It ain't cajones. It's unmitigated gall.

Or - a different perspective? Perhaps this young couple is very much in love and they are just not ready to bring a child into this world. So they want to wait. They seek to educate themselves about birth control and the wide variety of options available to them so that they can plan their parenthood - to have a child when they are ready financially and emotionally. And they want to make this decision together. There are many birth control options available in today's world (and I am not including abortion in this list of options - abortion should not be used as a form of birth control), so they sought the assistance of Planned Parenthood to help educate them about their options. They did all of this before they ever got pregnant. That's the point - they want to plan their parenthood and be responsible adults, and they want to make the decision together - about their method of birth control as well as when to have a child. Planned Parenthood is about so much more than abortion. It's about education - before abortion ever factors into the equation.

That's what I see when I see this billboard. Just a different perspective.

I'm with Diva. I look at that same photo and see nothing like what you describe, Joel. Perhaps you're reading your own stereotypes of black couples into your interpretation? Of course, what's most disturbing about your post is this statement: "As a pro-life man I simply refuse anymore to defer on the subject of abortion to female pro-abortion voices." Here you conjure up the very worst imagery of the controlling, abusive man (and, as a fellow bearer of a y-chromosome, I am appalled by your sentiment). As you will NEVER be pregnant, NEVER carry an unwanted pregnancy for nine months, NEVER go through labor and push a small child through your cervix, then your refusal to defer to women on the subject reeks of ignorance. As a white guy, I could just as easily say, "I refuse to defer on the subject of slavery to black anti-slavery voices," and it would carry about as much credibility.

Dear Consevativeshateamerica,

You comment negatively on a lot of conservative blogs.

How come you never use your real name? Why hide if your message is so wonderful?

Jim -- what do you mean by "negatively"? Is any expression of a contrary opinion "negative"? It's troubling that much of the conservative mindset, perhaps initiated by Rush Limbaugh and emulated by his talk radio followers, is a "dittohead mentality" -- people are only permitted to parrot like-minded conservative opinions, while opposing voices are only intermittently accommodated, primarily to be shouted down. I don't see much point in commenting on liberal blogs whose opinions I share -- what should I be posting, "I agree, keep it up?" What's the point in that?

In any event, as long as I am not attacking or threatening anyone, why do you care if I opt to use a pen name? There are a lot of crazy people out there, so why should I subject myself to potential harassment? If I were a professional pundit, it would be one thing; but if one is simply entering into online debates, it shouldn't make a difference to you what I call myself, as long as I'm not claiming to speak with any official imprimatur, or doing something illegal.

I completely agree with you, Joel. As a pro-life man, I also will never, EVER defer to the destructive voices of those who would promote the abstract notion of Choice over the reality of destroying their own progeny. It's not about control, as the terribly misinformed CHA has uttered above; it's about being a voice of reason in preventing a woman from the same fate as 88% of those who have chosen abortion: severe, lasting depression.

I agree with Diva. Where are you getting your comment that they are only consulting with PP to kill a baby? They have questions. Questions. They are going to PP to get answers. So step back and think about that. Isn't it better that they understand the consequences of what they are doing?

And Conservativeshateamerica DID express a contrary opinion. That's not negative.

Welcome, CHA, catchy-yet-risible anonymous moniker and all. I agree with you that it's more interesting to comment on sites you don't agree with. And so I for one welcome our new CHA overlords.

As for the "most disturbing" statement in this post, I maintain that it is defensible on the following basis: that the unborn are human beings, with all attended rights, both civil and natural. The fact that a woman's rights over her own body must necessarily overlap, coexist and, if necessary, defer to her unborn child's right to live is a biological circumstance. Rail against nature herself, if you must. But if you wish to shame me off of my disturbing comment, you must attack the premise from which my statement derives.

As for your oblique intimation that I am a stereotyper of black couples, I say, "you scoundrel!" It's fine to comment under a pseudonym, but you must explain what you mean or don't bring it up.

Diva, I concede the validity in looking at the billboard from a different perspective. For one thing, it's really an excellent piece of advertising work. It's just that, for me, I can't conscionalby dissociate it from PP's heritage. That whole Sanger/euginics/Negro Project background sticks in my craw.

You don't ask the barber if you need haircut.

PP is the last place you go for a "full range of advice." It's where you go to get told that it's okay to kill your child.

They do it so successfully that they have increased their abort-to-adopt ratio from 35-to-1 to 138-to-1 in the last twenty years.

Look on the bright side. If you eliminate the baby you also eliminate that annoying question, who my baby daddy?

Michael, you're either being moronically offensive or brilliantly satirical. Either way, in my opinion, you've captured the spirit of the American eugenics experiment, both in the past and today. It is the poor, the undereducated and non-whites in general who have always been the stated targets of American eugenics.

The fact that Planned Parenthood today performs disproportionately higher numbers of abortions to African Americans and Hispanics today makes PP's protestations that they view "some" of Sanger's views as "outmoded" simply incredible.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: