Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex

[Sasha]

Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex

May 18, 2011 | ISSUE 47•20 (http://www.theonion.com/issue/4720/)
http://o.onionstatic.com/images/articles/article/20476/Planned_Parenthood_R_jpg_600x345_crop-smart_upscale_q85_1.jpg The state-of-the-art facility, which features an IMAX movie theater as well as multiple fetus incinerators.



TOPEKA, KS—Planned Parenthood announced Tuesday the grand opening of its long-planned $8 billion Abortionplex, a sprawling abortion facility that will allow the organization to terminate unborn lives with an efficiency never before thought possible.

During a press conference, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards told reporters that the new state-of-the-art fetus-killing facility located in the nation's heartland offers quick, easy, in-and-out abortions to all women, and represents a bold reinvention of the group's long-standing mission and values.
"Although we've traditionally dedicated 97 percent of our resources to other important services such as contraception distribution, cancer screening, and STD testing, this new complex allows us to devote our full attention to what has always been our true passion: abortion," said Richards, standing under a banner emblazoned with Planned Parenthood's new slogan, "No Life Is Sacred." "And since Congress voted to retain our federal funding, it's going to be that much easier for us to maximize the number of tiny, beating hearts we stop every day."
"The Abortionplex's high-tech machinery is capable of terminating one pregnancy every three seconds," Richards added. "That's almost a million abortions every month. We're so thrilled!"
The 900,000-square-foot facility has more than 2,000 rooms dedicated to the abortion procedure. The abundance of surgical space, Richards said, will ensure that women visiting the facility can be quickly fitted into stirrups without pausing to second-guess their decision or consider alternatives such as adoption. Hundreds of on-site counselors are also available to meet with clients free of charge and go over the many ways that carrying a child to term will burden them and very likely ruin their lives.


Graphical Feature

http://o.onionstatic.com/images/articles/article/20488/Planned-Parenthood-Map-R_jpg_250x1000_q85.jpg (http://www.theonion.com/articles/a-look-inside-planned-parenthoods-8-billion-aborti,20488/) A Look Inside Planned Parenthood's $8 Billion Abortionplex (http://www.theonion.com/articles/a-look-inside-planned-parenthoods-8-billion-aborti,20488/)


The remaining space is dedicated to amenities such as coffee shops, bars, dozens of restaurants and retail outlets, a three-story nightclub, and a 10-screen multiplex theater—features intended not only to help clients relax, but to foster a sense of community and make abortion more of a social event.
"We really want abortion to become a regular part of women's lives, especially younger women who have enough fertile years ahead of them to potentially have dozens of abortions," said Richards, adding that the Abortionplex would provide shuttle service to and from most residences, schools, and shopping malls in the region. "Our hope is for this facility to become a regular destination where a woman in her second trimester can whoop it up at karaoke and then kick back while we vacuum out the contents of her uterus."
"All women should feel like they have a home at the Abortionplex," Richards continued. "Whether she's a high school junior who doesn't want to go to prom pregnant, a go-getter professional who can't be bothered with the time commitment of raising a child, or a prostitute who knows getting an abortion is the easiest form of birth control—all are welcome."
Nineteen-year-old Marcy Kolrath, one of the Abortionplex's first clients, told reporters that despite her initial hesitancy, she was quickly put at ease by staff members who reassured her that she could have abortions over and over for the next decade before finally committing to motherhood. Kolrath also said she was "wowed" by the facility's many attractions.
"I was kind of on the fence in the beginning," she said. "But after a couple of margaritas and a ride down the lazy river they've got circling the place, I got caught up in the vibe. By the time it was over, I almost wished I could've aborted twins and gotten to stay a little longer."
"I told my boyfriend we had to have sex again that very night," Kolrath added. "I really want to come back over Labor Day."http://o.onionstatic.com/img/icons/terminator.gif



http://pics.blameitonthevoices.com/052011/reactions_to_abortionplex.jpg

The Lenscrafters of Big Abortion

Posted by Unpaid Intern (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/ArticleArchives?author=707634) on Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:00 AM

