Planned Parenthood to open clinic on ...

Planned Parenthood to open clinic on University Ave.

There are 1408 comments on the TwinCities.com story from May 3, 2010, titled Planned Parenthood to open clinic on University Ave.. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

Planned Parenthood is moving offices and its lone Minnesota abortion clinic next year to a new $16 million "flagship" building along St.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

MUIM

Toronto, Canada

#282 May 12, 2010
dieter wrote:
<quoted text>
FOR ALL OF YOU ST8PID F*&CKING **** HOLES.... this place also is for people that has lost a baby and need to get it out. If you do not want an invasive procedure to remove the dead fetus, you can use "the morning after pill" to accomplish the same.
Muder, assasins, babykillers!!! SH9T the F7CK UP.
I went with my wife to get the pill described above to get her to expell the fetus just to find some "Protesters" on our way in.
Too bad none of you sissies did not want to go around the corner for a man-to-man conversation.
Before you assume sh)t, eduacte yourself MORONS!!
The morning after pill does not cause an abortion. The MAP will not work if you are already preggers
delightful

Saint Paul, MN

#283 May 12, 2010
east sider wrote:
<quoted text>
Abortion is murder.
Then don't get one.
east sider

Saint Paul, MN

#284 May 12, 2010
delightful wrote:
<quoted text>
Then don't get one.
And I should think it's ok that millions of people have been murdered? Really? Sure, they weren't fully developed, but they were human. It's just incredible that you don't care. It's inhuman. It's barbaric. It's sick.
ab absurdo

Saint Paul, MN

#285 May 12, 2010
Lux et Veritas wrote:
<quoted text>
Columnist Paul Kengor astutely notes where the pro-life battle is being won and will continue to be won:
"As I wrote in November 2008, Obama’s election means the pro-life movement can no longer rely on changing [federal] law—though that fight should not be abandoned—but must redouble efforts to change hearts and minds. Pro-lifers must devote more resources at worthy causes like placing ultrasound machines into crisis pregnancy centers. That window into the womb has proven the single most effective instrument in convincing young women not to proceed with abortion. When those women see that child, alive and real, it changes them more than any philosophical or legal argument. Indeed, it’s no surprise that the abortion lobby is scared to death of this technology—which, ironically, increases a women’s knowledge and empowers her “choice”—and will not support taxpayer dollars to subsidize it, even while pushing taxpayers to subsidize abortions."
http://www.heartlink.org/faces/
Reading through this thread, it's clear that the "pro-lifers" are only able to regurgitate talking points, post meaningless and baseless claims, and use religion in an attempt to shame others.

“....careless whisper.”

Since: May 10

Saint Paul, MN

#286 May 12, 2010
ab absurdo wrote:
<quoted text>
Reading through this thread, it's clear that the "pro-lifers" are only able to regurgitate talking points, post meaningless and baseless claims, and use religion in an attempt to shame others.
Mmmm... I'm glad that we are back to making rash generalizations and demonizing our opponents. Every so often I am terrified when I think that people are actually willing to have a constructive discussion without resorting to these tactics, but then someone comes along and restores my lack of faith in our shared common decency. Thanks!

Just giving you the needle - I agree that a lot of the pro-lifers who have posted here are guilty of the exact stuff that you are talking about. Not all of the pro-lifers who post here have done those things, and not all pro-lifers in general choose those tactics when trying to carry on a discussion.

I assume that you are pro-choice, so here is a question for you: If it was decided that abortion would only be allowed in the first trimester (unless very specific guidelines were met to make exceptions for the physical health of the mother), but to "balance things out" it was mandated that sexual education, including the teaching of proper birth control methods was taught in public jr. high and high school, would you be okay with that? Not that I would necessarily be entirely okay with either part, I'm just trying to get a gauge on where people are when it comes to this type of compromise.
ab absurdo

