Interview with Former Planned Parenthood Director.

If you have 45 minutes, please watch this interview with Abby Johnson. She was a former director of Planned Parenthood and is now a Pro-life activist. She is very knowledgeable of the abortion industry, and after this interview you will know why the left is pushing for these bills in these Progressive states and it is NOT to help women!!!!. It is only to line the pockets of the abortion industry which is a big donor to the Democrat party.

 

3+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

12 thoughts on “Interview with Former Planned Parenthood Director.”

  1. It’s nice to see Abby Johnson is still out there. This is her talk from a few years back in which she tells her story of leaving Planned Parenthood. She’s very funny but also very moving.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  2. I wish people would be forced to see the actual procedure. If abortion is something people want they should be willing to see it in detail. There is always something truly evil about euphemism that hide facts from people.

    Part of me is very thankful that certain people are not reproducing. So they don’t want to have kids because they are not ready. I agree they shouldn’t have children. I don’t think they would be too happy if people deemed their lives inconvenient like they deem the lives of others.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  3. 10 Cents:
    Part of me is very thankful that certain people are not reproducing. So they don’t want to have kids because they are not ready. I agree they shouldn’t have children.

    Exactly. Take personal responsibility for the most important decision of your life.

    0

  4. 10 Cents:
    I wish people would be forced to see the actual procedure. If abortion is something people want they should be willing to see it in detail. There is always something truly evil about euphemism that hide facts from people.

    I can’t believe I’m going to push back on this because we’re in basic agreement. The thesis that you should see things you support (or benefit from) in great detail applies equally to slaughterhouses. While I support the principle, most people could not stand seeing where their food comes from. I’m sure PETA is all for it. It’s a standard trick activists use all the time.

    To repeat (because I know I’ll be misinterpreted): I have no problem* seeing animals killed for food. But if the public at large were shown graphic documentaries about slaughterhouses, mass production of meat for human consumption would end. I’ll also predict that if and when artificially production of meat is perfected, killing animals for food will be viewed the same way you view abortion and slavery: a horrible crime. Many things are normal before viable alternatives are found; after, no one can figure out how anyone tolerated them.

    *well, maybe a little bit squeamish because of limited experience

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  5. drlorentz:

    10 Cents:
    I wish people would be forced to see the actual procedure. If abortion is something people want they should be willing to see it in detail. There is always something truly evil about euphemism that hide facts from people.

    I can’t believe I’m going to push back on this because we’re in basic agreement. The thesis that you should see things you support (or benefit from) in great detail applies equally to slaughterhouses. While I support the principle, most people could not stand seeing where their food comes from. I’m sure PETA is all for it. It’s a standard trick activists use all the time.

    To repeat (because I know I’ll be misinterpreted): I have no problem* seeing animals killed for food. But if the public at large were shown graphic documentaries about slaughterhouses, mass production of meat for human consumption would end. I’ll also predict that if and when artificially production of meat is perfected, killing animals for food will be viewed the same way you view abortion and slavery: a horrible crime. Many things are normal before viable alternatives are found; after, no one can figure out how anyone tolerated them.

    *well, maybe a little bit squeamish because of limited experience

    Do you believe “slaughterhouse” is an euphemism? I don’t. I think most people understand killing is going on there.

    What are you proposing? Are you proposing that one should not let people know the details of their decisions because those details would cause people to make decisions you don’t favor i.e. stop meat production? If so, isn’t this why the left want “hate facts” to be squelched?

    0

  6. 10 Cents:
    Do you believe “slaughterhouse” is an euphemism? I don’t. I think most people understand killing is going on there.

    Do you believe “abortion” is a euphemism? The discussion is not about the word. Some guy on this thread (I forget who) wrote,

    10 Cents:
    I wish people would be forced to see the actual procedure. If abortion is something people want they should be willing to see it in detail. [enphasis added]

    It’s not about words; it’s about “see[ing] it in detail”, at least according to that guy. And my answer was to the point (in bold above) made by that guy. You must be responding to someone else.

    I promised my comment would be misinterpreted. Promised made, promises kept.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  7. 10 Cents:
    What are you proposing? Are you proposing that one should not let people know the details of their decisions because those details would cause people to make decisions you don’t favor i.e. stop meat production? If so, isn’t this why the left want “hate facts” to be squelched?

