beliefs on the majority - but that is not a place I'd ever want to live.

That seems to be a very logical series of statements. Also seems like you choose to dodge or hide from the critical point. The comments had nothing to do with any minority enforcing anything. The comments had to do with people who look for reasons and excuses to abandon moral principles, and thus free themselves to use their relativist logic. And, in the process, promote their weaknesses to the young. Please read again.

rrroae, never say never in politics. Liberals are, indeed, tough because they have no shame and very little sense of reality.

You guys are arguing over the government being wrong about something. That is like arguing over which tequila gives you the worst hangover...

Abortion is wrong. You cannot argue that point. Period. Your government @#^@^#^ up everything about it and has included it in womens rights somehow and financed it by doing what they do best. Circle jerk. JMO

woofer

If anyone ever needed an abortion it would be a whore.
You should know that being from N.O.

An excellent, thoughtful, and reasonable post. Thank you, sir.

So you are suggesting that someone's male genitalia somehow disqualifies the person from making certain rational moral judgments? I think not.

Or maybe you are suggesting that pro-life arguments have penises? I don't think so either.

djs, you are making a very common logical fallacy. There are actually two other people involved - the father and the unborn child.

I'm not sure that that majority of people supporting access to abortion are moral relativists, whether normative or descriptive. While certainly there are some who find nothing wrong with abortion, I don't think it's an accurate depiction.

Many take the position abortion is a a wrong, but that the particular wrong is not something that lends itself to prohibition through laws and earthly judgment, due to the unique circumstances. It then is left to the woman and her maker.

The irony of this thread,of course, is that 90% of Planned Parenthood's patients are there for contraception, for the prevention of a pregnancy,rather than an abortion. Around here, none of the Planned Parenthoods even perform abortions.

Just don't see the logic of excluding two other parties involved in an abortion decision - the father and the child.

Oh, and you better check your facts on that 90%, Flyfast. You have it mostly upside down. Look beyond the PPH rhetoric at their own data.

Your free to make all the rational moral judgments you want.
But the big problem with that is, I dont really care what you think.
I look at abortion as a womens issue.
Ill go one step farther.
I think it should be put to a vote.
And only women should be allowed to vote on it.

dave

The killing of innocent children is everyone's business, dave. It's not just a woman thing, it's about who and what we are.

God judged and destroyed Israel for killing their babies as an offering to the god Molech.
America, today, is killing 1.3 million babies a year as an offering to the god "Convenience".
Are we not more deserving of God's wrath than Israel?

Hitler was called a monster for killer 6 million Jews in about 6 years.
The U.S. is killing that many babies every 4 years for 35+ years now. What does that make us?

There are many reasons our government should not finance abortions. One of them is that the abortion industry is horrible. It is abominable. Second, is that it is not the "government's money" that finances the killing of the baby. It is our money, which makes it part "my money". When my money is being used to finance murder, then I am forced to endorse it, by default, making me culpable for murder before God.
I don't want to have blood-guilt on my hands before God because you have decided to become a baby-murderer.

When you kill someone you take away from them everything they are, everything they have, everything they are ever gonna be.

Our society knows abortion is very wrong. Case in point. There's a guy in California sitting in jail, convicted of double murder of his wife and unborn child. if she had had an abortion the day before, he'd only be guilty of one murder.
One situation of killing the baby is murder, while killing the baby by abortion is not considered murder?
What is the difference?
In one situation the baby is loved and wanted. In the other, the baby is unloved and unwanted. That is it.
If someone loves you, then your life is valued. If no one loves you, then your life is worthless and you're not even human.
Many people throughout the history of our planet have been killed or enslaved because society dehumanized them and "made it morally right" to do so. The practical extinction of the American Indian and the enslavement of black people in America were built on first dehumanizing them in order to make it a "right" to do this to them..... Just like dehumanizing unborn babies "gives folks the right" to kill them.

THIS IS EXCELLENT REASONING AND VERY WELL STATED. Thank you.

You have stated uncertainty about the moral position of a lot of people, and have expressed doubt about the depiction. Can you offer evidence to support your doubts? Do you know the minds and souls of all those people? For openers, would you care to explain how someone who supports the killing of babies is operating from anything other than a relatavistic (im)moral premise?

How, and why, would a morally grounded person take a position such as you depict? What is unique about a parent killing an unwanted child? (I wish it were unique.) What matters of morality are NOT left to the individual and her/his Maker

How can one find any basis for irony here. You seem like a nice and thoughtful (to a point) person, but this statement seems to indicate a delusional state - or intake and digestion of PP kool-aid.

Clearly, you have never had a child of yours aborted.

Flyfast,

I don't know where you live in California, but, by my count, of the 113 Planned Parenthood centers in California, 80 of them do provide abortion services. That's about 71%.

I pulled these data right off their website. If you don't believe me, you can count them yourself here:
Planned Parenthood Centers in California

Now, it is arguable whether the "Emergency Contraception Services" provided by most of the other centers is also just abortion in disguise. If so, then the percentage is way higher than 71%.

So, facts are not important in this dialog?