Saint Paul, MN

#287 May 13, 2010
Kenneth Gorelick wrote:
<quoted text>
Mmmm... I'm glad that we are back to making rash generalizations and demonizing our opponents. Every so often I am terrified when I think that people are actually willing to have a constructive discussion without resorting to these tactics, but then someone comes along and restores my lack of faith in our shared common decency. Thanks!
Just giving you the needle - I agree that a lot of the pro-lifers who have posted here are guilty of the exact stuff that you are talking about. Not all of the pro-lifers who post here have done those things, and not all pro-lifers in general choose those tactics when trying to carry on a discussion.
I assume that you are pro-choice, so here is a question for you: If it was decided that abortion would only be allowed in the first trimester (unless very specific guidelines were met to make exceptions for the physical health of the mother), but to "balance things out" it was mandated that sexual education, including the teaching of proper birth control methods was taught in public jr. high and high school, would you be okay with that? Not that I would necessarily be entirely okay with either part, I'm just trying to get a gauge on where people are when it comes to this type of compromise.
Great point regarding my post, and perhaps "most" would have been more accurate in my allegations of the "pro-life" movement. And you bring up a second good point which is that there is quite a lot of gray area to this issue. As for the compromises you bring up, I believe those are medical decisions for doctors to make with patients. There are far too many variables and differing circumstances to write laws that legislate what doctors "should" do.

You assume I am "pro-choice" and I suppose I end up on that side simply because I don't believe abortion is an issue that should be legislated as much as it is. What puzzles me about the "pro-life" stance, which I assume to mean "all abortion should be illegal" is that it brings religious arguments into a legislative venue. I simply ask, without irony, does the "pro-life" movement wish for the United States to become a theocracy?

Personally as a "pro-choice" person, I am more conservative than many people would assume. As a conservative I believe that the federal government has no business entering into the doctor's office. I don't understand the more "extreme" side of the pro-life movement's desire to make all abortion illegal. If their stance is the morally superior stance, it shouldn't be necessary to legislate this issue, they will win on basis of a stronger argument. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case. I think this is due to tactics like picketing with graphic pictures, opening "opposition" clinics that aren't honest about what they do, and other extreme measures. As I've said before, it's perfectly reasonable to bring up issues in this debate, however the tactics of the "pro-life" movement are deplorable.
Anti-Choice is Misogyny

Saint Paul, MN

#288 May 13, 2010
ab absurdo wrote:
<quoted text>I simply ask, without irony, does the "pro-life" movement wish for the United States to become a theocracy?
Great point. I honestly believe SOME do. Great examples are Lux et Veritas' stereotypical wingnut extremist posts.(Sorry to constantly pick on you "Ignoro" but you make it so easy!) People such as these apparently lack a very basic understanding of American government which they should have learned back in a high school Social Studies class, because the fact of the matter is this: the United States Constitution is the supreme law of our country, while The Bible never has been and it never will be. I repeat: THE BIBLE IS NOT THE SUPREME LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, THE CONSTITUTION IS. For those of you that wish for a theocracy, then LEAVE the United States and go form a new country and make that country's supreme law the Bible.
ab absurdo wrote:
<quoted text> Personally as a "pro-choice" person, I am more conservative than many people would assume. As a conservative I believe that the federal government has no business entering into the doctor's office.
What goes on between a patient and doctor is PRIVATE. What goes on between clergy and parishioner is PRIVATE. What goes on between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home is PRIVATE. These are all examples of situations in which the federal government has absolutely no right to intrude. Thus, the argument that abortion is nobody's business is valid because it is covered under the Tenth Amendment in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. That's a FACT, and unfortunately, oftentimes the extreme so-called "pro-lifers" believe facts are pesky because facts get in the way of their agenda. For example, all of those links I posted yesterday regarding the so-called "pro-lifers" stance on sexual health education: those links are disingenuous, misleading, and manipulative fear-mongering PROPAGANDA. For this reason I am lead to believe that the so-called "pro-life" movement has absolutely no intention of eliminating the demand for abortions and therefore they are not PRO-LIFE.
ab absurdo wrote:
<quoted text> And you bring up a second good point which is that there is quite a lot of gray area to this issue. As for the compromises you bring up, I believe those are medical decisions for doctors to make with patients. There are far too many variables and differing circumstances to write laws that legislate what doctors "should" do.
Someone posted earlier that "abortion is murder." Is an embryo a sentient being? There is no consensus if it is or is not, and there never will be because it's IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE. So if you believe abortion is murder, then you are entitled to that opinion, thus if you unexpectedly become pregnant, make sure YOU don't get an abortion. Meanwhile, there are people in this country that DO NOT believe abortion is murder, and they too are entitled to their opinions. THERE IS NO PROOF AS TO WHICH SIDE IS CORRECT. What people choose to do with their lives is NOBODY'S BUSINESS. It is a private matter between between a patient and their doctor, or, if you will, a patient and their God. If God indeed does believe abortion is murder, then God will punish those individuals, and so-called "pro-lifers" have no right passing judgment as if they represent God. So-called "pro-lifers," YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RED PHONE TO GOD.
ab absurdo wrote:
<quoted text> As I've said before, it's perfectly reasonable to bring up issues in this debate, however the tactics of the "pro-life" movement are deplorable.
Agreed!!!

