"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Planned Parenthood: Then and Now

This is from a Planned Parenthood pamphlet from 1952:

Did the science change? Or did the organization's crazy thirst for abortion profit change?

HT Live Action

Your Ad Here

11 comments:

Geoffrey Miller said...

Awesomesauce.

Kim Luisi said...

Seems that at least at one time they understood that neither they nor any other human can decide who is and who is not human.

That Married Couple said...

Ha - wow.

Anonymous said...

Its interesting that they say it's "completely harmless" even though they hadn't studied it long enough to note all the side effects, and they say you can have a baby as soon as you get off birth control... lots of people find that they can't have kids if they've been on birth control for a really long time.

It's definitely weird though that it even says that an abortion is killing a baby.

nightfly said...

Talk about an inconvenient truth. Guess the science wasn't settled enough for them.

Early Riser said...

I guess the irony is that the science now validates what was written back in the 50's re the procedure being a health-risk for both the short and long term for the mother.

We've come full circle on the message, now let's see if we can work on the implementation.

Anonymous said...

I was praying out in front of an abortion clinic today. A woman stopped and said that she resented me for praying to end choice. I wanted to take away the choice of women to kill their babies. She refused to say that it was a baby in the womb. I asked what is it? She was walking her dog. I said is it a dog. What is it? She had no answer. She said life did not begin at conception. What is it? Such confusion in the world.

Early Riser said...

Anon, the irony is she most likely cared more about her dog than a stranger's baby. These days so many people are disconnected from humanity.

PattyinCT said...

But that's the point...That woman could see her dog, she could hold and care for her dog, when her dog was in pain or ailing, she could tend to its needs. The problem is that only the mother can hold an unborn baby - therefore its her problem, not the world's. The world would have a million concrete dogs to care for than even one abstract unborn baby.
Your presence this morning disturbed that dog walker...Keep it up! That's good to see! It's when they stop challenging us on the sidewalks that we're doomed.

Anonymous said...

I think this article just refers to birth control. It is simply stating what birth control is:The postponing of the beginning of life and not the actual killing of a child.
Even that being said, PP is there to assist a woman. Even they do assist in abortions, they also help educate younger people with no positive role models. They also provide free or very cheap OB/GYN visits to women who cant afford them.
In 1952, it was was a huge health risk, in 2010, not so much. If a woman wants to have an abortion, she should know that it can prohibit her from birthing anymore children. That is a risk she is taking. If there was not a planned parenthood, there would be a lot more early and late teen pregnancies. I'm not hardcore pro-life or hardcore pro-choice. I am, "pro-being educated before you make life altering decisions."

Anonymous said...

You mean a life extinguishing decision! It makes me crazy when I hear people make statements like "Oh I would not have one, but nor would I want to prevent someone from making that choice." or "I'm not hardcore pro-life or hardcore pro-choice. I am, "pro-being educated before you make life altering decisions." The fact is that abortion is the killing of a human being, and worse yet it is the killing of a human being having as an active participant in said killing the one person who is supposed to nurture and protect him/her. I bet that you would be revolted at the stats out of China and India regarding the virtual "gendercide" or girls from abortion and infanticide! So why is killing for some reasons ok and for others not? Why is abortion to kill a baby because she is a girl anymore unpalatable than killing a baby because of "personal reasons?" The fact is "abortion kills babies, mutilates healthy reproductive systems despite the fact that organizations like planned parenthood has stopped making that info public, and in more cases than the pro-choice camps want us to realize kills mothers! Shame on anyone who tries to convince themselves or others of the contrary!

Post a Comment