What Do Planned Parenthood and Playboy Have In Common?

What do Planned Parenthood and Playboy have in common?

An easier question to answer would be, what do they NOT have in common?

Planned Parenthood and Playboy are quite comfortable bedfellows, pun most definitely intended. Hugh Hefner contributes money to PP as well as NARAL, as a matter of fact. (Radical pro-choice feminists don’t like to talk about that.) Allan Guttmacher, former PP director and founder of its research arm, The Guttmacher Institute, was heavily influenced by Alfred Kinsey, the radical and infamous sociologist whose “research” helped shape the sexual revolution and by extension Playboy and the porn industry. His motives and methodology have since been widely discredited.

Both Planned Parenthood and Playboy encourage women to take little pink pills every day that cause early abortions, hormone imbalances, and quite possibly a host of other diseases after long term use, such as breast cancer and heart disease.

Both are super duper A-okay with abortion. Because after all, if you can convince a woman to take that pill and “take care of her problem,” you can continue to view her as an object and use her for your pleasure. If her eggs and her babies are disposable, why then, so is she.

It is imperative for us to understand that abortion does not exist in a vacuum. A culture steeped in certain attitudes was necessary to bring about the paradigm shift that enabled legalization to occur and to continue. These attitudes are represented perfectly by Planned Parenthood and the porn industry, soft-core and otherwise.

First, there is the idea that sex is a recreational activity designed for physical gratification, and that it’s therefore perfectly acceptable and even healthy to divorce the act completely from love or procreation. Putting aside religious beliefs or a lack thereof, it’s apparent that this increasingly prevailing attitude has led to a culture in which sex has been stripped of all significance beyond how fun it is. To take a random example, let’s look at two prime-time television shows on major networks. First there’s “Glee,” marketed to teenagers, and literally encouraging them to fornicate and telling them they’re frigid if they don’t. Then we have “Two and a Half Men,’ featuring a (now almost grown) child, in which the child’s uncle, played by a real-life lothario, drug addict, and woman-beater, is characterized solely by his rampant promiscuity and total disregard for women as anything other than objects by which to achieve pleasure. He loves to talk about these things in front of his under-age nephew. These are on during the family hour. Children watch these shows, and they learn simply and merely that sex is something fun to do, not that it’s serious or sacred in the least.

So what outcome does this laissez-faire attitude have? Teen pregnancy. Single motherhood, which even after correcting for poverty is the greatest single indicator of whether a child will grow up to be a criminal. A bloated welfare state, in which taxpayers watch their money pay to feed children born because their parents met in a club one night and felt like “doing it,” and she never even got the guy’s number. I could go on, but you get the idea. The state of the American family, and by extension our entire society, is what you might call in the current vernacular a “hot mess.”

Meanwhile, in Playboy/Planned Parenthood Land, the only gravitas reserved for the subject of sex is not for issues of morality or even ethics – what are those? – but the dreaded outcomes of STDs and pregnancy, which by the way are considered more or less equal in terms of desirability. In fact, as a friend of mine was told at a Planned Parenthood appointment in the late 90s, it’s better to be pregnant than get herpes, because you can always have an abortion, but there’s no cure for herpes.

Then there is the completely erroneous yet still common idea that it’s somehow liberating for a woman to be viewed as an object and used as a vehicle for a man’s pleasure. It’s obvious how Playboy encourages this, and by extension all of popular culture. Consider the nauseating TV hit “The Girls Next Door,” in which Hugh Hefner’s three “girlfriends” earnestly spoke to the camera about how normal and fulfilling their lives were. Methinks the ladies did protest too much.

Planned Parenthood goes even further to encourage the objectification of women. Part of it is their ferocious peddling of contraceptives and prophylactics, but abortion is the most direct way in which PP helps men see women as objects. Abortion places the onus of responsibility for a pregnancy on the woman. Because abortion is legal and encouraged by organizations such as PP as a valid and responsible choice, men in our society often feel quite justified in offering a woman the money for an abortion, and… that’s it. At that point, he has “done right by her.” He offered to pay for it, so he did his part. I have known a few women personally who aborted their children because the father didn’t want them. It’s no excuse, but this is a terrible burden to place on women.

The idea that abortion is pro-woman is patently ridiculous when you consider how much the industry has in common with pornography. When we think of exploiting women, we immediately think of sexually explicit photos and videos. But abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women. The sight of a Planned Parenthood sitting in a strip shopping center in a poor neighborhood in my hometown is more offensive to me than a million photographs of a saline-enhanced blonde in an American flag bikini straddling a Corvette.

