Video: The pro-life video that YouTube banned Update: ALL letter added
posted at 12:58 pm on February 16, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The video was produced by the American Life League. It criticizes Planned Parenthood for using tax dollars to promote its business and attack pro-lifers.
Until recently, YouTube banned this video. At the same time, YouTube allowed Planned Parenthood’s ad that this video criticizes to run. YouTube recently rescinded the ban on this clip, but like its efforts to ban our videos and others that criticize Islamic terrorists while allowing jihadists to run their videos without issue, it shows one more time that YouTube isn’t above political favoritism.
And to head off criticism of the ALL video, no one is saying that Planned Parenthood doesn’t have the right to promote whatever it wants. But it isn’t fair that Planned Parenthood gets millions of your tax dollars to do it, while pro-life groups are often treated like pariahs. It is also fair to criticize Planned Parenthood for being what it is, which among other things is a paid lobby for the abortion industry. In a time when we’re looking for places to cut the bloated federal budget, Planned Parenthood’s cache would be a great place to start.
As for YouTube’s tendency to ban political speech it doesn’t like, it’s good to see Eyeblast step to compete with them.
Update: Here’s ALL’s official statement on YouTube’s banning of the above video.
YOUTUBE CONCEDES ERROR IN BANNING AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE’S PRO-LIFE VIDEO
Censored Video Restored After Objections from Pro-Life Media and Supporters
Washington, D.C. (14 February 2008) – After numerous articles and pressure from Catholic and online media, Google-sponsored YouTube cited a “technical malfunction” as the reason American Life League’s pro-life video was censored by YouTube staff.
“Once word got out that YouTube had allowed the Planned Parenthood ads our report was based on to remain on their site, while at the same time censoring our report, a flurry of e-mails, blog posts, and complaints from the pro-life community pressured YouTube into reversing their decision,” said Jim Sedlak, vice president of American
Life League.The original notification e-mail sent to American Life League by YouTube reads, “After being flagged by members of the YouTube community and reviewed by YouTube staff, the video below has been removed due to its inappropriate nature.”
Three days later, American Life League received a second e-mail that said:
“This email is to inform you that a video was recently removed from your account due to a technical malfunction. The issue has since been remedied and we appologize (sic) for any inconvenience or distress this may have caused. The following video(s) have been reinstated and your account has not been penalized.”
According to YouTube’s user guide:
“When a video gets flagged as inappropriate, we review the video to determine whether it violates our Terms of Use—flagged videos are not automatically taken down by the system. If we remove your video after reviewing it, you can assume that we removed it purposefully, and you should take our warning notification seriously.”
Praising the YouTube decision, Sedlak commented “We are pleased that YouTube has reversed their decision to remove our video. Our ALL News Report was neither objectionable nor inappropriate. While it is unfortunate that YouTube chose this tactic in the first place, it is
encouraging to note that they corrected their poor decision in a timely fashion.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Youtube’s excuse was that it was a technical glitch. Even if you thought it was BS you should have mentioned it.
ninjapirate on February 16, 2008 at 1:02 PM
I hadn’t heard that that was their excuse, but they’ve tried similar tactics before. They once insisted that we had deleted one of our own videos, when we hadn’t. It’s always a “glitch” or something, never someone at YouTube up to no good, even though the pattern is pretty consistent.
Bryan on February 16, 2008 at 1:06 PM
305 million! I never knew it was so much. We could do so much with that money.
CrimsonFisted on February 16, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Thanks for posting that, the wife and I will sign it. We live in a culture of death and people need to see the connections between contraception and abortion. Poor moral choices does cost as all. (TAXES)
Irenaeus on February 16, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Well, it’s back up at youtube…or at least another one was uploaded: CLICK
And there’s a couple of others made by the same group still up…Hmmmm
JetBoy on February 16, 2008 at 1:26 PM
If John McCain wants an easy way to earn my vote – and maybe win back a lot of conservatives – he ought to promise to cut off this funding on day one.
$300+ million is a drop in the bucket. But its an awfully good drop to start with.
————–
And I just love the great irony of anti-corporate liberalism: they won’t shut up about the evils of big business … until its a business that coincides with their ideology.