Posted by news intern Megan Burbank
In case you missed it, the Onion ran a fantastic piece (http://www.theonion.com/articles/planned-parenthood-opens-8-billion-abortionplex,20476/) this week about Planned Parenthood's latest plot to kill teh behbehs by opening an $8 billion Abortionplex in Topeka, Kansas. The piece is effective because it doesn't bother attacking anti-choice arguments—instead, it parrots them almost exactly:

"Although we've traditionally dedicated 97 percent of our resources to other important services such as contraception distribution, cancer screening, and STD testing, this new complex allows us to devote our full attention to what has always been our true passion: abortion," said [Planned Parenthood president Cecile] Richards, standing under a banner emblazoned with Planned Parenthood's new slogan, "No Life Is Sacred."
The article goes onto say that the space also features "amenities such as coffee shops, bars, dozens of restaurants and retail outlets, a three-story nightclub, and a 10-screen multiplex theater—features intended not only to help clients relax, but to foster a sense of community and make abortion more of a social event."
Because this is obviously hilarious, it's made (http://feministing.com/2011/05/19/the-onion-outs-planned-parenthoods-new-pet-project/) the (http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/he9jo/planned_parenthood_opens_8_billion_abortionplex/) rounds (http://stfufauxminists.tumblr.com/post/5609628209/planned-parenthood-opens-8-billion-abortionplex) on the internet. Someone even created a Yelp site where you can share (http://www.yelp.com/biz/abortionplex-topeka) your superfun Abortionplex experience.
But a few people were left out of the joke, namely anti-choice Facebookers (http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-on-facebook-react-to-planned-parenthoods-a), who took the article literally, and reposted it with outraged comments.
For example: "PAID FOR WITH TAX DOLLARS...MAKE (sic) ME SICK!"
Morning sickness makes me sick, which is why I'm planning all my abortions at the Abortionplex. Hell, I might even kill a few birds and bring a date. We can catch a screening of Fast Five afterward, while throwing back a few margaritas. NBD! Who's with me?*
*To anyone who doesn't understand satire, that last part was a joke. I would totally prefer a whiskey soda!


source: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/05/25/the-lenscrafters-of-big-abortion?oid=8303835&show=comments&sort=desc&display=

[Kotze]

This is a HORROR!!!!!!!! " Mother Theresa says: The fruit of abortion is nuclear war". Buying contraception, which is a silent abortion, is keeping planned parenthood alive. We can keep this beast down by repenting. War is a punishment for men's sins. Wakeup America and repent.Ah, the country that gave us Chomsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously).

[Old Mole]

If this is the future I´ll be sure to stick around.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

You do know that onion articles are made up for comedic purposes right?

[Property Is Robbery]

http://pics.blameitonthevoices.com/052011/reactions_to_abortionplex.jpg

This isn't from your facebook right? :p

[Sasha]

You do know that onion articles are made up for comedic purposes right?

i do, still thought it fitted better here than in chitchat, good satire has something worthwile to say

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

wtf is wrong with you? please move this to chit chat

[Red Future]

8 billion baby holocaust ??? My mind just died with stupidity.

[Kotze]

please move this to chit chatNo, please move it to OI. We have a few people there who would really appreciate this. :cool:

[Sasha]

OI it is...

[Drosophila]

I don't support allowing irresponsible women to get abortions. By aborting a fetus that has the potential to be adopted by caring parents, you're denying that person the right to live.

In any other case I think it's acceptable, though.

[Johnny Kerosene]

At first I thought this might be serious for a second, and I was like Fuck yeah. And then I read a few more sentences and thought that it smelled at bit like Onions. That would be really cool if they made something like this, well maybe not something that costs $8 billion. But if they cut the military's funding America would have plenty of money.

[jake williams]

I don't support allowing irresponsible women to get abortions.
Without granting your right to deem people "irresponsible" - would you rather they be parents?


By aborting a fetus that has the potential to be adopted by caring parents, you're denying that person the right to live.
1) A fetus isn't a person.

2) Semen is a whole lot of "potential people", as are ova, or, as has been pointed out, human skin cells.

3) A woman who is pregnant for 9 months is killing the babiez she could potentially get pregnant with in those 9 months. The whole concept is idiotic.