Since: Dec 08

Saint Paul, MN

#289 May 13, 2010
God Help Us. If mankind cannot figure out that abortion is murder and wrong we will get what we deserve in the End.
PastorBob666

Centreville, VA

#290 May 13, 2010
<<Abortion is murder.>>

Feel free to cite any state or federal statute that says legal abortion is "murder."

If you can't, thenm you are lying your xtian a$$ off!
PastorBob666

Centreville, VA

#291 May 13, 2010
<<God Help Us. >>

Your god is imaginary! if he was real and he didn't like abortions, he could give every abortion provider a stroke and abortions would be over for good.

<<<If mankind cannot figure out that abortion is murder>>

legal abortion isn't murder in the US. And that is all that counts.

<<< and wrong>>

If abortion is wrong for you, simply don't get one!

<< we will get what we deserve in the End.>>

We will all become worm food when we die in the end, whether we have an abortion or not!
bdk

Hugo, MN

#292 May 13, 2010
PastorBob666 wrote:
<<God Help Us. >>
Your god is imaginary! if he was real and he didn't like abortions, he could give every abortion provider a stroke and abortions would be over for good.
<<<If mankind cannot figure out that abortion is murder>>
legal abortion isn't murder in the US. And that is all that counts.
<<< and wrong>>
If abortion is wrong for you, simply don't get one!
<< we will get what we deserve in the End.>>
We will all become worm food when we die in the end, whether we have an abortion or not!
Still trolling I see, nice work Roberto.
PastorBobby666

Centreville, VA

#293 May 13, 2010
<<I assume that you are pro-choice,>>

I am pro choice!

<<<so here is a question for you: If it was decided that abortion would only be allowed in the first trimester (unless very specific guidelines were met to make exceptions for the physical health of the mother),>>

Nope! States that regulate late term abortion already have those guidelines in place. Roe provides for the health/life restrictions. Every state law must respect this!

Roe only says states CAN regulate later abortions, not that they MUST regulate them. There are 10 states and DC that do not place any restrictions on abortions.

Abortion is a medical decision that has no business being controlled by the government. They really have no business placing restrictions on whether a woman can get an abortion or not, no matter how far along they are! But women who get LTAs are women who usually want their fetus but medically, something goes wrong that requires that they abort or die. Also, things happen. Medical emergencies, car accidents, shootings, stabbings, birth defects that aren't detectable until the 2nd trimester. All are situations that may necessitate a LTA!

<<but to "balance things out" it was mandated that sexual education, including the teaching of proper birth control methods was taught in public jr. high and high school, would you be okay with that?>>

I'm OK with age appropriate sex education in public schools, starting with elementary school. But it is not contingent on regulating abortions.

<<Not that I would necessarily be entirely okay with either part,>>

Figures!

<< I'm just trying to get a gauge on where people are when it comes to this type of compromise. >>

You are not giving a compromise.

Here is the real compromise:

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. The law cannot compel you to get an abortion if you don't want one. If someone else wants one, MYOB!

