Wednesday, 05 March 2014 15:24

Planned Parenthood Head Offers Opinion on When Life Begins

Written by 

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards offered a telling statement recently about when she thinks life begins, an opinion that should alarm any individual concerned about protecting pre-born children.

In an interview on Fusion TV, a Disney-owned cable and satellite network, Richards said she believes the lives of her own children began only at the moment she chose to give birth to them.

“For you, when does life start?” interviewer Jorge Ramos asked Richards on the Fusion program America. “When does a human being become a human being?”

Stumbling awkwardly through her response, an uncomfortable Richards answered that “this is a question that I think will be debated through the centuries and people come down on very different points of view.”

Ramos attempted to corner the cagey Richards: “But for you what's that point?” — a question which the Planned Parenthood functionary dodged by lamely responding: “I mean, it’s not something that I feel like is really part of this conversation,” before haltingly saying that “I think every woman has to make her own decision.”

Richards insisted that “what we do at Planned Parenthood is make sure women have all their options for health care. They have an option to have a healthy pregnancy. They have an option to put up a child for adoption if they decide to carry a pregnancy to term, or they have a right to make a decision to terminate a pregnancy”— terminate being Planned Parenthood's preferred way of referring to the murderous abortion procedure.

Bringing Richards back to his original question, Ramos wondered why it would be “so controversial for you to say when you think life starts.” Richards questioned how such a common-sense question was “relevant to the conversation,” but dove in nonetheless by offering that “I'm a mother of three children. For me life began when I delivered them.

Realizing that such a heartless response would shock the average viewer, Richards quickly stammered the assurance that her children “have been probably the most important thing in my life ever since.”

However, feeling the need to add her company's marketing theme to the conversation, Richards punctuated her response with the observation that delivering her babies live rather than killing them before birth “was my own personal decision.”

In its latest annual report, Planned Parenthood recalled that its nationwide affiliates dispatched 327,166 (assumedly) pre-born babies via abortion during the 2012-2013 fiscal year. As for Richards insistence that her group promotes adoption to expectant mothers as an alternative to abortion, Planned Parenthood's report cited only 2,197 adoption referrals during the same reporting period — a ratio of 149 abortions for every adoption referral.

Responding to Richards' highly publicized interview, Marjorie Dannenfelser of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List noted that the remarks “were insensitive and unfeeling to any woman who has ever been pregnant, especially those women who have suffered the pain of miscarriage.”

Dannenfelser added that the politics of “reproductive choice” have marginalized the real-life experiences of millions of pregnant women. “Richards’ statement misses what most Americans understand about pregnancy, especially women.... There are two human beings involved,” she said.

Alluding to the abortion giant's plan to spend over $18 million this year to help elect pro-abortion Democrats in legislative and gubernatorial races, Dannenfelser said that “if there are disappointments at the ballot box for Planned Parenthood in 2014 it will be an outgrowth of this disconnect with the women they claim to represent.”

5 comments

  • Comment Link Mats Jangdal Friday, 07 March 2014 09:50 posted by Mats Jangdal

    Hans,
    I was objecting to the article that screams Murder! for any type of abortion and to Heidi, whom I have encountered before in a debate about religion.
    The article and some religious people claim that this is a subject with an absolute right or wrong. I claim it's not.
    References to the will of a God are irrelevant to people who do not believe in any God or do not believe in the same God as those making the reference.
    I agree killing other people is principally wrong. But as a society we accept exceptions to the rule. We mostly accept killing in self defense.
    Some accept mercy killing or assisted suicide for people with serious, lethal and or extremely painful conditions. If they expressly ask for this help. I accept this argument.
    Abortion is one way of avoiding some conditions like the one mentioned above.

    It comes down to, not a question of absolute yes or no to abortion. It comes down a deliberated agreement of when (weeks pregnancy) and under what circumstances society can accept abortion. In those societies that accept it, the time frame is usually between 10 and 18 weeks of pregnancy. In some societies it is entirely up to the woman to decide, in others a husband needs to approve and in some a medical board needs to approve on predetermined standards.

    So in short. No, killing an infant after it is born is not acceptable.

  • Comment Link Hans Thursday, 06 March 2014 23:41 posted by Hans

    I'm not sure I understand Mats. Are you basically saying that it doesn't matter at all when life starts? Or that life never really starts? If it's okay for a mother to get an abortion and kill another living thing, is it okay if she does it after the child is born? What if the child is several years old? Is there then ever a time when killing is murder? I mean, if to some people life starts at 40, can they then kill anyone under 40 because to them they haven't begun to live yet?

    I'm not completely against abortion if it's done very early, but to give someone the power the end someone's life and talk about freedoms while not expecting then to show some responsibility is ridiculous. Women are smart enough to check if they are pregnant if they are having sex, why is it so unreasonable then to expect them to discover they're are pregnant and terminate the pregnancy early, not after another living human is mostly developed? I couldn't care less what any other human being does with their body, but when another life is involved, one that they took part in creating, I expect them to be responsible.

  • Comment Link Mats Jangdal Thursday, 06 March 2014 03:32 posted by Mats Jangdal

    Harsh words, but expected, coming from you Heidi.
    Yes, men are for the most part aware of the financial risk with being involved with women. This empowers women far more than the feminists confess to.
    Calling your fellow sisters mere "vessels.. of goods", how extreme is that? Does it make you popular? Does it make you proud to be a vessel? Do you think it raises the risk of you and other women being manipulated into submission?

    On the subject of interdependency of other entities, I am interdependent of cows, pigs and spuds. But that does not make them human. Most people do not call it murder to kill a pig. It's part of life. A choice you make.
    Life is about choices. The right to choose abortion is right for those who choose so. If you choose not to have any abortion, that's the right choice for you.
    But your choice does not give you the right to choose for others.

  • Comment Link Heidi Preston Thursday, 06 March 2014 02:53 posted by Heidi Preston

    Mats Jangdal you are so off base, I don't even know where to start educating you. But I will start with your ridiculous assertion that a fetus is not a living entity of it's own. So you think that because a human being is dependent on another for surviving it is therefore a non entity/human being?
    After the baby/ fetus is born (to where you can see it, feel it ) it is far from independent of another human being. Fact or fiction? Fact is the answer. Even long after we are so called adults we are dependent on others for our basic needs, this is an never ending cycle of symbiotic condition of life in general. Your logic is hugely misguided by falsehood. Cancer is not a human being and therefor not even a good analogy for anything but poisonous rhetoric on your part. Therefore I will cut that part out of the dialogue.
    Life begins at conception when two humans create another human being. Let alone it will follow the course of creation and grow into a human being (cancer would be a subset of a human being) not a tree, not a dog, not a chair ect.

    The challenge that you speak of is that a woman is not the sole participant in the creation of life. There are two. A male and a female. The woman just happens to be the vessel that carries the goods not the sole proprietor of the goods. The male is forced to pay any and all child support yet has no rights or say to a woman having an abortion wife, girlfriend,or lover. The courts see the male contributor as a financial support to the production of children but no equal rights.

    If a woman wants to make that all god given righteous decision over her body, then let it be in the very decision of copulating with a MALE.

    Your rant is illogical and so off base you truly do stand for the morons who think killing their own kind is a good thing...both male and female babies.

  • Comment Link Mats Jangdal Thursday, 06 March 2014 01:56 posted by Mats Jangdal

    This article is clearly hate speech. What a twisted self perception, taking the right to call others murderers.
    When does life begin? Big Bang? The first breathing cell? The first bacteria? The first mollusk?
    Is life predetermined, without individual choice? Is life moving along according to a set plan? Can we influence how life develops? Are we permitted to influence life? Without being called murderers?

    A fetus is not a living entity of it's own. At the first stages after conception it has less life, is less of an entity than cancer. We happily carve out cancer, preferably sooner than later.

    When does life begin? At birth? When you turn 18 and become solely responsible for your actions? Life begins at 40, some say. Counting from birth.

    What is it in the land of individual freedom that makes it so challenging to some, that women claim the right to decide about their own bodies?

    What an insult to logic, what an insult to a free society, placing blame on women who choose abortion, calling it insensitive to women who miscarriage. Is inheriting money an insult those who don't? Is making money on good business unjust to those can't? What kind of totalitarian society is the argument of this article aiming at?

Please Log In To Comment
Log in