635
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 132:
Line 132: +
→Represent the Good Side (posted on Andy's wall, too)
I think the articles gives too little credit for good things that Planned Parenthood does. I have many friends (who have never had sex) who use Planned Parenthood for cheaper birth control pills, to regulate their hormones and control what would otherwise be excruciatingly painful cycles, if you know what I mean. They also use Planned Parenthood for annual gynecological exams at a discounted rate, since having a private practice doctor do the same exam is significantly more expensive. I think we can disagree about abortions, but I think women's health is an absolute positive, and something that Planned Parenthood does well. The article should say so.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 10:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I think the articles gives too little credit for good things that Planned Parenthood does. I have many friends (who have never had sex) who use Planned Parenthood for cheaper birth control pills, to regulate their hormones and control what would otherwise be excruciatingly painful cycles, if you know what I mean. They also use Planned Parenthood for annual gynecological exams at a discounted rate, since having a private practice doctor do the same exam is significantly more expensive. I think we can disagree about abortions, but I think women's health is an absolute positive, and something that Planned Parenthood does well. The article should say so.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 10:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:The argument that would be made here is that the only reason the health-care and medicines are so cheap is that the abortions performed at PP subsidize everything else. In other words, a woman gets "gynecological exams at a discounted rate" because she's getting them at the expense of dead babies. In other ''other'' words there is no good at Planned Parenthood only ''less bad'' things. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 10:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
== Interesting ==
== Interesting ==
Interesting article, but it really should be named something like "controversial historical issues in PP" given that most of the content has absolutely nothing to do with the modern organization. I have a decent amount of contact with them, and their current organization is completely misrepresented here. It really is a travesty, but I'm not the one to fix it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 10:30, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Interesting article, but it really should be named something like "controversial historical issues in PP" given that most of the content has absolutely nothing to do with the modern organization. I have a decent amount of contact with them, and their current organization is completely misrepresented here. It really is a travesty, but I'm not the one to fix it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 10:30, 2 April 2007 (EDT)