It is really that simple!
Pedro

Saint Paul, MN

#295 May 13, 2010
Stop the murder of babies, and abolish abortion!
bdk

Hugo, MN

#296 May 13, 2010
PastorBobby666 wrote:
<<Still trolling I see, nice work Roberto. >>
Still projecting, pizda?
Are you related to BTK?
SMD!
Are you related to the anitchrist? 666
SMB!
Lux et Veritas

Minneapolis, MN

#302 May 13, 2010
Pedro wrote:
Stop the murder of babies, and abolish abortion!
It's already happening, to the great consternation of the abortion movement's poobahs, and it's happening at the grassroots levels: in state legislatures and in the hearts of myriads of formerly abortion-favoring women and men. The Topix footsoldiers (who doggedly keep fiddling while Rome burns, bless their little Pollyanna hearts) inveigh about religion and encroachments on the invented "constitutional right" to abortion, but the movement's leaders know they're losing in the court of public opinion.

NARAL's Nancy Keenan said on NPR in 2008, "You know, we have to look at what has happened since the passage of Roe. And since 1995 alone, there have been 550 laws [ http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/s... ] on the books that again restrict access to abortion care. That tells us that those people that are elected to office are coming in, waking up every day, either trying to overturn Roe or trying to again take this personal private medical decision away from women."

Strip away Keenan's oxymoronic abortionspeak phrases like "abortion care" (Mengele would be proud of that one) and you've got a Big Abortion acolyte who knows her movement can't possibly gain when women have so much readily accessed truth about their unborn babies [ http://www.health.state.mn.us/wrtk/handbook.h... -- e.g., the Women's Right to Know Handbook] and the devastation wrought by abortion in so many women's lives [ http://www.hopeafterabortion.com/hope.cfm... ].

Big Abortion will continue its decades-old strategy of dissembling about fetal development, showing and telling women as little as possible (even to the point of breaking laws), taking the money and shoving women out the door, and it will continue to lose ground because of its lies and lawbreaking.

Even the moderate voices in the media can't countenance the abortion industry's and abortion apologists' heartless dishonesty:

"...My own view, both pro-life and pro-choice, has been that abortion truthfully presented would eliminate itself, or vastly reduce its numbers. Once a pregnancy is viewed as a human life in formation, rather than a "blob of cells" it is less easy to terminate the contents of one's vessel....

"Anyone considering, say, gall bladder removal will be told each and every detail of what will happen, what is likely to be the result, what consequences might be expected, and so on. Doesn't it make as much sense to provide women with a view of what's going on inside their bodies before they take the leap that can't be undone?...

"In testimony before the Louisiana Senate Health and Welfare Committee, post-abortive women recounted being told they were ridding themselves of "tissue" only to learn later, often during an ultrasound with a subsequent pregnancy, that they had destroyed a fully formed fetus. Based on my own conversations with post-abortive women, this is a common event and is often the point at which formerly pro-choice women switch sides.

"The testimony in Louisiana included the story of one woman who suffered both physical and emotional trauma after an abortion. She didn't see an ultrasound, but did see the remnants of her abortion on a tray beside her and was told "they" had been twins.

"Well, enough of that. We all know what abortion is and, thanks to some of the sign-toting anti-abortion protesters -- who do their cause no good -- we know what abortion looks like. Shouldn't pregnant women also know what their healthy fetus looks like before they hit delete?
"This is a question lacking in sinister intent. What is sinister is the proposition that ignorance is better -- and the implied hope that women won't choose to reconsider."

"Making the abortion decision an informed one" --

http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx...

“....careless whisper.”

Since: May 10

Saint Paul, MN

#303 May 13, 2010
ab absurdo wrote:
<quoted text>
Great point regarding my post, and perhaps "most" would have been more accurate in my allegations of the "pro-life" movement. And you bring up a second good point which is that there is quite a lot of gray area to this issue. As for the compromises you bring up, I believe those are medical decisions for doctors to make with patients. There are far too many variables and differing circumstances to write laws that legislate what doctors "should" do.
You assume I am "pro-choice" and I suppose I end up on that side simply because I don't believe abortion is an issue that should be legislated as much as it is. What puzzles me about the "pro-life" stance, which I assume to mean "all abortion should be illegal" is that it brings religious arguments into a legislative venue. I simply ask, without irony, does the "pro-life" movement wish for the United States to become a theocracy?
Personally as a "pro-choice" person, I am more conservative than many people would assume. As a conservative I believe that the federal government has no business entering into the doctor's office. I don't understand the more "extreme" side of the pro-life movement's desire to make all abortion illegal. If their stance is the morally superior stance, it shouldn't be necessary to legislate this issue, they will win on basis of a stronger argument. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case. I think this is due to tactics like picketing with graphic pictures, opening "opposition" clinics that aren't honest about what they do, and other extreme measures. As I've said before, it's perfectly reasonable to bring up issues in this debate, however the tactics of the "pro-life" movement are deplorable.
I agree with you on the Federal government point - I definitely think that this is state law territory... but the Supreme Court took it of that realm.

There are definitely some Christians and pro-lifers who would love to see a Christian theocracy in this country... many of them seem to think that we had something like that in the past. Anywho, yeah - let's go for this Christian nation thing so that we can start a new fight - which flavor of Christianity will be in charge??? Aye carumba!

“....careless whisper.”

Since: May 10

Saint Paul, MN

#304 May 13, 2010
PastorBobby666 wrote:
<<I assume that you are pro-choice,>>
I am pro choice!
<<<so here is a question for you: If it was decided that abortion would only be allowed in the first trimester (unless very specific guidelines were met to make exceptions for the physical health of the mother),>>
Nope! States that regulate late term abortion already have those guidelines in place. Roe provides for the health/life restrictions. Every state law must respect this!
Roe only says states CAN regulate later abortions, not that they MUST regulate them. There are 10 states and DC that do not place any restrictions on abortions.
Abortion is a medical decision that has no business being controlled by the government. They really have no business placing restrictions on whether a woman can get an abortion or not, no matter how far along they are! But women who get LTAs are women who usually want their fetus but medically, something goes wrong that requires that they abort or die. Also, things happen. Medical emergencies, car accidents, shootings, stabbings, birth defects that aren't detectable until the 2nd trimester. All are situations that may necessitate a LTA!
<<but to "balance things out" it was mandated that sexual education, including the teaching of proper birth control methods was taught in public jr. high and high school, would you be okay with that?>>
I'm OK with age appropriate sex education in public schools, starting with elementary school. But it is not contingent on regulating abortions.
<<Not that I would necessarily be entirely okay with either part,>>
Figures!
<< I'm just trying to get a gauge on where people are when it comes to this type of compromise. >>
You are not giving a compromise.
Here is the real compromise:
If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. The law cannot compel you to get an abortion if you don't want one. If someone else wants one, MYOB!
It is really that simple!
Figures, huh? Look on the bright side, when I try to have a discussion about these things I try to be direct and straight-forward. The reason I tossed in the little comment about not necessarily agreeing with that compromise myself is because it was true - I was just interested in tossing the thought out there for discussion. I'm not interested in debating the topic - I'm interested in having a discussion. I don't have an endgame for this forum - I'm not trying to build some grand case for my point of view so that I can put all others to shame... I'm just thinking and talking it through. I think we would all be better off if we did more of that rather than act as though we have all of the answers. Just my opinion...
conrad

Florence, AL

#305 May 13, 2010
It is a sad comment on our culture that the university system, started and developed by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, and honored by street names in cities across the nation, should now have that street name defaced by abortuaries like "planned parenthood"-such a grotesque misnomer could not be more cackled about by the flaming devils in hell.
conrad

Florence, AL

#306 May 13, 2010
This forum post defends that beautiful dollop of glistening life maligned over by the dry thighs that attempt to crush the unborn child, like a pilotless haunted ferry crashing into the dock of truth.

Alz

Since: Oct 08

Chicago

#308 May 13, 2010
Read up on the history of Planned Parenthood. It was started to get rid of "imbeciles", blacks, "undesirables", etc. The founder was Margaret Sanger, who was a Eugenicist.

The who organization is gross. As I said, read up on Sanger.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Democrats call for impeachment 7 hr Space ace 71
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 15 hr WHAT 36,895
Davy crockett fake news Sat Phineus 16
Dems lose montana special election Fri Davycrockett 9
Aaron- Mortalenama May 26 Eat BBQ 1
Drop one word....add one word game (Apr '14) May 25 WildLifeLover 700
Does anyone remember the Rendezvous in Minneapo... May 25 Curious 1

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages