Gloria Feldt - President of Planned Parenthood Makes Sick Statement (Suprise!)

Abortions -- The Truth ^ | 10-24-03 | Frank Joseph MD

[cpforlife.org]

Gloria Feldt, the president of Planned Parenthood, the leading killers of human life the world has ever known, made the following statement after the Senate passed the ban on the barbaric partial-birth abortion. The detection of a mindset akin to Adolph Hitler is startling.

"It takes acknowledgment that choice is not pretty, but neither is the alternative -- medically risky pregnancies that threaten a woman's life, unwanted babies who will never know love, and an increased population of children with serious birth defects, living in a society less willing to pay for them."

Satan, himself would be hard pressed to make the above statement for fear of sounding too callous and hitleresque. It is better to kill an unwanted child than to put him/her up for adoption. Could it be that PP makes no money if the child is adopted?

And we certainly don't want children with birth defects to be mingling with normal people.

WOW! This statement gives proof of the evil that is Planned Parenthood and the entire abortion industry and their followers, who go by the name of pro-choice [to kill unborn children]

I don't know if even Hitler put his feeling regarding ethnic cleansing in writing as blunt, cold and callous as Gloria Feldt.

BTW, she also lies. She says, "threatens a woman's life." There was an exception that it could be done to SAVE a woman's life. But, I guess the lie sounds better to her followers.

Frankly, I don't know why the exception was even included, because if the woman's life was in danger, a reputable doctor would not use this long drawn out procedure. But, I guess the pro-life legislatures wanted to throw some crumbs to the pro-aborts.

It is NOT an emergency procedure. The cervix has to be dilated over a two day period. Oh, I guess if the pregnancy gave the woman a headache, it might work -- which is why the pro-aborts wanted a "health" clause in the ban, but were denied and rightfully so. Otherwise, the ban would have been completely useless.

Such is the world of today. The hatred of a whole group of people, being killed at a rate of 4,000 every day in the United States. Not much has changed from the Third Reich.

Oh, Feldt also said, "a decision about what method of surgery to use should be between a woman and her doctor."

Doesn't she mean between a woman and the doctor who kills unborn children for a living? Is the abortionist really going to say, "have the baby, there is a better way -- adoption -- and you will not increase your risk of getting breast cancer, or increase your risk of alcohol and drug abuse and suicides -- from the mental torture that many women experience after they had their child killed?

Nor will you increase your risk of having a miscarriage in subsequent pregnancies, or preterm births. These children are of low birth weight and thus more prone to develop physical and mental problems including cerebral palsy.

Can you just hear an abortionist, the woman's doctor, saying these things?

Frank Joseph MD DFjosephMD@aol.com

[cpforlife.org]

Go Dr. Frank!! Another Home Run!!

[cpforlife.org]

PING with Warning: (Barf Alert!)

Gloria Feldt (Planned Barren-hood) makes statement.

Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

Gloria Feldt

[NYer]

"It takes acknowledgment that choice is not pretty, but neither is the alternative -- medically risky pregnancies that threaten a woman's life, unwanted babies who will never know love, and an increased population of children with serious birth defects, living in a society less willing to pay for them."

Gloria Feldt and George Felos should team up. They both have the same unconscienable views on life ... or is it death?

[governsleastgovernsbest]

unwanted babies who will never know love

Even the Gloria Feldts of the world would not give mothers who decide they don't love their babies after they're born the right to kill them.

So this argument doesn't advance the pro-choice case at all. It still comes down to the question of whether and at what point a baby is entitled to protection.

[old patriot]

It is better to kill an unwanted child than to put him/her up for adoption.

And the reason that they say this is because they wish all of that adoption money going to the PRC (Red Commie China) so that they can sell all of those unwanted girl babies to American couples. Also, the PRK (Commie North Korea) is forcing abortions on any Korean woman that the PRC has repatriated back to starvation in North Korea. And if the child lives after being born, they are being killed.

All of this simply goes back to the point that Planned Parenthood is a commie-front organization run by preverts so that they can continue all of their preversions. Beam me up, Scotty.

Old Patriot

[Skooz]

bookmarked.

[Aquinasfan]

unwanted babies who will never know love, and an increased population of children with serious birth defects, living in a society less willing to pay for them

It's tragic that assertions like this go unchallenged in the media. How does she know that these babies are unwanted? There are many parents waiting to adopt. An increased population of children with birth defects? Huh? And even if this was true, is it better to kill children with birth defects than to let them live? If the answer is yes, then this woman should be out killing all living extra-uterine people with birth defects.

[8mmMauser]

Ahh, Margaret Sanger, Father of Planned Barrenhood, receives the lifetime achievement award, for far exceeding the more feeble efforts of Adolph Hitler.

Except she is already dead, a lifetime goal achieved.

Rejoice communist party, moveon, socialists, democrats, for now anyway.

[RobbyS]

Note the radical pressimism: the refusal to face the fact that life is unpredictable, and to use the world "love" and then to admit that the problem is not the"unwanted" child but a society that rejects even the "wanted child" when it causes too much trouble. The pope himslef could not better have descried the "culture of death." Sin has made this woman cold-hearted.

[agrace]

Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, by George Grant

Great book. PP hasn't changed a bit since its inception, other than adapting nicely to the incessant PR campaign against life.

Of course Gloria's statements (she sounds exactly like PP's founder Margaret Sanger) won't be commented on in the media. Outrageous, but expected.

[ODDITHER]

Playing God - The liberal left is really good at trying to do that. In the end all they have done is Play Satan- better than Satan could.

In order to make that statement she must be able to see the future and know what is in the hearts of the women she is referring to.

How does she know for certainty that these children will be unloved and unwanted? Does that mean she is convinced that the mothers of these children are incapable of adjusting and adapting once they hold that baby in their arms? Does she feel that they are so heartless and callous that they would not be able to give the baby up for adoption, but would rather keep it and hate it for the rest of it's life?

Can she see into the future and know for certainty that the mother would not regret the decision of aborting her child after it is too late?

For far too long the "choice" people have played satan. Ensuring that innocent victims are murdered, so that the mother does not have the discomfort of living with her bad choices. You see, the choice should be made, prior to procreation. The woman and man must make those hard choices by saying lets use three types of birth control, or lets abstain from sex until we are ready for a family. or I will have this child and let a barren loving family raise it. The easiest choice (short term) is abortion. Hard choices are dealing with consequences in a way that will harm no one.

[ODDITHER]

Playing God - The liberal left is really good at trying to do that. In the end all they have done is Play Satan- better than Satan could.

In order to make that statement she must be able to see the future and know what is in the hearts of the women she is referring to.

How does she know for certainty that these children will be unloved and unwanted? Does that mean she is convinced that the mothers of these children are incapable of adjusting and adapting once they hold that baby in their arms? Does she feel that they are so heartless and callous that they would not be able to give the baby up for adoption, but would rather keep it and hate it for the rest of it's life?

Can she see into the future and know for certainty that the mother would not regret the decision of aborting her child after it is too late?

For far too long the "choice" people have played satan. Ensuring that innocent victims are murdered, so that the mother does not have the discomfort of living with her bad choices. You see, the choice should be made, prior to procreation. The woman and man must make those hard choices by saying lets use three types of birth control, or lets abstain from sex until we are ready for a family. or I will have this child and let a barren loving family raise it. The easiest choice (short term) is abortion. Hard choices are dealing with consequences in a way that will harm no one.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - Murder, Inc ALERT!

[MHGinTN]

Unchallenged? ... What is most astonishing to me is that folks do not cut down to the essence of her mindset, that she is advocating serial killing of prenatal children, alive human beings, as a means to effect the 'quality of life' for the woman! Murder is crreeping into our collective psyche as an agreeable means to improve 'quality of life'. Throughout history, nations that fail to expose this evil trend fall to it.

[MHGinTN]

This same mindset, that killing other human lives to improve someone else's quality of life is driving the ESCR and research/therapeutic cloning issues. IOW, cannibalism will be sold to you as a means to improve the quality of lives by killing and harvesting younger lives. Gloria no doubt already embraces this notion; there are cloning and ESCR programs currently utilizing the stem cells harvested from aborted children, so Gloria's perspective is much in vogue, seen as enlightened no doubt.

[Saundra Duffy]

Rid the world of "undesirables" who are taking up space and draining our resources. Let's start with Gloria. Move over. I need your air!! Survival of the fittest.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>>>>>>>Could it be that PP makes no money if the child is adopted?

You nailed it. Guess which Presidential candidate used to work at a Planned Parenthood Clinic?

[Richard Kimball]

BTW, she also lies. She says, "threatens a woman's life." There was an exception that it could be done to SAVE a woman's life. But, I guess the lie sounds better to her followers.

Frankly, I don't know why the exception was even included, because if the woman's life was in danger, a reputable doctor would not use this long drawn out procedure. But, I guess the pro-life legislatures wanted to throw some crumbs to the pro-aborts.

What the Pro-Aborts wanted was to protect the "health and safety" of the mother. This would have made the law functionally a moot point, as PP would have hired a Psych to say "It would harm her psychologically to carry the child to term." Also, not including the "to protect the life of the mother" clause would have allowed Ruth Babykiller Ginsberg and her ilk to declare the law unconstitutional. They might do it anyway, but they'll have to invent another new constitutional right before they can.

[Lorianne]

Once we define a child as "the problem" we have a REAL problem, one of epic proportions.

Just using common logic, a child who had no conscious involvement in his own creation cannot possibly be labelled as the "problem". All this is, is adults passing the buck for their behaviour onto a less powerful entity (as usual throughout history). It is the classic Might Makes Right argument.

Instead of defining the child as "the problem" lets all insist that the adults involved in the creation the child (and that is TWO adults by the way) be held responsible. If we must insist that procreation presents a "problem" let us also insist it is one of the ADULTS own making, not the new individual created. And let's hold procreating ADULTS appropriately accountable for their actions. This is only logical and rational and the only course with integrity.

No more lying about who or what is "the problem" in procreation.

[Lorianne]

Precisely.