🚀 go-pugleaf

Walter Hansen wrote:
> 
> Rob Hocker (rah@teleport.com) wrote:
> : > >It is true that CPC's are well suited for those who are looking
> : > >for an alternative to abortion and, since they understand that
> : > >the child in the womb is just that -- a child -- they will try
> : > >and seek a solution that does not take the life of the child.
> : >
> : > Like I said.  A CPC will try to pursuade a woman to avoid an abortion
> :
> : Since you seem to be a little slow... the line above is the part I
> : agree with and...
> :
> : > regardless of the consequences to her.
> : >
> :
> : the line above is the part I disagree with.
> 
>         So they will show her the positive benefits of an abortion?

The only positive benefit of an abortion worth being compared to
the negative effect of the loss of the human life is that a life
might be spared.  At least one out of the two lives might be
spared in that rare medical circumstance.  Yes, they will discuss
that benefit.

> 
> : > >They WILL NOT advocate anything that endangers the mother,
> : > >either, since their stance is that life inside and outside the
> : > >womb is precious.
> : >
> : > They won't advocate anything except childbirth.  Given that the risks
> : > from childbirth are rather higher than the risks from abortion, it's
> : > clear that CPCs _do_ advocate that which endangers the mother.
> :
> : Given that what you state as "given" is not given at all, CPC's advocate
> : what is best for *both* mother and child.
> 
>         And what exactly is this?

That both persons should be allowed to live... remember "life, liberty,
and the persuit of happineff" :)

> 
> : > >But unlike Planned Parenthood, they're eyes are not blinded by
> : > >the billions of dollars received for advocating and performing
> : > >abortions.
> : >
> : [snipped]
> : >
> : > >  Nor do CPC's have have a founder who was into eugenics
> : >
> : > Just affiliates known for arson and assault and murder.
> : >
> :
> : violent persons in the general population holding *any* view
> : can hardly be compared to the *founder* of an organization.
> 
>         And why is that? If it is not the view of the organization, where is
> the problem.
>

The organization was founded on her value system, and is carrying out
her value system.  An organization rarely differs from the purpose if
was founded to perform, especially when it outwardly and openly
celebrates the founder and never has renounced the philosophy.

> : > >and the destruction of blacks as a race, as Planned Parenthood has
> : > >in it's founder Margaret Sanger.
> : >
> : > Who has been dead for many years and who has no relevance at all to
> : > today's Planned Parenthood.
> : >
> :
> : Except that they have *never* renounced her for what she stood for and
> : believed in... except that the organization itself is an outgrowth of
> : her philosophy... except that they actively celebrate her as their
> : founder.
> 
>         Perhaps many of her views were valid. Perhaps they did not need to
> renounce her. After all she did take part in the starting of Planed
> Paranthood, an organization that has had a positive effect upon thousands of
> people throuout the nation.

and a negative effectt (death) upon millions.

> And don't make an asertation without proper
> proof. If you maintain that the organization is an outgrouwth of her
> philosophy, it is to you to show what philosophyies and how they are
> embrased by the organization. Please provided documentation. Funny, I
> actively celebrate people who founded this nation, all of whom owned slaves.
> So do hundreds of thousands of people, many of them black.

Yes, the "organization" of the United States included, for a time, an
outgrowth of the philosophy of slavery.  But a radical renunciation
took place... it was the Civil War.

There are many places to learn about Planned Parenthood, but try the
following book:

Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood. Grant, George.
(Brentwood, 
TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988)

Rob.