Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:More easily available ultrasounds? (Score 1) 47

Because planned parenthood provided free services to those who can't afford to pay, not to everyone they're trying to manipulate?

So offering true pertinet information to someone in an effort to help them make a more informed choice would be manipulating them? And I suppose things like lying about fetal development and covering up rape are not manipulative? Cause that's what Planned Parenthood does to help moms make their choice.

Comment Re:More easily available ultrasounds? (Score 1) 47

Some (not all) pro-choicers are de facto pro-abortion. Why does Planned Parenthood charge moms for ultrasounds while cpc's all over the country give them for free?

Interestingly, the quote at the bottom of slashdot right now is - "Everyone is entitled to an *informed* opinion." -- Harlan Ellison

This is exactly what an ultrasound does - it gives the mom more information and makes her more informed. Why do some Planned Parenthood clinics (like in New Jersey) not even do ultrasounds unless the mom already wants an abortion? Why do other PP clinics do ultrasounds but not let the mom see them, even if they ask? I'll go ahead and answer: when moms see an ultrasound they are way more likely to not abort. A more informed mother means less money for PP. Simple as that.

Comment Re:This is supposed to be the *WAY* they do their (Score 2) 392

Back in 2008, I only expected Obama to be as bad as Jimmy Carter. He surprised me by having all the badness of Bush (Dubya), Carter, and Nixon.

If Obama completes his two terms, then Richard Nixon should get an apology. Watergate would rank pretty low on the list of scandals if it happened now.

Comment Re: Hobby Lobby's Minimum Wage (Score 1) 1330

I'll ask the same question I did above. If HL paid minimum and provided the drugs in question (which would be perfectly legal), who would be better off and who would be worse off? Another way of looking at it. Suppose a struggling mom has two job offers: Whole Foods starting at $10/hr (and they pat themselves on the back for it BTW), or HL starting at $14. Assuming WF subsidizes the drugs that HL doesn't, which job would you recommend she take? If you said HL, then you need to start protesting Whole Foods for not caring about their employees as much as HL.

Slashdot Top Deals

Forty two.