4) We can't possibly be minimally decent parents to as many kids as we're biologically capable of having. People have to choose when they can be parents. Generally, women are only going to be able to have, say, two or three kids at most. Would you rather they have those kids when it's a bad time for them, murdering the babiez they could have later in life when they could be better moms? If a woman is going to have two kids, she's going to be murdering the babiez that she doesn't have. You're saying you'd rather she have the ones she doesn't think she can be a good mom to than the ones she thinks she can be a good mom to? You abstractly prefer women to be bad moms?

5) Oh yeah, women aren't slaves or baby factories and they have a right to control their own bodies.

[synthesis]

Those Facebook responses were probably written by the same type of people who think Stephen Colbert is actually a Republican. (http://www.newser.com/story/57378/republicans-think-colberts-serious-study.html)

[Drosophila]

Without granting your right to deem people "irresponsible" - would you rather they be parents?

There is such a thing as adoption.


1) A fetus isn't a person.

Isn't that sort of the same thing as saying that a child isn't an adult? In all likelihood, a fetus is going to become a person that can think for themselves.


5) Oh yeah, women aren't slaves or baby factories and they have a right to control their own bodies.

I never said I supported criminalizing abortion.

[xub3rn00dlex]

Isn't that sort of the same thing as saying that a child isn't an adult? In all likelihood, a fetus is going to become a person that can think for themselves.
.

No? A child is already a human being, just as an adult is. A fetus is not a human being, nor is a sperm, or egg. Like the poster said. Each time you dump your load, you kill millions of babies, even IF one sperm impregnates the woman. You still killed a million other potential babies that didn't manage.

[jake williams]

There is such a thing as adoption.
Adoption isn't at all as simple or accessible as people tend to think, especially outside of a few rich countries, but I would refer you to:

women aren't slaves or baby factories

[#FF0000]

Isn't that sort of the same thing as saying that a child isn't an adult? In all likelihood, a fetus is going to become a person that can think for themselves.

This line of thinking brought to it's logical conclusion would have us trying children as adults for crimes because they are "potential adults".

[Drosophila]

No? A child is already a human being, just as an adult is. A fetus is not a human being, nor is a sperm, or egg. Like the poster said. Each time you dump your load, you kill millions of babies, even IF one sperm impregnates the woman. You still killed a million other potential babies that didn't manage.

That's a rather stupid thing to say. Sperm means nothing if it hasn't come into contact with an egg. I'm confused as to what a fetus actually is, if it has nothing to do with humanity.


Adoption isn't at all as simple or accessible as people tend to think, especially outside of a few rich countries, but I would refer you to:

There are thousands of couples looking to adopt children. Many of them are left empty-handed.


This line of thinking brought to it's logical conclusion would have us trying children as adults for crimes because they are "potential adults".

No. Denying a future human being the right to live does not relate to what you said.

[MattShizzle]

We got a right winger here. Most of those looking to adopt won't accept a minority or disabled child. And there are way more kids looking to be adopted than potential adopters. When they turn 18 and are thrown into the street they probably wish they had been aborted. And anyway forcing a woman to be pregnant 9 months and give birth is something I see as disgusting. If you're a man you have no business doing so.
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e162/MattGo74/notaperson.jpg

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Isn't that sort of the same thing as saying that a child isn't an adult? In all likelihood, a fetus is going to become a person that can think for themselves.
A child isn't an adult, idiot. Some children become adults, some get hit by cars or get bit in the jugular by a dog with rabies or some other uniquely untimely death the fittest make it to the next stage the unfit don't it happens in nature and is part of that cycle of life.

[#FF0000]

That's a rather stupid thing to say. Sperm means nothing if it hasn't come into contact with an egg. I'm confused as to what a fetus actually is, if it has nothing to do with humanity.

It is a lump of cells.


No. Denying a future human being the right to live does not relate to what you said.

If a fetus can be called a "potential human" and should be treated as such then why shouldn't we treat children as "potential adults"?

[RGacky3]

It is a lump of cells.


So are you :).

[jake williams]

So are you :).
And so is a bread mould, but reasonable people can distinguish between a bread mould and a person, as much as reasonable people can distinguish between a fetus and a person.

[RGacky3]

A bread mold has a totally different DNA makeup. A fetus has the same.

[Property Is Robbery]

Yeah but pregnant females are conscious and should have control over their own bodies. Fetuses are not conscious

[RGacky3]

Fetuses are not conscious

Yes they are, thats why they respond to different things, and why what happens in the womb effects how their life will be.