    Not proposing that at all. But carry on with the misinterpretation. I love being right in my predictions.

    0

  8. drlorentz:

    10 Cents:
    Do you believe “slaughterhouse” is an euphemism? I don’t. I think most people understand killing is going on there.

    Do you believe “abortion” is a euphemism? The discussion is not about the word. Some guy on this thread (I forget who) wrote,

    10 Cents:
    I wish people would be forced to see the actual procedure. If abortion is something people want they should be willing to see it in detail. [enphasis added]

    It’s not about words; it’s about “see[ing] it in detail”, at least according to that guy. And my answer was to the point (in bold above) made by that guy. You must be responding to someone else.

    I promised my comment would be misinterpreted. Promised made, promises kept.

    I believe “Planned Parenthood” is an euphemism. It is not called “Abortions R Us” for a reason.

    I don’t get the difference between seeing in detail and describing in detail. I was using “seeing” in not just the optical sense.

    I thought I understood what you were trying to get across. I asked for some clarification. Is asking for more details and your principles being misunderstood. (You might have clarified in the next comment. I will see.)

    0

  9. drlorentz:

    10 Cents:
    What are you proposing? Are you proposing that one should not let people know the details of their decisions because those details would cause people to make decisions you don’t favor i.e. stop meat production? If so, isn’t this why the left want “hate facts” to be squelched?

    Not proposing that at all. But carry on with the misinterpretation. I love being right in my predictions.

    I asked a question. You somehow want to believe a question is misinterpreting. I ask because I don’t know. So you don’t propose that. Good. What I don’t know is what substitute principle you propose to counter my proposed principle? (Have you been misunderstood because I asked a question again. :-))

    For the record you were easily understood. I just was trying to get at when “seeing” things is good and when “seeing” things is bad. I take by the word “pushback” and your PETA example that “seeing” things is not good because it will cause results that you don’t want. Is there another interpretation?

    0

  10. 10 Cents:
    I believe “Planned Parenthood” is an euphemism. It is not called “Abortions R Us” for a reason.

    Yeah, and it’s called pro-life for a reason. It’s all propaganda. If we’re being honest, the terms should be pro-abortion and anti-abortion because abortion is the issue. And, btw, the pro-abortion folks are not shy about using the “A” word, viz.

    Americans across the country believe that abortion should be legal. [emphasis added]

    When it comes time to rally by the thousands on the steps of the Supreme Court in support of abortion access [emphasis added]

    we are on the front lines of the fight to preserve and expand reproductive freedom and abortion access in the 21st century [emphasis added]

    Shift the cultural discourse around abortion access specifically [emphasis added]

    They even have a section titled Abortion Access. Even though the NARAL website is prochoiceamerica.org, the letters stood for National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Law, later National Abortion Rights Action League, and finally National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. Is that enough abortion for you?

    Tell you what, when the National Right to Life Committee renames itself the National Anti-abortion Committee, feel free to complain about the pro-choicers using propaganda.

    10 Cents:
    I don’t get the difference between seeing in detail and describing in detail. I was using “seeing” in not just the optical sense.

    Whether the word “seeing” means seeing or not, the issue is not just about the single word abortion. Correct me if I’m wrong but I assume you meant “seeing” in the sense of a detailed, graphic description. If so, I take it the same way: graphic descriptions of slaughterhouses and exactly how animals are killed for food. My point remains the same. Substitute whatever words you want as long as you do it everywhere.

    But if you are being honest here, recall that you wrote “I wish people would be forced to see the actual procedure.” It’s hard to interpret this any other way than optically.

    0

  11. 10 Cents:
    I asked a question. You somehow want to believe a question is misinterpreting. I ask because I don’t know.

    I call BS. You weren’t just asking for clarification. You were imputing an opinion on me in this oblique way: Are you proposing that I should start beating my wife?

    Paging Cathy Newman. So you’re saying…

    0

  12. 10 Cents:
    For the record you were easily understood. I just was trying to get at when “seeing” things is good and when “seeing” things is bad. I take by the word “pushback” and your PETA example that “seeing” things is not good because it will cause results that you don’t want. Is there another interpretation?

    Yup. I was just making an observation about human nature and history, not advocating anything at all. Can I be any more clear? I am not in favor of hiding things or not hiding things.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar

Leave a Reply