Pregnancy help centers are giving women the truth, and the abortion industry hates it


It would help, if they were actually trying to help. Their main goal is to help the fetus up to birth, and then no longer help at all.

"We want to appear neutral on the outside. The best call, the best client you can ever get, is one that thinks that they're walking into an abortion clinic. Okay? Those are the best clients that could ever walk in your door or call your center — the ones that think you provide abortions." - Abby Johnson, an anti-abortion activist, speaking at a national CPC conference

So they mislead women, don't provide any medical services (therefore they can legally lie to these women because they are not "patients") and provide almost no assistance what so ever.

“I was willing to give equal choice and that is not good enough for you.” ----- NO, you were “willing” to deny any future choices of the human beings killed through abortion.

“You want to make choices for others and not allow anyone choice.” ----- NOPE, not at all. Who, again, CHOSE to engage in the sole behavior that naturally creates a new human being? Who, again, chose to engage in that behavior, despite knowing that she didn’t want a child?

“Then in an act of utter hypocrisy, you choose to allow an abortion that IS your choice to stop if you so choose.” ----- REALLY? Why do you believe that stopping an individual from making the choice to kill their child is a viable act? Why isn’t the individual who is choosing to have the abortion responsible? Again, by your “logic” YOU are responsible for the battery of every woman of an abusive husband/boyfriend. Why aren’t YOU stopping that battery? Why do YOU choose to be pro-abuse?

If they wanted the child, and the outcome was likely to be positive, most, I'd venture. But again, not the point. If a technology existed that meant 14 week fetuses were viable (define "viability"as 10% survive, or 50%, or 95%--for purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter) outside the womb, with advanced medical support, then using "viability" as the point at which abortion is no longer acceptable is going to reduce the fetal age where abortions are permitted. Thus, my conclusion--not a great criteria to use.

Cost is a different issue. I am able to separate the financial discussion from the ethical one here. If we get into a financial discussion about who should be given healthcare for what reasons, when it can be "better" spent elsewhere, I'd broaden the conversation well beyond abortion rights, rather than conflate the 2.

"I would love for you to cite these anecdotal incidents and have you explain to me how they evidence a soul and not brain activity"

Biology does not explain morals, or the ability to have abstract thought, or a desire for immortality. This is self evident. There are plenty of historical documents that claim souls exist. You even know what some of them are, though you choose to reject them. You're capable of doing your own research. I'm convinced you're unwilling because you're not up to the challenge. I provided references for you to learn about on your own, since you refuse to learn from me. Whether you make the effort is up to you.

"Of course, you cannot disprove a soul."

And yet you claim you're sure it doesn't exist. See the problem yet?

"If I told you a flying spaghetti monster was responsible for all creation could you disprove that?"

And if you had started with, "I believe there's no such thing as a soul.", I might have given you an upvote for knowing the difference between belief and fact, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I haven't used a religious argument once here. The argument I and others here are using are based in biology, not religion. Most of the people I know who are pro-life are not pro-life because of their religiously held beliefs. They are pro-life because they see no scientific basis for denying that what is inside the womb is at once alive, unique, independent, complete in it's genetic makeup, and intrinsically human. They recognize that the womb is just a conducive environment, and that at birth the environment changes, while the dependence doesn't. They see no need to come up with some politically charged meaningless pseudo terms like "mass of cells" and "potential human" (which describes what it WILL be, not what it IS) to justify some inhumane desire to kill it if it is less than convenient. There's no religious bent to that position. Just a recognition of what scientifically exists. All the terms like "potential human" that are used to dehumanize the life in the womb are socially and politically motivated, and have absolutely NO basis in science. One doesn't need to use religion to come to the conclusion that killing it ends a scientifically human life.

A) And what is my education that I trust faith based group's "misrepresentation of biology" (whatever that is, which you have not defined...) over my schooling? What even is my faith that you know it's wrong?

B) You keep saying my "viewpoint of biology is not supported by main stream science". But you can't (or won't) show me how. Curious.

If you had said my "viewpoint of biology is not supported by main stream MEDIA", I might have agreed with you. But you didn't, and media isn't science anyway. I'll wager I've had far more biology education than you have, given our conversation thus far. I just think you're too blinded by your hatred of religion on this matter to see clearly. I keep telling you religion isn't part of my discussion, and you insist on bringing it into it anyway. As I said before, the truth comes out. Your real motivations here are obvious.

use interchangeably"Do you know how annoying it is repeating myself to you?"

Then don't.

"I was raised Catholic."

Which is self-evident. Thus my earlier comment.

"'My god' is vernacular."

I have yet you experience a true atheist to thusly 'vernacle'.

"Moral/ethics, use interchangeably"

No. Ethics are the result of external consensus, such as professional ethics. Morals are results of internalized believes, handed down from a higher being ("god") or though a proxy ("prophet").

"'Scripture quotes' Where ... ?"

Here: "[...] God hardened Pharaoh's heart [...]"

" I was mocking you."

No. I was mocking you, because you used association to an imaginary grouping - "thinking people" - to bolster your non-existent argument. I pointed out that you aren't.

"You're a bigot who can't accept someone thinks differently than they do [...]"

I fully accept that you are of a different opinion. As noted above, I have serious doubts about your "thinking."

"[...] while simultaneously holding similar positions on other things."

As in... ?

"It's just common sense that help centers run by anti-abortion groups are going to promote NOT having an abortion. You must at least agree with that."

Well sure, but that's quite a far cry from them intentionally misleading people, which is what you're claiming.

"Do you think they don't spread misinformation to the women who come in? Come on, use some common sense at least."

Considering I've cited a court case dismissing that exact contention, I'll take your assertion with a grain of salt.

"You simply dismiss any information you don't like as "biased"."

Alright you need to stop spouting bullshit. I've presented evidence to support my position. You, on the other hand, simply say "nuh uh! I'm right!"

Even the Supreme Court sided with "crisis centers" saying that they cannot be forced to advertise for abortions, which is essentially what they are being forced to do.;cuid=3677626" rel="nofollow noopener" title="" target="_blank" class='link_art' rel='nofollow' >

Again, you're claiming that these facilities are intentionally giving false information to people, despite evidence to the contrary.

Still missing the point.....

Assume viability creeps down over time... based on history, we know medical science advances, sometimes by leaps, and sometimes in increments. For purposes of this discussion, it doesn't used to be 28 or 29 weeks. Viability today is 21 weeks. Some day, 20 weeks, then 19, then 18....who knows how low it gets?

If abortion is permitted until "viability", you've established a standard that will become more restrictive, whether gradually, or suddenly. You may be cool with that, I'm not. I prefer a definition and cutoff which is somewhat less likely to change, like the actual rate of development defined by human biology, not the ability of medical science to overcome it.


“Women who chose sex are responsible for the pregnancy” ----- Yup.

“Women who choose boyfriend/husband are responsible for their beatings.” ----- NOPE. Swing and a miss.

“Women who are pregnant need to have their decisions made for them and loose all choice.” ---- NOPE. Strike two. Not being able to kill one’s own child IN NO WAY amounts to “me making decisions for women”. You have just presented what is called a NON-SEQUITUR – a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

“Therefore women being beaten should have their boyfriends/husbands chosen for them.” ----- NOPE. Three strikes – you’re out. Thanks for playing. Better luck next at bat.