Trial lawyers and teacher’s unions and the abortion lobby and Hollywood are all no different than big oil or big tobacco: they’re all massive profit-motivated business concerns.
Yet liberals don’t seem even vaguely interested.
It’s rather amusing.
Professor Blather on February 16, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Yeah, (OT for a sec) I heard the talking heads on FOX News this morning say the same…Why are corporate CEO’s targeted, when there are far wealthier Hollywood types who conveniently aren’t? Ohhh, because Obama gets support and $$$ from the Hollywood actors, who make far more money annually than their CEO bigwigs do.
Can’t bite the hand that feeds ya.
JetBoy on February 16, 2008 at 1:38 PM
YouTube is pc.
MarkJudge on February 16, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Every single civil rights group and their enablers absolutely should be defunded, its wrong to use taxpayer funds for any kind of special interest and worse for taxpayer funds to be used as one sided political demagoguery.
Competition, the American freedom balance.
Speakup on February 16, 2008 at 1:48 PM
So we’re paying them roughly 250 dollars per each of the 1.2 million murdered children in America annually. We’re paying PP for what is in ways our own genocide.
http://www.blackgenocide.org/home.html
Drum on February 16, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Heh. And of course marijuana dealers are noted philanthropists and humanitarians too.
see-dubya on February 16, 2008 at 1:55 PM
No, they’re undocumented pharmacists.
You know, like undocumented immigrants.
They just want to do the drug dealing Americans won’t do!
BKennedy on February 16, 2008 at 2:10 PM
I liked the PP ads. The flaming flight attendant one especially. Very cute, and sure to tweak the fundies. I think PP shouldn’t get tax dollars, but gov’t subsidized condoms are a great idea. They help reduce the population of dependents on gov’t funds as well as reduce the chances of transmitting disease. Good thing all-around.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on February 16, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Kinda ironic that if they hadn’t blocked it a lot of people (myself included) would not have known about the petition.
- The Cat
MirCat on February 16, 2008 at 2:17 PM
How is it the people who give the most in money and time to charity to help their fellow men get branded as fundies, but people who use tax dollars to promote sexual amorality and the slaughter of an entire generation worth of children are considered a boon to society?
BKennedy on February 16, 2008 at 2:21 PM
You knew you’d get flak for this! How is it that being dependent on government funds — as in the subsidization of condoms — reduces the dependence on government funds?
Moreover, isn’t it a far more conservative notion that the more the individual takes responsibility for his actions the less the state has to. The opposite being true as well.
Drum on February 16, 2008 at 2:22 PM
It worries me that the same lefty element that controls MSM will end up controlling the internet, one way or another.
petefrt on February 16, 2008 at 2:23 PM
It’s quite a double standard you have there. We have faith based groups feeding at the federal teat and promote values I find deeply disgusting, yet someway it’s bad for Planned Parenthood to promote sets of values other people may object to. And like it or not, abortion saves the government, so cutting funding for Planned Parenthood would just bloat the government’s budget.
thuja on February 16, 2008 at 2:33 PM
On the other hand, I do object to YouTube’s biases in deleting videos. The video shouldn’t have been deleted.
thuja on February 16, 2008 at 2:34 PM
From a cost/benefit standpoint, making birth control available can benefit the community by spending a few cents on a condom rather than dealing with the social costs of an unwanted birth.
I want a smaller government than the one we have but money spent to help people not have babies when they aren’t ready for isn’t wasteful.
dedalus on February 16, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Right on, thuja!
Viscount_Bolingbroke on February 16, 2008 at 2:37 PM
The thing that has turned me off from the “evangelicals” in a mighty way is their insistance on not *less* government intervention but rather *more* in the form of controlling what women can do about an unwanted pregnancy.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on February 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM
What’s with the black gay guy – the queen??
I am surprised the gay rights groups aren’t all over that cheap display of a gay stereotype working as a flight attendant.
AprilOrit on February 16, 2008 at 2:42 PM
I also am oppossed to the silly government abstenance programs. It doesn’t work, waste of money.
How many here practiced abstinance as a teenager?
AprilOrit on February 16, 2008 at 2:44 PM
You’re right. Women should be able to destroy a genetically distinct human life depending on how they personally feel about it that day, and the government should give Planned Parenthood taxpayer monies so they can facilitate her desire to snuff out another human life while PP makes a handsome profit in the process.
Know hoe to fix an unwanted pregnancy?
1. Don’t jump in bed with someone if you don’t want to get pregnant.
2. Change your whim of the day from “unwanted” to “wanted.”
She we start allowing people who have unwanted bosses or employees to kill them too? After all, they are unwanted, therefore we should facilitate their slaughter.
BKennedy on February 16, 2008 at 2:50 PM
You are wasting your time…you are trying to talk to people who are only concerned about what they want and couldn’t care less about anyone else.
EnochCain on February 16, 2008 at 2:52 PM
See this is a problem we need to get better with, there are lots of examples where youtube bans something, and dozens of other users take up the video and replace it faster than youtube can knock it down. Look at the Tom Cruise video, every time they take the video down, others put it right back up.
doubleplusundead on February 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Actually, I don’t see a blastocyst as a human being. So the whole argument you are making is specious. Just because given a favorable pregnancy and birth that tissue would eventually become a human doesn’t somehow give it rights and uniqueness. If you want to take the pro-life argument to its logical conclusion you will come to the conclusion the Catholic Church has – condoms are a sin. After all, isn’t preventing insemination the same effect as an abortion? One is done to prevent a fetus from forming, the other is to remove the formed fetus. Both result in no pregnancy. Therefore both prevent a precious baby from being born.
As for women who have abortions, I have no idea what they are thinking. How can *you*? Do you have any idea what goes through their minds? I imagine it has something of a terrifying nature. I’m sure it is hard to decide what to do if one gets pregnant without wanting it to be so. I make no judgments on those who choose an abortion. It’s not for me to know or to say what they should do.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on February 16, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Pearls before swine?
I might agree, but the point should be made that many of us rightly believe that abortion = killing of an innocent child. Even if some disagree, I hope they understand why we are so passionate about it and why we can’t give up on the issue. Over a million lives a year are snuffed out through abortion. Over a million! That’s incredibly sad. Think about it.
Ordinary1 on February 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Voluntarily or involuntarily :-)
dedalus on February 16, 2008 at 3:08 PM
I agree. Many women who choose abortions are terrified. They don’t know what else to do. Most end up regretting their decision. That’s why my tax money going to promote “safe sex” so Planned Parenthood can make more $$ on condoms, pills and abortions is so the wrong way to go. How about education that abortions are harmful in so many ways? That’s the best way to show love to women who might otherwise make a decision that may lead to a lifetime of regret.
Ordinary1 on February 16, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Nazi-sympathizing Eugenicist Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to wipe out America’s blacks:
Currently their “good works” include defending child rapists.
DANEgerus on February 16, 2008 at 3:10 PM
You know Youtube, if you have so many technical glitches, why should anyone use your service? They could have their work deleted.
BKennedy on February 16, 2008 at 3:14 PM
It doesn’t matter if I have the power of telepathy. My inability to read their thoughts is irrelevant to what abortion is and does. What they are doing is destroying a genetically distinct human being, not a “clump of tissue” as Planned Parenthood typifies it.
Pro-Lifers, Christians, and the Catholic Church all have ministries that care for women dealing with crisis pregnancies. Only people who buy Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funded propaganda that we only care about the fetus believe otherwise. Even the smallest of Google searches will prove them wrong. Planned Parenthood relies on ignorance, suffering, and lies to survive.
BKennedy on February 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM
People find value in sexual intimacy outside of its reproductive component. Sure, some feel that each act of sexual intercourse must include a procreative potential, but most people don’t live their lives that way.
dedalus on February 16, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Umm . . . there’s ways to do this are FREE. Wouldn’t cost me or them a dime. Or they could buy their own birth control. Why should I have to foot that bill for them?
TX Mom on February 16, 2008 at 3:22 PM
When there are so many different forms of birth control why do people still feel the need to use abortion?…Oh and whatever happened to personal responsibility?