[Tablo]

Yes they are, thats why they respond to different things, and why what happens in the womb effects how their life will be.
Ummm, depends how developed. Ultimately I think the woman has the right to decide what she does with her body as I believe any human being should.

Btw, thanks for the post psycho. I freaking love the Onion. :lol:

[RGacky3]

Sure, I'm just saying the lump of cells argument is moot.

[Property Is Robbery]

Yes they are, thats why they respond to different things, and why what happens in the womb effects how their life will be.
I meant in the sense that a fetus would not survive externally

[RGacky3]

Niether would a baby, neither would a person with diabetes.

[Ned Kelly]

I don't support allowing irresponsible women to get abortions. By aborting a fetus that has the potential to be adopted by caring parents, you're denying that person the right to live.

In any other case I think it's acceptable, though.

Why should a woman have to put herself through that for nine months, put her life on hold? My girlfriend had an abortion, is she evil for not wanting to ruin her final year of schooling for a baby we won't keep, huh?

Fucking unreal.

[jake williams]

A bread mold has a totally different DNA makeup. A fetus has the same.
Which returns to the point of human skin cells. If you scratch your nose you're killing human skin cells, lumps of cells with the same basic DNA as a human fetus.

[Drosophila]

A child isn't an adult, idiot.

Thank you!


Some children become adults, some get hit by cars or get bit in the jugular by a dog with rabies or some other uniquely untimely death the fittest make it to the next stage the unfit don't it happens in nature and is part of that cycle of life.

What a ridiculously stupid argument that is. If anyone can die at any time does that mean I can kill my wife if I don't like her? I suppose a huge asteroid could hit our house, so it's not like it matters...right?


It is a lump of cells.

Oh shit, really? I had no idea. So was Lenin. So was Stalin. So is every complex fucking organism on the planet.


If a fetus can be called a "potential human" and should be treated as such then why shouldn't we treat children as "potential adults"?

Children have the ability to make decisions for themselves, a fetus doesn't, since it's incapable of leaving its mother's body.


We got a right winger here.

Sigh....


Most of those looking to adopt won't accept a minority or disabled child.

Not true at all. In fact, the opposite is true. Most adopted people I've ever known are minorities.


And there are way more kids looking to be adopted than potential adopters.

Not true either. Most people looking to adopt a child are left empty-handed. http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-hoping-to-adopt.html


Why should a woman have to put herself through that for nine months, put her life on hold? My girlfriend had an abortion, is she evil for not wanting to ruin her final year of schooling for a baby we won't keep, huh?

Fucking unreal.

I never said anything is "evil". I don't believe in that sort of thing. If a woman absolutely will not go through labor, she should have the right to stop the pregnancy. However, I think women should be more responsible.

[Bardo]

Yes they are, thats why they respond to different things, and why what happens in the womb effects how their life will be.

It depends how far along it is. I'd be willing to wager that a 3 week old fetus is about as concious as a tree. Trees respond to sunlight, that doesn't make them conscious beings.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Thank you!

Your welcome!:rolleyes:


What a ridiculously stupid argument that is. If anyone can die at any time does that mean I can kill my wife if I don't like her? I suppose a huge asteroid could hit our house, so it's not like it matters...right?
Well in that case the question that needs to be ask is why did you marry her if you don't like her?


Personally, I find death to be beautiful. So even if I considered a fetus a life (which I don't) I'd be okay with ending it. Hence I strongly support euthanasia as a right.

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes they are, thats why they respond to different things, and why what happens in the womb effects how their life will be.

No fetuses are not conscious, not in any meaningful sense of the word - do your research before you spout your crap.

Week 9 to 16, the brain is present but only has minimal operation.
Week 26 to 40, the brain is forming connections which mediate sensory input but still doesn't have any reference for self/non-self or language at all. In order for something to be "self-conscious" it has to have a reference point for who "it is" and what "it is not."
The mirror test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test) with a baby is a good example. Fetuses do not pass the mirror test...

This is why fetuses aren't people and hence don't have "human rights" because these rights only apply to people.

Get your anti-abortion nonsense straight. The only semi-tolerable argument against abortion is some fanatical moralizing from a religious zealot and it's only tolerable because it's familiar.

- August

[Drosophila]

Personally, I find death to be beautiful.

Creepy....


Week 9 to 16, the brain is present but only has minimal operation.
Week 26 to 40, the brain is forming connections which mediate sensory input but still doesn't have any reference for self/non-self or language at all. In order for something to be "self-conscious" it has to have a reference point for who "it is" and what "it is not."
The mirror test (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test) with a baby is a good example. Fetuses do not pass the mirror test...

This is why fetuses aren't people and hence don't have "human rights" because these rights only apply to people.

Get your anti-abortion nonsense straight. The only semi-tolerable argument against abortion is some fanatical moralizing from a religious zealot and it's only tolerable because it's familiar.


If it's not human, THEN WHAT THE FUCK IS IT? It can only become a human, nothing else. You can't just make any group of cells into a human being.

[Decolonize The Left]

If it's not human, THEN WHAT THE FUCK IS IT? It can only become a human, nothing else. You can't just make any group of cells into a human being.

Someone needs to pay closer attention....

Step 1: Difference between human being and person.
A human being is a biological entity, such as... you. Or me. Physically we are human beings.
A person is a philosophical concept related to the linguistic concept of the "I" (me, AugustWest) as distinct from the "not-I" (the computer I am typing on, the woman who just left the coffee shop).

Step 2: Relate step 1 to the discussion.
A fetus has the biological makings of a human being, though it is not fully-developed. This says nothing about it's personhood at all. Only biological classification.

Step 3: You're still confused, so I explain further.
Say an alien landed on this planet and looked exactly like humans except it had a giant mushroom growing on it's head. It spoke english and said, "hello, I'm Glordvark from planet Glordvarkian. I am not a human being, I am a Glord, but I am a person."
This alien meets the standards of personhood - they can differentiate between themselves and other things and can attribute meaning to individual actions and phenomena.
But they are not a human being.

Step 4: Recap.
A fetus is a little tiny beginning of a human being, but not a person. Hence it doesn't have any rights.

Make sense?

- August

[Drosophila]

Step 1: Difference between human being and person.
A human being is a biological entity, such as... you. Or me. Physically we are human beings.
A person is a philosophical concept related to the linguistic concept of the "I" (me, AugustWest) as distinct from the "not-I" (the computer I am typing on, the woman who just left the coffee shop).

Biologically, you're incorrect. The process of human life begins at conception. After that, it can't be called anything other than human. Question: are people with extreme mental and physical handicaps human?


A fetus has the biological makings of a human being, though it is not fully-developed. This says nothing about it's personhood at all. Only biological classification.

Neither is a child who's one second out of their mother's womb. I don't understand this argument. You'll willingly call a newborn baby a human.


Say an alien landed on this planet and looked exactly like humans except it had a giant mushroom growing on it's head. It spoke english and said, "hello, I'm Glordvark from planet Glordvarkian. I am not a human being, I am a Glord, but I am a person."
This alien meets the standards of personhood - they can differentiate between themselves and other things and can attribute meaning to individual actions and phenomena.
But they are not a human being.

Does it have the same DNA as we do? Then it isn't human.


A fetus is a little tiny beginning of a human being, but not a person. Hence it doesn't have any rights.

Nothing has rights, unless they're legal rights. But those are instituted by old men with white hair sitting in offices.

[Ocean Seal]

The best part is the mother Theresa quote: The fruit of abortion is nuclear war.
Even though she never said that. Ahh this was some epic trolling.
http://www.motherteresa.org/08_info/Quotesf.html

[Decolonize The Left]

Biologically, you're incorrect. The process of human life begins at conception. After that, it can't be called anything other than human.

Hmmm... I thought I had made it as clear as possible, but you are extremely dense. I'll try again.

Human being: biological entity.
Person: philosophical concept.
Not the same thing.

Stop. Re-read it again. Stop. Re-read it again. Two terms, two different meanings. Stop. Re-read it again. Two terms, two different meanings. Ok?


Question: are people with extreme mental and physical handicaps human?

Yes... read what I just wrote.


Neither is a child who's one second out of their mother's womb. I don't understand this argument. You'll willingly call a newborn baby a human.

I know I'm calling a newborn a human being.... read my above clarification.


Does it have the same DNA as we do? Then it isn't human.

I know, in the example I actually said that it wasn't a human being. Read my clarification above.


Nothing has rights, unless they're legal rights. But those are instituted by old men with white hair sitting in offices.

Yes. Old men with white hair sitting in offices who attempt to outlaw abortions on the grounds that fetuses have some ridiculous idea called "a right to life."
Old men with white hair sitting in offices who make the same BS reactionary arguments against abortion as you.

- August

[Drosophila]

the same BS reactionary arguments against abortion as you.Apparently you don't even know what "reactionary" means. I don't want to criminalize abortion. I'm simply saying that taking a "fetus isn't a human, etc" approach to it is extremely stupid.

My stance: keep your fucking pants on. If you're going to have sex without the intention of having a baby, then wear a condom, or go on birth control. When people begin to think that they can just have as much sex as they want and then kill the unborn child, things get bad.

[jake williams]

Apparently you don't even know what "reactionary" means. I don't want to criminalize abortion. I'm simply saying that taking a "fetus isn't a human, etc" approach to it is extremely stupid.

My stance: keep your fucking pants on. If you're going to have sex without the intention of having a baby, then wear a condom, or go on birth control. When people begin to think that they can just have as much sex as they want and then kill the unborn child, things get bad.
It's reactionary because you think there's such a thing as an "unborn child" with any sort of rights, moral or legal. That's a step backward and it's a response of the ultra-right to the gains of feminism (or modern science, for that matter).

An abortion is a pretty simple and inexpensive medical procedure, but yes, it would be expensive and impractical to use it as a sole method of birth control. But no one wants to use it that way, in particular the women actually doing it for whom an abortion, albeit a minor inconvenience, is still the most inconvenient way to do birth control, on its own. Since no one is suggesting that be done, there's no good reason to bring it up.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Creepy....
Why? Because death gives way for more life? Death is life and if you look around you will see that life is full of death. From the moment you are born you are living and you are simultaneously dying. That is part of being mortal, it is very human. Now I will stop going on tangents.



If it's not human, THEN WHAT THE FUCK IS IT? It can only become a human, nothing else. You can't just make any group of cells into a human being.
It's a fetus, straight up yo.

[ChampionDishWasher]

http://www.overpopulation.org/faq.html:( (http://www.overpopulation.org/faq.html)

[Drosophila]

It's a fetus, straight up yo.

What kind of fetus? I don't know how anyone could answer with anything but human. It's sure not a fish. Not a bird. Not a cat.


http://www.overpopulation.org/faq.html:( (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.overpopulation.org/faq.html)

An "unwanted pregnancy" can be avoided by not having unprotected sex.


It's reactionary because you think there's such a thing as an "unborn child" with any sort of rights, moral or legal. That's a step backward and it's a response of the ultra-right to the gains of feminism (or modern science, for that matter).

That's interesting. You're invoking science to defend abortion, while I'm making a case against it.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

http://www.overpopulation.org/faq.html:( (http://www.overpopulation.org/faq.html)

Do I smell the presence of a Malthusian?

[Decolonize The Left]

Apparently you don't even know what "reactionary" means. I don't want to criminalize abortion. I'm simply saying that taking a "fetus isn't a human, etc" approach to it is extremely stupid.

My stance: keep your fucking pants on. If you're going to have sex without the intention of having a baby, then wear a condom, or go on birth control. When people begin to think that they can just have as much sex as they want and then kill the unborn child, things get bad.

Hmmmm... me thinks we have a troll?

I've explained the difference between a human being and a person at least 3 times now and you still ignore it? Would you prefer I respond to all your posts with animal pictures - maybe dinosaurs?

- August

[jake williams]

That's interesting. You're invoking science to defend abortion, while I'm making a case against it.
Huh?

[tm315]

What kind of fetus? I don't know how anyone could answer with anything but human. It's sure not a fish. Not a bird. Not a cat.

A human fetus is not a human.


An "unwanted pregnancy" can be avoided by not having unprotected sex. Birth control is neither cheap nor 100% effective.

[MattShizzle]

Then there's the idiots who argue "well then just don't have sex." That clearly DOES.NOT.WORK. Most people don't consider abstinence acceptable. I often point out teaching absitnence as the way to avoid pregnancy or STDs makes as much sense as teaching never leaving the house as the way to avoid car accidents.