Playboy, Hustler, Maxim, Sports Illustrated, and their ilk, not to mention hard-core porn, denigrate a woman’s soul by viewing her as a body without one, but abortion places a woman’s soul in danger by making her party to her own child’s death. The abortion industry exploits a woman’s fear and ignorance, invades her body, and brings death to her very womb. Then, unlike Christ, who told the woman taken in adultery to “go and sin no more,” they tell her, “Go do whatever you want with whoever you want. You have our number.”

Which reminds me: something else Playboy and Planned Parenthood have in common? Millions and millions of dollars.

  • 12angrymen

    You guys say you aren’t affiliated with any specific religion, yet you continue to make Christian references. Can anyone point me to a religious reference on this site that didn’t have to do with Christianity? In addition the porn industry exploits men as well as women, and the negative effects of the “pill” are not anywhere near conclusive.

    • NotNearly

      Where are the references to Christianity in the article “What Do Planned Parenthood and Playboy Have In Common?”

      • James Wilson

        The next to last paragraph references Christ. I’m not sure if he has anything to do with Christianity though….

        Also, there’s the link that “debunks” Kinsey’s work which goes to a Catholic website.

        • NotNearly

          I am sorry you are so offended by one reference to Christ.

          Hmmm – to say Christ has nothing to do with “Christ”ianity is to say water has nothing to do with the ocean.

          You got one thing right though, Catholics are Christian!

          • 12angrymen

            I am not offended, I just think that if they are going to make all these Christian references LiveAction should stop pretending to not be affiliated with any religion as they obviously are.

          • James Wilson

            I never said I was offended; I was simply answering your question “Where are the references to Christianity…?” with the references in the article.
            I was being sarcastic in the “I’m not sure…” line.
            I got everything right. Like I said earlier, you need to learn to read before posting.

    • NotNearly

      Hormonal Contraceptives such as the pill have been labeled as carcinogens by the World Health Organization (WHO)

      New England Journal of Medicine, January 2006, Vol. 354, No. 3, 270-282.

      That’s conclusive enough for me!

  • NotNearly

    According to the Guardian (March 6, 2009), Britain’s most prominent left-wing newspaper, some versions of the pill increase the risk of deep vein thrombosis by 5 times, as reported by the British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical
    Society of Great Britain. The pill doubles the risk of having a stroke and increases slightly the risk of cervical cancer.
    http://www.hli.org/files/PLTP%20Negative%20Effects%20of%20the%20Pill.pdf

  • Kevin McCarthy

    Alfred Kinsey is the Old Link when Playboy funded his Operation and he helped Overturn interstate Pornography laws legislated by Senator Abraham Lincoln

    • BeccaTheVegan

      Alfred Kinsey did most of his work in the 1930s..he actually died only three years after the finding of Playboy magazine. I haven’t found any proof that Playboy magazine funded anything for him. They were still a newly founded company when he died in 1956 so I doubt they were established enough to throw their money around with fundings.

  • James Wilson

    I find it interesting that you link to a religious website in an attempt to “debunk” scientific work. It’s probably the most ironic thing I’ve seen on the internet so far today.

    Along those lines, here is a little tip, free of charge, about how to make yourself more believable when writing an article: firstly, you should not use websites with obvious bias one way or another–it kind of takes away from your credibility.

    When it comes to the pill, according to WebMD, the most common side effects are: nausea, weight gain, sore or swollen breasts, spotting between periods, lighter periods, and mood changes. There are more serious effects such as abdominal pain, chest pain, headaches, blurred vision, and leg swelling (these symptoms have been linked to serious diseases such as liver disease, gallbladder disease, stroke, blood clots, high blood pressure, and heart disease). The second group of symptoms are, obviously, of the rare variety and, as with any medications, these serious symptoms should be followed by a discontinuation of use of the drug and the seeking of medical attention. These side effects are most definitely serious–that shouldn’t be understated–but they are not uncommon from many other prescription drugs on the market today (The point I’m trying to make here is that birth control pills aren’t necessarily more of a risk than other medications).

    I’m also not sure where Ms. Walker gets her information that the pill causes early abortions. If by that she means that some types of birth control cause the lining of the womb to be inhospitable to implantation, then…yes? Perhaps she could clarify that position. Also, and I could be wrong about this, but there’s something inherently dishonest about making such a claim when, in truth, it only could be made about a small percentage of pills on the market. Most pills either prevent the body from releasing an egg or change the cervical mucus to make it difficult for sperm to impregnate the egg. That’s like saying Cola (the general term) gives people purple teeth when in fact only a specific type (say, RC Cola) produces the effect.

    This article seems to raise the point that women are being forced into using birth control pills, but it gives no evidence to back up this claim other than a general statement that women are perceived as objects. While that may be true to some, it doesn’t factor in the large feminist movement that responsibly and openly accept the responsibility for their own bodies–choosing the types of birth control that they desire…not having anything forced upon them. I find it insulting when someone talks about women–strong, independent, smart women–as if they have no choice in their own lives; they’re being forced to use the pill over other types of contraception. I know many women who would also take offense with your position, Ms. Walker.

    This article also goes at the issue from a completely one-sided scenario: I see nothing here about the issues dealing with men’s contraception (though, admittedly, that doesn’t seem to be the point of the article). But my point is that if contraception makes women’s eggs disposable does it not also make men’s sperm disposable, and, by Ms. Walker’s equation, make men disposable? And, if men are disposable then are they not also objects to be used for her pleasure?

    I’m taking issue more and more that the “articles” on this site are resembling short, poorly-edited / fact checked essays that I’ve read in many entry level college courses. This one bounces around from point to point, never making any arguments other than one-sided statements with embedded links. Ms. Walker goes from attacking birth control to attacking sex.

    The “random” examples are obviously not random at all; they’re chosen because they seem to agree with Ms. Walker’s points. That’s like me saying, “All celebrities want to work for Donald Trump. Taking a look at a random example…oh, let’s say, ‘Celebrity Apprentice’ one can see that there are a bunch of celebrities that want to work for Trump.” I would make the more important point (and one avoided because, I suspect, Ms. Walker doesn’t want to start putting blame where it belongs) that children learn from their parents and their teachers. Also, there’s another point that should be made which is that if the parents do not approve of the show, they have the option of turning the channel or, dare I say it, reading to their child. I also don’t think I’m alone when I say that sitcoms aren’t supposed to be viewed by children–the jokes are usually over the heads of most kids and are written for a much older audience–and there are some shows on in prime time that deal with the issues of love and intimacy and relationships and their relation to sex as an important part of life (Modern Family and The Office come to mind).

    What if that single mother had been on the pill, Ms. Walker? Where would that welfare child be? What if she’d had an abortion? Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy in wanting to save a life that hasn’t been born only to slander and degrade that life after it has been? Also, you have no idea how right you are about the welfare thing…but that welfare is mostly going to the rich in the form of tax breaks and subsidies (not the poor who actually need the help). I would suggest more widespread sexual education and availability of contraception so that that single mother would know what she was exposing herself to and the eventualities to which unprotected sex might lead. It all begins with education (which has links to poverty).

    Please don’t try and work Shakespeare into your stuff…MEthinks the lady doth not read enough. MEthinks the lady doth not understandeth enough.

    I prefer Chargers to Corvettes.

    Putting Maxim and Sports Illustrated (was it their Tim Tebow cover that got you all hot and bothered?) into the same category as Hustler is kind of ridiculous. Maxim has more pages on dumb jokes, shitty workouts, and grooming tips than it does pictures of bikini clad women. And SI has…1 issue a year with bikinis featured prominently. Interesting.

    Then you talk about Jesus and completely lose any hint of objectivity. Supernatural beings have no right to be in the laws of this country unless they show up, take a citizenship test, and take their case to the supreme court.

  • James, I looked at those links- ONE is linked to a religious website. The rest are certainly NOT. And, frankly, when you’re right, you’re right. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a religious website or not.

    • James Wilson

      “One rotten apple…” as the saying goes.

      Your second point is completely true. Unfortunately, the article that the link goes to is not. I could go over every point, but I’ll just do a couple because of that whole one rotten apple business:

      It states that humans are not animals. This is false. Animalia > Chordata > Mammalia > Primate > Hominidae > Homininae > Hominini > Homo > Homo Sapiens. That big first category–the Kingdom Animalia–means we’re animals as far as classification is concerned (we, like all the other animals, are multi-cellular, eukaryotic heterotrophs).
      It states that humans alone have sex for pleasure and not procreation. Once again false. (Bonobos would be a good primate to look up)

  • Anonymous

    At the 50th Anniversary of Playboy celebration, Hugh Hefffnerrr gave Kinsey credit for being the “Father of the Sexual Revolution”, and went on to call “The Pill” the “Ultimate Party Drug”. As for objectifying persons, one need only look at Kinsey’s own research. I believe in the book Kinsey wrote( “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male”) there is a chart that describes, in clinical, OBJECTIVE terms, the reactions of INFANTS to induced orgasms, one over a 24 hour period. Infants need sleep, not induced orgasms, to be “clinical and objective” about the whole “Kinsey Project”.

    If Kinsey is to be disregarded as being “Old News”, then why doesn’t Indiana University open it’s vault where they are storing his “research”, so ALL of Kinsey’s “objective observations” can be examined, including the films of his “interactions” with colleagues during “examinations” of “test subjects” and other filmed”interactions” with same colleagues ( presumably immediately following the “clinical research”)?

    Dr. Judith Reisman has done the research on Kinsey, written a book about it, and YouTube has “The Kinsey Syndrome”. Unless people have an aversion to objective facts because of a “religious bias” ( the religion being self-worship), I suggest that it’s long past time the whole sordid “rock” be exposed from which emanates all the vilest “worms and maggots” of our human minds. Let it become “clinically and objectively” described for what it actually is… deviant sexual addiction. A disease of the mind which only fasting and prayer, and DENIAL of SELF can cure.

  • Lesgf8

    I just want to clarify something – birth control does NOT cause abortions, it PREVENTS pregnancy. If your goal is to eliminate abortions, why slander a useful tool that aids in that fight?

    • Anonymous

      First Guy: “Why is there so much ignorance and indifference in this world?”

      Second Guy: ” I don’t know, and I don’t care.”

      If birth control does cause abortion, your comments only make it possible for the indifferent to remain ignorant.

      Good citizens help other good citizens to be better citizens. Bad citizens help bad citizens to be worse citizens.

      You’re helping….in a bad way… Sue your teachers..it’s probably not your fault that you are ignorant and indifferent to the Culture of Death.

      • Lesgf8

        Are you even aware of the biochemical process through which hormonal birth control works? Their primary mechanism of action is to give the female body a steady dose of both estrogen and progestin. These stabilize a woman’s hormone cycles, and prevent a surge of estrogen mid-cycle. Without the surge of estrogen, the pituitary gland does not release other hormones, (follicle stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone,) that would normally cause the ovaries to release a mature egg. In other words, birth control prevents ovulation. And as we know, without an egg, the sperm has nothing to fertilize, And without that zygote, there is nothing to abort.

        Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

        Sue your pastor… it’s probably not your fault that you are ignorant and indifferent to science.

        • Anonymous

          If “Pro Choicers” were declared NON-persons by the Supreme Court, how would
          they ( YOU ) prove they ( YOU ) are NOT NON-persons, and how would they (
          YOU ) KNOW they ( YOU ) are NOT NON-persons? Prove you are a person.

          • Lesgf8

            It’s easier to bring up a total a total non sequitur than admit you made a fallacious statement. You instead present this hypothetical premise as a distraction, and a not so subtle one at that. You also assume that I am pro choice, merely because I corrected an incorrect assertion using legitimate science. I would hope that educated pro lifers would correct this glaring mistake as well.

            But I will answer you nonetheless. I would argue that I am a person because I exist independently, have agency, am capable of complex/rational thought, and am self aware. But nothing like the situation you suggest would ever happen, because the definition for a citizen of the U.S. is explicitly obvious in the constitution as a person “born or naturalized in the United States” (as per the 14th Amendment). Thus to be a citizen, and guaranteed any rights therein, of the U.S. you must have already been born.

            Ultimately, there is no grand universal consensus on personhood. There is a subjective an unscientific nature to the claim. Of course a fetus is human, but is it a human being? In my opinion, no.. it represents the potential of a human being. With cloning, my skin cells also represent the potential of a human being, but they are obviously not a human being. It’s akin to the adage, “an acorn isn’t an oak tree.”

          • Anonymous

            If the Supreme Court denied you “petition for personhood” based on the fact that you could not “prove” you lived independently, but only said that everyone who HAS INDEPENDENCE “….has a right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life..” your case would fail. and in the “case” of over 50,000,000 human persons, that “failure” to be able to “prove” independence “scientifically” cost them EVERYTHING they HAD and EVERYTHING they would GIVE.

            I refer you to my previous post that proves not everything can be scientifically proven, but hat the statement that not everything can be scientifically proven is provably true. Too bad all the brainiacs on the Supreme Court in 73 didn’t know that or were deceived into “disremembering” that little factiod.
            Sue your teachers..you have been miseducated.

          • Lesgf8

            Your first paragraph isn’t cogent, please rephrase if you would like a response.

