Skip to comments.Planned Parenthood cries foul over Anthony verdict, fears could render abortions obsolete
Posted on 07/06/2011 7:15:10 AM PDT by jacknhoo
WASHINGTON In an ironic twist, Planned Parenthood, the health care and industry-leading abortion provider, has joined some of its longtime pro-life antagonists in condemning a Florida jurys decision to acquit Tot Mom Casey Anthony of murdering her daughter, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. While the organization may find itself in agreement with some of its archenemies on the issue of the promiscuous procreators alleged actions, it took a very different path in getting there. According to a statement it released, Planned Parenthood believes This case sets a dangerous precedent. If women can so easily be acquitted of murdering their own children, the very viability of one of our important operating divisions is threatened. Although abortion is not the firms core business, the controversial procedures reportedly account for up to 15 percent of its annual revenues, and analysts who follow the company warn that layoffs and other painful cost cutting moves would be necessary should that
Pro-abortion activists protest the legalization of ex-utero child slayings sector of its business plan be shuttered. No one saw this verdict coming, said Abbey Krill, an attorney for Planned Parenthood. Dont quote me on this, but the Casey Anthony verdict could be to abortions what the automobile was to horse and buggies. Legal experts say there is little the agency can do besides making an effort to influence future juries. In fact, Krill confirmed its lobbyists are going to do just that, along with an education campaign aimed at would-be child killers. Were going to push for a number of things, she said. IQ tests for jurors, laws requiring the prosecutions case to be translated into coloring books that are easier for simple-minded jurors to understand there are several avenues were exploring on Capitol Hill. This is very important for womens rights, she added. We need to raise awareness that abortion is still and always the safer option. We remind women that its still technically illegal to murder your child you never know when theyll start enforcing that again. Your prosecutor might beat the odds it only takes one juror with intelligence and courage to derail your acquittal, and were going to be out on the streets stressing that to women.
Excerpt: "We remind women that its still technically illegal to murder your child you never know when theyll start enforcing that again."
Wow, it still runs chills down my spine...the callousness of the satanic child killing industries. Those industries WE ALL support with our tax dollars.
This is sooooooo obviously satire. Sure doesn’t belong in breaking news.
This IS satire...correct?
I’m betting this is satire. Look at the publication’s name.
According to their own statistics, 97% of PP's pregnant clients get abortions - i.e. kill their babies.
It IS their 'core business.'
This is such a nasty and insane statement that it seems as if satire. They really made this statement?
I’ve been awake for a long time, but my brain is clearly not functioning yet. :)
This is utterly plausible.
Satire and abortion is always a dangerous combination. It should be left to professionals. This is not particularly funny.
We clearly are a country of values. /s
Weve “empowered” women to the point where its become normal for them to kill their child while pregnant and be completely fine. I always hated the phrase, “its my body”, its also someone elses life. I never thought I could see such selfish excuses for human beings in my life until I met the modern day liberal feminist cunt(excuse my language but its well deserved).
It doesnt surprise me that there are alot of american men who just dont marry white american women anymore. Add liberal to that woman and you got my views.
Another freeper mentioned a quote from his grandmother the other day, was something along the lines of: “Men can be bad, but women can truly be evil”
Ok i didnt see the publisher, but as others said it is actually plausible that these freaks would say something like this.
I agree. Not funny at all.
Oh good God, did you really post this moronic satire as breaking news? Epic posting fail...
No kidding. Murder while they are still hidden in the womb.
I hate satire.
Satire, however it makes the point
that if we can kill children in the womb,
why not a year or two later ?
They are all done in order
to pursue the "bella vita"
“This IS satire...correct?”
Not according to Dr. Peter Singer, who is the bioethics chairman at Princeton University and a big promoter of infanticide aka post-birth abortion.
“In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons; therefore, the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.
PETER SINGER- NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ABORTION AND INFANTICIDE
To the dismay of popular abortion advocates, Singer rejects birth as a relevant dividing line between person and nonperson, agreeing with pro-life advocates that there is no ontologically significant difference between the fetus and a newborn. True, there are differences of size, location, dependency, and development, but these are morally irrelevant. The liberal search for a morally crucial dividing line between the newborn baby and the fetus has failed to yield any event or stage of development that can bear the weight of separating those with a right to life from those who lack such a right.
Who do you think teaches the boys, who become men, to be bad?
Basically, the woman thought she was entitled to murder her daughter if she was inconvenient because the abortion culture taught her that.
What's the difference? Inside you or out? As long as the killing is done without gunfire, apparently it's a "woman's right"?
Classically, satire is not about humor but a technique to bring about change. When Swift wrote A Modest Proposal he did not intend for his audience to laugh at the prospect of roasting and eating Irish babies. Swift intended to bring about change by making people feel very uncomfortable about what is really happening. That is exactly what this piece of satire is doing.
They had a satirical piece about the U.S. diplomatic efforts to exchange “Snooki” for convicted murderer Amanda Knox.
They were trying to be funny about Planned Parenthood and abortion. In my opinion, they failed.
With current technology, and websites like Urban Dictionary, redefining the meaning of words can occur at twitter speed. Good satire should contain elements of humor.
Not for the baby.
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and
criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context
of contemporary politics and other topical issues
It’s not murder. It’s a self-induced, extremely late term abortion.
Girls just wanna have fun.
“I call it a total birth abortion...with the right language, Obama would sign it into law.”
And a large campaign contribution from his Planned Parenthood pals.
And the alternate juror who spoke to the press said the prosecution couldn’t provide a MOTIVE that would help the jury convict....
Or a post-birth abortion.
Or you could ask the question...how safely can we kill you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.