EnochCain on February 16, 2008 at 3:24 PM
I am just saying that some people are set in their ways and no matter what you say it isn’t going to make a difference.
EnochCain on February 16, 2008 at 3:24 PM
There’s serious danger in allowing people to just define “human being” however it is convenient and killing anyone who doesn’t match their definition.
TX Mom on February 16, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Viscount said: “Actually, I don’t see a blastocyst as a human being.”
Frankly, science would have to disagree with you.
There are no scientific differences between a “blastocyst” and a fully grown adult other than stage of development.
Any assertion to the contrary is not a scientific statement but a philosophical and religious one.
The “god of science” can’t come to the aid of pro-abortion forces which is why it is never invoked in this realm.
Who’s not scientific now?
Alan on February 16, 2008 at 3:26 PM
In the first few days after conception you may have a genetically unique life, but not “being”.
Also, a zygote may split into genetically identical, but seperate, twins. The DNA is a blueprint for a being but not in-and-of-itself a being.
dedalus on February 16, 2008 at 3:33 PM
I don’t think you are under a moral obligation to do so, just that you’ll end up with a less expensive government in the long run if you do.
dedalus on February 16, 2008 at 3:35 PM
So, YouTube is
1) Admitting a techical malfunction;
2) Admitting that said technical malfunction involves a system of eyes-on reviewby YouTube staff
Hence, YouTube is admitting that their eyesight, hearing, and/or brain function is damaged.
thirtypundit on February 16, 2008 at 3:42 PM
I didn’t know Planned Parenthood got that much money. That’s sick.
CP on February 16, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Drum on February 16, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Great links. thanks. Although disturbing, I find hope there, and kindred spirits to my own nature.
CrimsonFisted on February 16, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Parents–do your jobs.
Montana on February 16, 2008 at 4:11 PM
you’re joking right?
ernesto on February 16, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Outstanding post.
Professor Blather on February 16, 2008 at 4:25 PM
We’ve all read stories about babies being delivered at around 20 weeks. And with high-res digital imaging, one can see the clearly human features of a baby in the first half of pregnancy. Abortions are legal depending on the state and circumstances, well beyond these periods of a pregnancy. At precisely what point in the development does a fetus become a baby? Please be specific.
Any answer short of an exact one means that you are willing to estimate as to when an abortion should be legal. We do not allow for guesstimates when executing criminals. Why so much gray area surrounding killing the unborn?
Bobby Cutts was convicted of killing his unborn child. Guess he should go free.
And to answer your idiotic question about killing a fetus being the same as preventing conception, “NO, they are not the same.”
Furthermore, abortion is not a right. It is a convenience. The convenience is so overwhelming that we are willing to ignore everything we know about life so that the women who do opt for this can feel a little better about themselves.
The Race Card on February 16, 2008 at 4:28 PM
There is no double standard unless one considers all norms to be simply issues of special interests. That is, there is a difference between family values and abortion on demand. The former, however inconsistent and at times hypocritical, is about preserving life; humane policy; and the idea that life is worth living. The latter is about ending life; making life more convenient; not taking responsibility for action.
Drum on February 16, 2008 at 4:30 PM
This is pure coddling. People are ready to have babies when they’re able to make babies. That the state will come in and decide the fitness of who should or shouldn’t have babies is totalitarian.
I understand that unwanted pregnancies are the issue here, but it is the ethic of life that is at root here. And clearly, after 40 years of birth control propaganda, we still abort a million children a year.
Drum on February 16, 2008 at 4:35 PM
This is absurd. What evangelicals who are consistent on the abortion issue want is an ethic that is based upon self-control, responsibility, moral norms, and the idea that the meaning of life is not at base individualist but familial.
Drum on February 16, 2008 at 4:40 PM
So… Trojan Man was banned. Camel Joe was banned. Lotto Man (in Texas) was banned.
But a “superperson” (of course, the PC thugs would want this to be gender neutral) is allowable with my tax dollars.
Time to write another letter to Congress.
madmonkphotog on February 16, 2008 at 4:41 PM
What I meant to add was that none of those evangelical things is state mandated, nor do they require government intervention. They are essentially rooted in liberty and the idea that life is a gift from God.
Drum on February 16, 2008 at 4:44 PM
It’s not coddling since my point is not about making their lives better but the lives of others who have to deal with their irresponsibility. If unwanted pregnancies were the burden of only the sexual partners, I might have a different opinion.
People are ready to have babies when they are able to make babies? Age 14? In the case of many people I think you are off by more than 10 years. Few if any high school students are able to properly care for a baby.
dedalus on February 16, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Also, this isn’t at base, notwithstanding the merchants of death trying to make it seem otherwise, an issue of “denying a woman’s choice.” What it is is acceding a woman’s and a man’s ability and obligation to do the right thing.
But if you are truly concerned with the issue of choice, then you might be willing to obliterate Roe and send the issue of abortion back to the states. Then you can move to a state that “respects a woman’s right” to kill her child.
Drum on February 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM
I understand your point. (And what I meant by being ready was wholly a biological point.)
Adultery (even of the Jimmy Carter in my heart sort) is an inevitable struggle for most married people, and many fail. Because of this shall we continue to offer easy divorce adding to it government subsidized hookers and porno videos? Of course not. What we do is keep plowing away trying to do the right thing on behalf of faithfulness.
Drum on February 16, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Marriage and strong families are important for children to grow into capable adults. I applaud institutions of faith that help people commit to their marriages. Even with two parents, a good community, and enough love raising children is hard and there are no guarantees.
Prostitution and porn seem to be doing well as businesses as they have for millenia. You are right there is no benefit to us if tax payers subsidizes. However, birth control does benefit tax payers by reducing the burden caused by children who have absent or unprepared parents.
dedalus on February 16, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Petition signed. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Yakko77 on February 16, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Good post, nice it was re-added, good to see Eyeblast, and I’ll sign the petition.
OneGyT on February 16, 2008 at 5:37 PM
I know you don’t mean this is any sort of nefarious way, but this is the root of the problem: the view that children are a problem and a burden.
Yeah, ok, so they can be a burden, but surely not a burden! And easy? Hell no! But not a problem. I hate to sound liberal (though it wouldn’t be the first time here) and trite but, children are the solution.
Drum on February 16, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Ditto. Petition signed. Thanks HA for bringing this to my attention.
Mojave Mark on February 16, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Yes, they are. And the future too! They are also a burden. My wife will often remind me why the call birth “labor”. The hard work, sacrifice, worry, lack of sleep and expense just start in the delivery room.
Being U.S. President, CEO, military officer or a pastor all involve burdens. Like parenthood those burdens can be worthwhile, but being prepared is really important.
dedalus on February 16, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Silly you. Infanticide should be left up to the convenience of enlightened adult(ish)s. What’s to be sad? It’s so incredibly…fashionable.
RushBaby on February 16, 2008 at 7:59 PM
300 million here, 300 million there, & pretty soon you’re talking real money.
jgapinoy on February 16, 2008 at 8:17 PM
thuja,
Would you please elaborate on that statement you made, which I quoted above?
How are “faith based groups” feeding at the federal teat?
Are you talking about federal funds for charitable organizations?
You also said that they “promote values I find deeply disgusting.”
In which way are faith based organizations promoting values you find deeply disgusting? Which values do you find deeply disgusting?
William2006 on February 16, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Drum on February 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM
That’s a canard. The only way this issue can be legislated one way or another is at the Federal level. Example: I want to have an abortion. I live in Texas which has made it unconstitutional. I then decide to take a drive to New Mexico and have my abortion. Would that satisfy you?
This exact same situation could apply to gay marriage and I’d be just as happy. But of course those who want abortion made illegal usually also want a total federal ban on gay marriage.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on February 16, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Hey, if your “only option” is to ignore all the resources available to you in the form of countless Christian support groups and the adoption system in order to make sure your baby is good and dead and not inconveniencing you, that is your business. Why should we pay to support your decision to terminate another’s life?
If the homosexual lobby really thought it could gets its agenda rammed through society through the legislature, it would do so. As it stands, it does it through the courts. Whenever an Amendment to a state constitution legalizing Gay Marriage was tried, it failed. I welcome them to try. Their sucess rate is abyssmal. That is why their tactics are to get children and indoctrinate them early.
BKennedy on February 16, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Oh man, that ad was so hateful!
(I just signed the petition.)
Tzetzes on February 16, 2008 at 10:54 PM
…which brought an immature snigger from Tzetzes…
Tzetzes on February 16, 2008 at 10:55 PM
How many miles of fence can we build along our southern border with $305 million?
Dave Shay on February 16, 2008 at 11:06 PM
I won’t claim to be knowledgeable on the subject, so I’m really asking a question and not being snarky when I ask if items like the ‘abstinence program’ are run on taxpayer dollars?
I don’t mind the whole encouraging use of contraceptives angle of the ad that ALL appears to be referring to, but overall I’d agree that taxpayer dollars probably shouldn’t be used in such a fashion
Reaps on February 16, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Heck, why not go ahead and do the whole eugenics thing? It’s why Planned Parenthood was founded in the first place.
Science disagrees with you. There is no doubt that, scientifically, it is a human being.
The real question is whether or not it is a person, deserving of the basic human rights we afford other people. You may of course say that you don’t believe that human being is worthy of having such rights but don’t kid yourself about what it is that you’re saying.
Jimmie on February 16, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Not only does abstinence work against unwanted pregnancies, it’s 100% against ALL STDs! Condoms might increase your odds, but they are not 100%. Kids are being taught sex ed in school and taxpayer money is paying for it. Doesn’t it make sense to teach what is most effective and safe?
Ordinary1 on February 17, 2008 at 12:52 AM
Everybody practiced abstinence.
You must mean, how many practiced complete abstinence throughout their teenage years. Granted, that’s a much smaller number. But there are probably a lot more than you realize who did just exactly that.
But overall, the answer to your question is that the question is irrelevant. The promotion of abstinence doesn’t have to be a perfect success to be successful. If abstinence promotion programs lead to 30% less sex among teenagers, that’s a big difference.
On the other hand, promoting the use of condoms may well be detrimental to birth control and prevention of STD’s. Why? Because they provide a false sense of security. All birth control methods have a significant failure rate. If the condom only fails one time out of ten, but you have sex five times, then there’s a 50-50 chance that your condom failed one of those times. But I have known young men who didn’t care who they were having sex with, or how many, because they wore condoms. Again, if they have a lot of sex because they think the condom protects them, they may well expose themselves enough to increase their exposure, rather than decrease it.
Bottom line: condoms only help in those cases where people have decided not to practice abstinence. Those who practice abstinence, on the other hand, can be sure they will not produce a pregnancy.
theregoestheneighborhood on February 17, 2008 at 1:10 AM
At what point are you willing to concede it is human life? Does human life begin at birth? Scientifically, that’s nonsense. Babies are alive before they’re born. Babies can be aborted legally the day before they’re born, but have been delivered and lived way before that point.
Does human life begin when it becomes “viable?” Then human life begins much sooner now than it did before, since better medical care makes babies viable much earlier than they used to be. But that means that a baby at the exact same stage of development that is viable now, and therefore human, was not human at that stage 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago.
Or does “human life” arrive mysteriously at some point in between? Maybe we can pick some totally arbitrary deadline and say that babies in the first trimester of development are not human, babies in the third trimester are human, and babies in the second trimester may be human.
So which of these beginnings of human life is reflected in the practice of abortion in this country? None! Abortion is permitted regardless of any question about when life begins, or when that life becomes “human.”
And yes, I’m aware of the objection that I should be using the term “fetus” rather than “baby.” But since “fetus” can mean a chicken fetus or a pig fetus as much as it can a human fetus, “baby” is the more accurate term.
Let’s try taking your argument to the logical conclusion. By your argument, deciding not to have sex is the same as an abortion, since both prevent a precious baby being born.
theregoestheneighborhood on February 17, 2008 at 1:57 AM
Sorry to interject, but your math is wrong.
The condom working every time:
90% * 5 chances = .9^5 = 59.049%…
So about a 41% chance, not a 50% chance. Which doesn’t change your point.
And as to “those who practiced abstinence” my first serious girlfriend (I was 15, she was 14) broke up with me over my not having sex with her. She was pregnant less than 3 months later; because she wanted a kid (yes, that young, and wanted a kid).
So yeah, that was a deterrent, and an effective one too. Until you’re in a serious committed relationship, you don’t really know what the other person’s goals are.
gekkobear on February 17, 2008 at 1:58 AM
GooTube takes on a new meaning.
Black Adam on February 17, 2008 at 5:58 AM
I’ll ask again, just in case someone would like to answer the question
Are items like the ‘abstinence program’ run on taxpayer dollars?
US ’sex ed’ must be a lot different than what I experienced growing up. They just showed us how it all worked, and that was it. I’m sure some people decided to choose ‘abstinence’ right off that bat because of that, I can’t quite see any girl or guy getting turned on by the biology of it, though. so.. hmm.
Reaps on February 17, 2008 at 6:15 AM
I wish they showed a recorded abortion to teenagers in that sex ed class.
Sounds gross, I know, but perhaps it would show all sides of the issue when it comes to abortion. There is nothing magic about that bullet.
When I was in school, I remember girls saying “oh, if I get pregnant I’ll just get an abortion” like it was some simple experience like having your teeth polished at the dentist. Planned Parenthood really gives the entire thing an artificial sweetness, don’t they?
Black Adam on February 17, 2008 at 6:25 AM
The term, Planned Parenthood, seems to be a misnomer to me. An abortion isn’t planned, it is a reaction to an unplanned action.
As for the term, Parenthood, I would not like to be the child of “parents” who had killed one or more of my elder siblings before deciding to let me live. What a way to go through life, knowing that you were a “convenience”.
OldEnglish on February 17, 2008 at 8:01 AM
As a human, a woman, a black woman, and a practicing Catholic, Planned Parenthood disgusts me.
But eventually, science is going to win the argument for us. Did anyone see that article in the NYT? A leading doctor is declaring that babies do feel pain at 20 weeks. But even with the new sonogram technology people are starting to see that yep, that’s a PERSON in there.
And if you really want an argument against PP, google the name “Gianna Jessen.”
socalconservative on February 17, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Wackos to the left of me
Godly on the right
Here I am
Stuck in the middle with you.
Every pro-abortion advocate has a mother who didn’t share their belief.
Doug on February 17, 2008 at 5:19 PM
I did. Though there’s not much “practice” involved in the decision to wait. I didn’t wait until I got married, but I wasn’t a teen and we married a couple years later. It’s not that hard, and I really don’t regret it.
I never had to worry that he was in it for the sex. I’ve never had an STD or even a pregnancy scare.
And they should find value in it. Sex serves a purpose greater than simply repopulating the world.
However, society seems to have forgotten what it’s ultimately for. It’s like telling an obese person to keep eating because it makes them feel good and trying to find ways to get them to lose wait without eating less or working out.
I have a problem with that though. People who are so irresponsible that they cannot be counted on to buy their own condoms are not the people who can be counted on to use the condoms properly.
So we’re basically giving those people a false hope in condom use, which ultimately leads to more unwanted pregnancies not less.
In the post legal abortion age, we’ve actually had more young single mothers, not less. Despite all the contraceptives and abortion options, the problem is only worse.
No, the whole premise is off. It isn’t humanly possible for a man to make all of his sperm into a human being. Even when trying to have a baby, thousands of sperm must give up their lives. It’s how our bodies function.
It’s absolutely absurd to compare sperm to a sperm that has united with an egg.
A sperm united with an egg will always become a baby unless it is prevented from doing so.
A sperm has a one in a million chance of becoming a baby, and that’s only if it has an egg to fertilize.
Government already intervenes when it comes to the unborn. Sometimes killing it is murder. Sometimes it’s just a woman’s choice.
A woman’s choice is able to trump the definition of life.
“Evangelical” tend to believe it’s life in all instances, not just the instances where the woman chooses to make it valuable. And if it is life, then these weird people just want it protected the same way everyone else is protected.
Esthier on February 17, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Some will and some won’t. You only need a few to recover your investment.
dedalus on February 17, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Comment pages: