human-fetus

Cecile Richards compares abortion to colonoscopies

Planned Parenthood has been desperate for a long time to make themselves out to be purveyors of women’s health care, when really, their business revolves around — what else? — abortion. Oh, sure, they like to pretend that they care about things besides abortion. They certainly do offer other services, but their own annual report shows that abortion is their bread and butter.

According to their annual report, abortion makes up 94% of their pregnancy “services”, and the number of abortions they performed has increased over the years, while their other health care services have decreased. It’s all about the money for Planned Parenthood, and abortion sure is lucrative. That’s why they have required all Planned Parenthood affiliates to perform abortions, causing them to subsequently lose affiliates that actually did care about health care. What abortion is not, is PR-friendly. People don’t like abortion. So Planned Parenthood has to pretend they actually care about women’s health, even lying about the services they perform. (Remember the mammogram debacle?)

So it’s kind of cute — and by cute, I actually mean enraging — to see Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards try to compare abortion to actual necessary medical procedures. In an interview with Bill Moyers, Richards compared women getting abortions to men getting colonoscopies, asking us to imagine if men had to endure protests in order to get medical procedures performed. Because war on women!

BILL MOYERS: What do you think will come from the court’s junking of the 35-foot buffer zone?

CECILE RICHARDS: Well, we’re already seeing in Massachusetts that absolutely, immediately after that decision eliminating the buffer zone we had record numbers of protesters outside of the following women all the way up to the door of our health center in Massachusetts. These are not all kindly, elderly ladies simply whispering in the ears.

And even if they were, it is the right of women in this country to be able to access healthcare that they need without harassment and without the advice of dozens of people outside their health center. I mean, can you imagine if, you know, if men in this country, before going into their doctor had to walk through a gauntlet of protesters telling them, you know, whether it’s not to get a colonoscopy or just go down the list? It’s incredible.

MOYERS: Is there a war on women? Or has that become a convenient metaphor?

RICHARDS: It’s not a term I use. But in some ways, if the shoe fits, you know, I feel like I don’t like to think there’s a war on women. But the evidence is that there is certainly within some, certainly some elements of the Republican party, and unfortunately a lot of the leadership, and a lot of politicians in this country, folks who are uncomfortable, I believe, with women being equal in America.

Does anyone else find it revealing that Richards equates an unborn child with a person’s bowels?

Anyway, there goes Cecile Richards, trying to turn abortion into “health care” again. See, it’s just so, so wrong for women to have to endure protests on the way to murder the little demon spawn growing inside of them! But let’s just compare abortion to a colonoscopy. A colonoscopy, according to WebMD, is:

Colonoscopy is a test that allows your doctor to look at the inner lining of your large intestine camera.gif (rectum and colon). He or she uses a thin, flexible tube called a colonoscope to look at the colon. A colonoscopy helps find ulcers, colon polyps, tumors, and areas of inflammation or bleeding. During a colonoscopy, tissue samples can be collected (biopsy) and abnormal growths can be taken out. Colonoscopy can also be used as a screening test to check for cancer or precancerous growths in the colon or rectum (polyps).

Sounds pretty important, right? Not only important, but potentially life-saving. Abortion, on the other hand, is the act of killing an unborn child. Dress it up in whatever cheerful euphemisms you want, but that’s what it is. It is almost never medically necessary, despite constant caterwauling from abortion advocates to the contrary. This has become especially fashionable for the abortion lobby to claim regarding late-term abortions — it’s because of health issues with the baby or the mother! — but that’s not true.

Even the pro-abortion, former arm of Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher Institute owns up to the fact that the vast, vast majority of abortions are performed because of convenience. It makes a pleasant talking point, sure, that abortions are mostly performed because of a birth defect or because otherwise the mother will die, but it just isn’t the truth.

So comparing a legitimate and potentially life-saving medical procedure to an elective, almost always unnecessary, procedure that takes the life of an unborn child just doesn’t quite fly. Cecile Richards and her ilk have always tried to deny the unborn of their inherent humanity, calling them “clumps of tissue” or “products of conception”. But comparing a polyp to a fetus?

By the time any abortion is performed, the baby almost surely already has a heartbeat and brain waves, not a useless and potentially cancerous piece of tissue. And the fact that Cecile Richards sees any similarity between the two at all shows just how depraved her mind truly is.

Unlike Planned Parenthood, Live Action doesn’t get hundreds of millions of dollars in forced taxpayer funding to keep us going.  We rely completely on the generosity of our donors.  Please give to Live Action today!

  • PJ4

    She’s a pro abort
    Of course she’s depraved

    • Ladybug

      Is my comment in response to PJ4 still in moderation? Why do some of my comments go into moderation & not others? Also, I’ve done nothing wrong to get censored (such as spam, trolling, cussing, or making a personal attack), I just disagreed with what the above person said & explained why.

      • PJ4

        Point taken Ladybug
        :-)
        I will try to be nicer

      • PJ4

        Dunno
        Did you include a link?

        • Ladybug

          Hmm I didn’t include a link…oh well.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            Sorry, it had wound up in the spam filter for some reason. I would have fixed it sooner, but I’ve been without Internet most of the night. Nothing wrong with your comment :)

      • MamaBear

        If you include a link to something, anything, it goes into moderation. Sometimes moderation can take a very long time.

  • Ladybug

    Right, because an embryo/fetus, which is human offspring & an individual living human organism w/ its own complete set of DNA, is compatible to a polyp *rolls eyes*

    • Thomas

      Not only that Ladybug, but colonoscopy is much less invasive and is not surgical whereas abortion is always invasive and predominantly surgical.

      • wytt

        a colonoscopy IS surgical, and I hope all of you who detest abortions also are practicing vegans. Especially “ladybug” who thinks that having a “complete set of DNA” (whatever that means… I guess being haploid?) is morally deserving of life. You can’t kill animals to eat and then be mad about a woman not wanting to carry the much less sentient version of their rapist. Your cause is morally contradictory and based only on a religion’s tricky way of upping their user-base.

        • wytt

          that said, comparing abortions to colonoscopies is stupid. They are totally different.

        • PJ4

          You don’t need to be a vegan to be pro life
          Unless you’re suggesting it’s ok to eat aborted fetuses

          • wytt

            I’m suggesting that fighting for the life of an organism that is no more intelligent (or genetically different) than the chicken or beef you consume is hypocritical.

          • PJ4

            If you thing that a human baby in the womb is not genetically different from a chicken or a cow then you need to go back to high school biology.
            A human doesn’t gestate something non-human.
            Ever.
            Unless you believe in science fiction.

          • wytt

            Actually, although humans haven’t done it, many animals support cross-species fertilization. Most commonly, the mule. So, not science fiction. Along with that, you seem to be not understanding the definition of “genetically.” It has to do with the DNA present in the cells of an organism. Humans are remarkably similar to other animals genetically and, in vitro, almost identical because the DNA tags have not yet been methylized or de-methylized. I understand you’re ignorance on the biological factors, because, in fact, these are intro collegiate level biological and chemical theories.

          • PJ4

            *yawn*
            We’re not talking about cross fertilization that occur in other animals.

            We’re talking about humans
            So we share the 98% of our DNA with several other species.

            Sorry to break it to you, but even at fertilization, the other 2% that differentiates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is present.

            I understand your ignorance with regards to this.
            It’s common in most pro aborts like yourself.
            But, I’ll leave you with a quote from my favorite pro choice biologist.

            Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965)pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10044/

            Your welcome to suggest that abortion should occur before mehylization occurs.

          • wytt

            First of all, methylization of DNA is present when the egg is fertilized. So I’m unsure of both your knowledge on the subject and how I would argue that abortion occur before that. Maybe preventative contraception?

            Second, I have trouble understanding the truth behind your quote. What about evolution? When a species is born viable to live but unable to reproduce with the species it was born of. If a new species of dog came from the fertilization and then mutation of that zygote how is it a dog from fertilization to death?

            The point I want to see you argue is what qualities of a human fetus make it more important than that of a equally intelligent and remarkably genetically similar organism that you kill to eat?

            Is it because it’s human? That’s too nondescript.
            Because of it’s potential? That’s variable, and, if anything, it has just the same potential to be harmful to our race than it does to be helpful. So if anything it’s a mute point.

          • PJ4

            And by blastula stage, the methylation of the embryonic cells is complete.

            I was mocking you.
            Keep up.

            Second, I have trouble understanding the truth behind your quote.

            Take it up with Dr. Gilbert.

            When a species is born viable to live but unable to reproduce with the species it was born of.

            What of it? Just because it’s unable to reproduce doesn’t exclude it from the species as a whole.

            If a new species of dog came from the fertilization and then mutation of that zygote how is it a dog from fertilization to death?

            You’re assuming that one mutation would change it’s entire species.

            If a mutation occurred in a human that made it possible for us to have a functional 3rd hand, would that make the person with a 3rd hand no longer human?

            The point I want to see you argue is what qualities of a human fetus make it more important than that of a equally intelligent and remarkably genetically similar organism that you kill to eat?

            Well.. Singer brings up the point that most human toddlers share the same intelligence with apes.
            Thereby justifying infanticide, so I see where you’re coming form .

            But… yes, because it’s human.
            I disagree with it being too nondescript.

          • wytt

            Just because it’s unable to reproduce doesn’t exclude it from the species as a whole

            Actually the main way biologists classified species before being able to look at their differences in DNA was to ask whether or not two animals could mate and produce a fertile offspring. So if you can’t reproduce with the same species as your parent you have, after one mutation that “breaks the camels back”, become a separate species from your parent.

            If a baby was born with a functional 3rd arm and unable to produce fertile offspring with a 2-arm’ed human it would no longer be homo sapien. Not because of the third arm, though but because of the DNA differences (usually unequal chromosomal count in two organism’s gametes.)

          • PJ4

            Actually the main way biologists classified species before being able to look at their differences in DNA was to ask whether or not two animals could mate and produce a fertile offspring. .

            So, before we were able to look at human DNA an infertile women could have been a different species from a fertile woman?

            So if you can’t reproduce with the same species as your parent you have, after one mutation that “breaks the camels back”, become a separate species from your parent.

            But if it could reproduce there’s no guarantee that the mutation would be passed on.

          • wytt

            All right, it’s pretty well known that people classified species based on reproduction capabilities. And, no, an infertile woman is not considered apart from the human species. There’s a difference between not being able to reproduce and not being able to reproduce with a different species.

            You’re right, there is no guarantee the mutation would be passed on. If there was another new species that reproduced with a similar new species than it would be passed on, though. This is how new species are created.

          • PJ4

            If there was another new species that reproduced with a similar new species than it would be passed on, though. This is how new species are created.
            No argument from me on that

          • PJ4

            There’s a difference between not being able to reproduce and not being able to reproduce with a different species.
            Yes, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

          • wytt

            Not only that, but it still isn’t science fiction to include certain DNA emphases of animal genetic tags in humans. We COULD do that, we just think its unethical. It’s like how we can and do cross breed plants to gain different genetic advantages. It’s completely possible and has been in practice, albeit more “naturally,” since the first organism.

          • PJ4

            Would you find it ethical to cross bread humans with other animals?

          • wytt

            If we were ever to genetically modify ourselves it would not be cross-breading, but instead direct manipulation of the DNA. There are drugs that do that with the methyl coatings, I believe but citation is needed.

            Would I find it ethical? If humans aren’t hurt and the animal doesn’t go under significant harm then yes I guess it would be ethical.

          • PJ4

            Btw, we have made a few hybrids.
            And now we have smarter mice.

          • wytt

            And the moral basis on that is that pigs do not have an important enough future. I think this premise is wrong in and of itself, because one’s future is equally able to negatively impact those around you as it is to positively impact the world. With that in mind, it’s wrong to save/kill someone based on what they might do or are capable of doing. Instead we need to look at the right to life that we assign at least fully grown humans. Why is there a difference? Because we are noticeably more sentient than other organisms. If that’s true, than members of the homo sapiens species that are similarly sentient to animals we kill should be treated with the same rights to life.

          • PJ4

            No.
            Younger members of the homo sapien speices should be given the same right to life as their parents.
            Otherwise you could justify infanticide up to at least 2 years of age.

          • wytt

            Or you could say that harming similarly intelligent animals is wrong. Which is what I think those who are pro-life should do. Hell, it’s in your slogan. You’re PRO-LIFE. Why do you kill and eat life for your convenience, then?

          • PJ4

            Perhaps we should change it to pro human life then?
            Albeit I’m also an animal rights activist
            But I’m not a vegan
            You don’t have to be in order to demand that cats, dogs, similar pets and all primates shouldn’t be killed or tortured and that their habitats should not be destroyed
            I don’t know how I can justify eating a chicken or cow but not a dog or cat I just wouldn’t do it
            Crazy, huh?

          • PJ4

            What’s that vegan saying?
            Kill nothing with a face?

          • PJ4

            Also, wouldn’t it be just as much of a contradiction to be a vegan and pro “choice”?

          • wytt

            Not exactly. If you don’t eat animals because you think they have to right to life based on their intelligence and consciousness then yes. Some people don’t do it because eating meat is terrible for the environment and, especially in the proportions and types that many eat it today, bad for your health. In that case you don’t run into the irrationality that comes with not killing something solely based on the fact that it is human. That’s an absolute moral, which is bad.

          • PJ4

            I think there merit in absolute moral
            It’s an absolute moral to harm a fellow human being (unless of course they’re trying to harm you–in which case you could defend yourself) Without or without a god

          • wytt

            So then it’s not an absolute moral to harm a fellow human being. If they’re trying to hurt you, it’s morally ok. And what if they’re not hurting you, but they’re going to kill and torture everyone else? Or if they’re going to create a machine that erases humanity?

            To be rational means to decide on something based on the information you have and your known validity of that information. To be absolute one must stick with an idea despite information they learn. Thus, to believe in an absolute is to be irrational or at least to allow yourself to become irrational.

            I don’t know about you, but I think being rational is better than being irrational.

          • PJ4

            Love is irrational
            Id rather be in love

            I think there are absolute morals with rare exceptions

          • wytt

            Why is love irrational?
            What are these rare exceptions?

          • PJ4

            Love makes you lose your ability to reason

            I’d think these rare exceptions were obvious
            I just mentioned one: to protect yourself or others

          • wytt

            But it’s not absolute if it has an exception, what??

          • PJ4

            Ok
            Let’s look at murder and rape
            Id say those fall under moral absolutes

          • PJ4

            I disagree with eating meat being bad for the environment
            Our hunter gatherer ancestors ate meat
            Was it bad for the environment then?

          • wytt

            …no. Because they didn’t mass produce the meat. Mass production of meat doesn’t allow the plant life and animal life to coexist equally. Usually a species will grow until its environment can’t support it. The species will adapt to only grow large enough to live with its environment.

            When you begin making too many cows to be self-supportive you need to find more food than the grass available. This means creating a lot more grass, which uses a lot of water. Our diet and metabolism doesn’t require meat in such quantities, so the over production of it becomes a health risk for us and a waste of water. If instead we ate less meat and used the water on vegetables and fruit for us, there would be less of an environmental impact.

            Not only that but mass production of pigs and cattle causes a huge amount of feces. This waste is usually cared for poorly. If it’s not simply dumped into nearby bodies of water it is leaked into the groundwater or pushed into lakes and rivers by rainfall.

            Are you trolling now? I literally haven’t met anyone that didn’t know that our over-production of animals for meat was harmful to the environment. I’m not even saying don’t eat meat, just that’s its objectionably bad for the Earth.

          • PJ4

            I wasn’t taking about mass production
            I was talking about eating meat

          • wytt

            ok but when there are over 7 billion of us we have to mass produce in order to get meat. Obviously just taking a bite out of a cow isn’t hurting the environment. Why would I think that the act of eating meat is bad for you?

          • PJ4

            So your solution to having less of a popliteal yin is to kill off some of the weak? There could other ways around mass production
            Could there not?

            I’m not sure why you think or believe anything that you do
            I try not to make at assumptions

          • wytt

            Whoa, what? When did I say kill the weak? I’m saying it’d be better for the environment if we didn’t eat so much meat because we wouldn’t have to make as much.

          • PJ4

            Abortion kills a human weaker than you

            And I can see where you’re coming from on the meat eating
            Again, finding ways around mass production would be good

            For example I only buy meat from a local butcher who gets their meat from small organic local farms

          • PJ4

            I dunno about that
            I think truffle production is a pretty important enough future

  • MamaBear

    Is there anyway to round up these anti-life, anti-Christian, anti-First Amendment liberals, put them on a plane, and drop them into areas of the world controlled by the real Taliban?
    I’ll be nice and even let them have parachutes.

  • PJ4

    Glad this got posted!
    You’re right.
    But Cecile really is pretty depraved.
    And if you want a sample of more pro abort depravity just go to any RH thread….if you can stomach it. :-)

    • Basset_Hound

      Or she can wait and see when their trolls turn up here.

      • Thomas

        They are roaming SPL right now due to no oversight from ANYBODY there. I doubt they would want to give that up to post anything on a platform that actually monitors crossing the line :)