            How is your assertion that “not everything can be scientifically proven is provably true” true? How do you prove that? Science works from the physical world, not the metaphysical one, so in that sense you are correct. But I restate, that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and when making such claims, the burden of proof lies with you.

            Also, I implore you to look up the actual definition of “factoid,” because it is not synonymous with “fact.”

          • Anonymous

            Correction FACT, not “factiod”. I stand corrected, thanks for your
            correction.
            I’ll try to rephrase the first sentence. You have just failed to convince
            the Supreme Court that you are a person. Your case failed because you could
            not prove you are an “independent” human person,i.e. you may be human but
            not YET a “person” by the Court’s definition. The reasoning the Court used
            was taken from the “Casey ” decision, which said, “At the heart of Liberty
            is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the
            universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters
            could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under
            compulsion of the state.” This “right to define” is only granted to fully
            independent persons. You, unfortunately, ( to use a real situation from
            American History) are a slave, and not YET a fully independent person; you
            are 3/5 of a person. It is not impossible to imagine that slavery could
            again become a “law of the land”; given the amounts of Liberties that have
            already been abdicated by citizens to the State; it is now almost fait
            accompli, if not yet legally defined as such.
            Clearer?

          • Lesgf8

            Actually, given Kennedy’s statements in that case, I would not have failed. Kennedy drew the line for rights at viability, which is what I meant when I stated that I “existed independently.”

            Ultimately, you are attempting to engage me in an act of futility with this point you are trying to argue.

          • Anonymous

            Science will always fail to prove anything to be unprovable, always and
            forever. We must take science “as it comes”, and live with the world “as it
            is”. But what IS cannot be COMPLETELY defined by anyone, ever, at any
            moment, in human history. To believe otherwise ( that man is adequate to the
            task of eventually knowing everything about everything) is only believed by
            those who see the “end of history” in a Utopian “Worker’s Paradise”. The
            matter with this belief is that it thinks only matter matters, when actually
            matter is not all that matters. Man is not just matter. And that’s what the
            matter is. Not that it matters to a Socialist “True Believer”. Because, to
            him, all that matters is matter. What’s the matter with him? Does it matter?

            Kennedy was wrong; Kennedy is not God. Kennedy doesn’t decide who is a
            person, and who isn’t. Now many believe the person at conception is just
            matter. See what the matter is with that?

          • Anonymous

            Actually, what I was hoping for from you was a recognition of the futility
            of your arguments, but I recognize a complete case of brainwashing when it’s
            presented to me. You probably will only understand that my assessment of
            reality was correct when the jackbooted stormtrooper from the New World
            Order places his boot in your backside and kicks you into a Gulag, or just
            lines you up against a wall and shoots you. Good luck with your fantasy
            world…it’s crashing down around us as we speak. Maybe tomorrow will bring
            some SONshine.. Peace be with you…it’s been a slice…

          • Lesgf8

            The rabbit hole of delusion is deep.. climb out while you still can.

            I recommend Dawkins.

          • Anonymous
          • Anonymous

            The fact that “Not all things can be scientifically proven is provably
            true”, is a fact because all proofs of science would have to be proved,
            which has proven to be impossible, and always will be impossible; there are
            some things about the universe that escape us because were not adequate to
            the task as humans. Only an insane egoist ( or an average college professor
            ) would claim that man can know everything that is to be known, or ever was
            known, or ever will be known, which must be known to prove anything to be
            absolutely known. That’s a known fact by those who “know about knowing” (
            philosophers).

          • Anonymous
          • Anonymous

            Sad thing is, though, that since 73, advances in science have provided MORE “science” to validate unique, unrepeatable characteristics in the human conceptus, such as unique and unrepeatable DNA. IF “science” were the sole criteria for the “right” to abort based on the “unknowability” of the personhood status, and if “Roe” itself admits if such were ever to be proven, the whole premise of “Roe” would collapse, then WHY is it not NOW repealed?

            “Roe” was decided based on bad philosophy and even worse science. It is known that Justice Blackmun was influenced by emotional arguments from his wife. He was “whipped” by the “Woman’s Movement” which was influenced by Playwhore, which was influenced by Kinzzssy.

        • Anonymous

          I’m afraid your time is up…I don’t mean literally “Your time is up ( that would be dreadful ), I mean I can’t wait all night for your reply. Here’s some “helps”: Science can’t “prove” everything; it would have to “prove all the proofs of the proofs” (infinite regress of proofs). So here we go into philosophy, an art not a science, but a very rigorous, more exact art than science is rigorous and accurate.

          What better person to prove my point than an atheist philosopher, Bertrand Russell:

          “There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that “remembered’ a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times, therefore nothing thatbis happening now nor will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world happened five minutes ago.”

          “Life must be lived forward, but can only be learned backward.” ~ Soren Kirkegaard ~ Danish Existentialist

          “Time is just what happens so everything doesn’t happen all at once” Author Unknown

        • Is breakthrough ovulation impossible?

          • Anonymous

            Yes, my friend, I can tell you from sad experience that breakthrough ovulation is possible. I was married to a woman who had an IUD, and we weren’t told that was a possibility. We lost two children as a result. The marriage collapsed, and she became promiscuos, before and after our divorce. The IUD messes up lots of things, chemically and mentally. We are learning about the “bonding” mechanisms attatched to oxytocin, a hormone released during nursing and intercourse. The IUD messes with that hormone, too. Life’s a bigger mystery than any of us know; it’s better to be “natural’ and ‘straight” than unnatural and ” bent”. PLEASE don’t make the same mistakes we did..it messed up our marriage and our lives. God be with you.

          • Lesgf8

            Obviously breakthrough ovulation, though extremely rare, is possible. However, pregnancy can be prevented by a secondary mechanism of action which thickens the cervical mucous to inhibit the transport of sperm, both in terms of penetration and motility.

            But I surmise your reason for asking is the commonly held “hostile uterus” belief – that birth control is an abortifacient because it thins the endometrium, preventing a blastocyst from implantation. However, there is no credible evidence to validate a mechanism of “pre-implantation abortion” as part of the action of hormone contraceptives.

            If you would like to know more about that, please read the article in the following like. It is a study done by the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

            http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/hormone-contraceptives-controversies-and-clarifications/

        • 4babies

          It does not.  The Pill destroys a fertilized egg– a future human baby.  It’s murder.  Wise up.

  • Wow

    This is incredible. I think Lesgf8 has effectively shut down your entire arguement. This essay/Op-Ed, whatever you’d like to call it, seems to be written by someone who doesn’t understand sex, really, from a personal perspective, and I find it hard to believe that you are not religious given the stance you take on this issue and the ways you try to substantiate your claims. Secondly, I think tying Playboy, Sports Illustrated and Maxim into this argument, and blaming the “sexual revolution” for our current society’s social issues is assinine. Hugh Hefner as an individual can donate his money to whatever causes he would like to, and I believe that foundation is his personal and has nothign to do with Playboy as a company. Also, the way you rail on Playboy completely convinces me that you, like many others that criticise this magazine and others have never actually read it, you just sound off on the nudity, call it porn and stamp, there you have it. What is your solution, my dear author? So, the sexual revolution is to blame for all of the women getting abortions and the general decay of our society. So, your solution is we revert back to the days when women REALLY weren’t free, were forced into marriages and bearing children from rape, incest and worse, and religion dominated everyone’s lives and left little choice but to obey the church and the man of the house. That’s what i really call repression there, and that seems the antithesis of women’s rights and freedom. Now, in a day and age when women DON’T have to sit in the kitchen and are better and have more opportunities than being a housewife and having babies. Yeah, let’s wind the clock back 50 years, and get rid of birth control, great idea. You need to do your homework, or just keep your (stupid) opinions to yourselves, or amongst your peers in church.

  • jane

    Okay, I am pro-life, but I have an ENORMOUS problem with this article. First of all, the generalization that it’s only women who have abortions is false.

    Actually, NOT ONLY WOMEN GET ABORTIONS. Trans-men get abortions. People of all types that don’t fit into the normative “woman” gender category get abortions. Please, let’s start talking about abortion as MORE than just a woman’s issue. Similarly, this article states that men get away with just paying for abortions with no consequences. Why are men somehow magically immune from the post-abortion depression that women suffer? Please: men suffer equal emotional consequences from having their babies aborted as women do. Don’t you think that men have an innate, natural bond with their children, and that they suffer when they lose this bond, just as much as women?

    “The sight of a Planned Parenthood sitting in a strip shopping center in a poor neighborhood in my hometown is more offensive to me than a million photographs of a saline-enhanced blonde in an American flag bikini straddling a Corvette.”

    Presumably, you find this sight “more offensive” than a naked blonde, because it’s DIFFERENT: it’s about murder, whereas the photo is simply about nudity. Obviously, killing a life is going to be WAY more offensive than pornography. But I don’t understand how abortion is an “exploitation of women” particularly when each child has TWO parents. Each abortion hurts THREE people: the fetus, the mom, and the dad. Why are you trying to say that abortion hurts women more than men? Is the mother’s bond with the baby somehow more important to you than the father’s? In my eyes, that kind of logic is extremely sexist and very offensive.

    “Hugh Hefner contributes money to PP… Radical pro-choice feminists don’t like to talk about that.”

    I’m confused. Why don’t pro-choice feminists like to talk about a famous person who supports their cause?

    “Alfred Kinsey, the radical and infamous sociologist whose “research” helped shape the sexual revolution and by extension Playboy and the porn industry.”

    Are you trying to say that the sexual revolution was 100% negative? I’m really confused about the point of including these details here. I think it’s getting into quite dangerous territory to conflate pro-life stances with anti-feminist ones. Aren’t we supposed to be arguing that the strong, feminist choice is to have babies, even if the dad has left the picture, even if you can’t afford it, etc? That the strong, feminist thing to do if you get pregnant is to go through with it, and not take the easy, evil way out with abortion? Isn’t the pro-life side trying to argue that being pro-life IS a feminist stance, because it empowers women to make the right choice? It seems like a huge step backwards to be conflating anti-life with pro-feminist sentiments.

    “Both Planned Parenthood and Playboy encourage women to take little pink pills every day that cause early abortions, hormone imbalances, and quite possibly a host of other diseases after long term use, such as breast cancer and heart disease.”

    Actually, this isn’t true at all. Planned Parenthood offers a huge variety of various types of birth control: condoms, non-hormonal IUDs, spermicides, the ring, female condoms, etc. The list goes on. Planned Parenthood does NOT push the pill over every other type of birth control. Actually, the whole point of their mission is to provide information on ALL the options, not just one or two; theoretically, they find the type of BC that is “right” for the individual woman. So this statement is misleading.

    I’ve personally never seen an ad in Playboy for the Pill, but feel free to prove me wrong.

    “It is imperative for us to understand that abortion does not exist in a vacuum. A culture steeped in certain attitudes was necessary to bring about the paradigm shift that enabled legalization to occur and to continue. These attitudes are represented perfectly by Planned Parenthood and the porn industry, soft-core and otherwise.”

    Again, these seems like extraordinarily dangerous ground to be treading. Are you really saying that to combat abortion, we have to go back to when institutionalized sexism ran rampant? Are you really saying that giving women equal rights is at fault for abortion?

    “First, there is the idea that sex is a recreational activity designed for physical gratification, and that it’s therefore perfectly acceptable and even healthy to divorce the act completely from love or procreation.”

    I don’t understand what having sex for pleasure has to do with abortion. On one hand, there’s sexual gratification. On the other hand, there’s murder. I’m really not seeing what divorcing sex from love has to do with justifying abortion somehow. Abortion doesn’t suddenly change its moral status depending on the emotions of people having sex. This sort of rhetoric is a real turn-off for a lot of people, because it seems like you’re judging someone for all sorts of lifestyle factors that are really irrelevant — the ONLY thing that matters is whether or not you abort your fetus. Let’s not turn this debate into a judgy, preachy thing about the ethics of sex. People have all sorts of sexual preferences. And people from ALL backgrounds and ALL sexual preferences have abortions — even extremely religious people; even married monogamous women; even women who conceived babies while in love with their sexual partners.

    “A bloated welfare state, in which taxpayers watch their money pay to feed children born because their parents met in a club one night and felt like “doing it,” and she never even got the guy’s number.”

    Okay, now I’m REALLY confused. You want women not to have abortions, even if they got pregnant by accident, because you value life. But then you don’t want to bother to give them any support to raise their kids? Even though you acknowledge that one of the main reasons they might hesitate to have the baby is financial reasons?

    If you’re poor, it’s not your fault, and it’s not the baby’s fault. Why should the baby be forced to go hungry simply because it had the misfortune to be born into poverty? If you’re mentally ill, and can’t hold down a job, but you get pregnant, it’s not your baby’s fault — why should that child have to go hungry? If your parents were poor, and you had to drop out of school to work, and then you got pregnant, and couldn’t get more than a minimum-wage job because you didn’t have a high school education, and therefore couldn’t afford to hire a nanny to watch your kid, and therefore you are forced to stay home with the kid instead of working — how is ANY of that the woman’s fault??? And more importantly, why shouldn’t we — the people who are comfortable and can feed our own children — pay a little to help her raise that child? If you’re poor, it’s NOT YOUR FAULT. What happened to creating a wonderful, loving COMMUNITY that helped to raise these children that we are calling valuable and lobbying to welcome into the world?

    And why is it the woman’s fault that she “never even got the guy’s number”? Why didn’t the guy GIVE her his number, or get hers? This is really ridiculous logic; why is the woman to blame here? It takes TWO people to have sex. The man is EQUALLY responsible for staying in the marriage. The epidemic of single moms just goes to show how DEDICATED and supportive and wonderful these mothers are. It sure sounds like you’re blaming women for being single moms, when you should be PRAISING them, and blaming the MEN for leaving, as if they had no responsibility whatsoever, as if the women forced sex on them in the first place.

    “Then there is the completely erroneous yet still common idea that it’s somehow liberating for a woman to be viewed as an object and used as a vehicle for a man’s pleasure.”

    What? Where’s this idea? Um… I’ve never heard any feminist say anything of the kind. In fact, this is the exact opposite of feminist philosophy. Feminists espouse the idea that it’s possible to gain empowerment by taking control of your image and your body. Part of that control is inevitably the power to do what you want with your body — even if that means posing for porn. Many women find participating in exhibitionism a turn-on, and I don’t understand a) what’s wrong with that, and b) what it has to do with the abortion debate.

    “Consider the nauseating TV hit “The Girls Next Door,” in which Hugh Hefner’s three “girlfriends” earnestly spoke to the camera about how normal and fulfilling their lives were. Methinks the ladies did protest too much.”

    Wow. Who are you to say someone is lying when they say they’re happy? Who are you to judge them? This is crazy talk. How would you like it if they accused you of being unhappy, despite all the explanations you gave for why you were happy, how you were comfortable and normal and content with all aspects of your life?If they came on camera and said they have abortions, please go ahead and judge them — be my guest. But to judge them for choices they make that have nothing to do with what we’re talking about here — SAVING LIVES by stopping abortion — is really quite awful.

    “Planned Parenthood goes even further to encourage the objectification of women. Part of it is their ferocious peddling of contraceptives and prophylactics”

    How does providing contraception encourage the objectification of women? Does my gynecologist encourage the objectification of women because he gives me condoms? This makes absolutely no sense.

    “but abortion is the most direct way in which PP helps men see women as objects.”

    Abortion exists regardless of whether PP does; what’s your point here, and why is it specifically targeted at PP?

    “Because abortion is legal and encouraged by organizations such as PP as a valid and responsible choice, men in our society often feel quite justified in offering a woman the money for an abortion, and… that’s it. At that point, he has “done right by her.” He offered to pay for it, so he did his part.”

    Hmmmmmm……. really? This website stresses the post-abortion guilt complex and depression that women suffer. Aren’t men, when they knowingly take part in enabling an abortion, also vulnerable to suffer this same depression and psychosis? If not, why does it ONLY affect women? Isn’t it sexist to say that ONLY women suffer guilt after killing their fetuses? How can you say that men have nothing at stake in the matter, they just pay for the abortion and “that’s it”? There are EQUAL emotional and ethical consequences for a man to have an abortion as for a woman to have one. Not to mention the fact that MEN DO HAVE ABORTIONS. Not just women. Trans-men have abortions.

    • BeccaTheVegan

      Feminists are ashamed that their cause is being ‘tainted’ by a man that exploites women. What the heck are trans-men? I frequent church that is mostly made up of the LGBTQ community and have never heard that term used ever.

  • Revelation

    abortion/pornography/domestic violence.Sex without love is lust. Lust doesn’t belong in the
    marriage bed, either.Pride of life, lust of the flesh, lust of the EYE keep you out of the kingdom;
    “Hooked”.Blessings, glory and Honor to the Lamb. Addicted? Memorize Romans C. 6
    you know, crucify yourself. Dead . Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from th edead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
    For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.
    Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with
    Christ we believe that we shall also live with him.

  • BeccaTheVegan

    So I’m assuming that it’s not acceptable for a young woman like me to take birth control to help regulate and prevent the pain from my periods even though I’m not sexually active at all? Because I don’t find crying in a fetal position a great way to spend my time away from school. When the lining of your uterus has spread out to other organs in your body maybe you then can talk about the evils of birth control.

  • Here4life2011

    I like your article. Putting the responsibility back where it belongs. On us and the choices we are making in the name of liberation and freedom particularly as women. If we stopped having sex as a recreational past time a lot of lives would saved, our youth could have childhood’s, our sense of right and wrong would not be so skewed and I would not have spent 35 years regretting my new found freedom which included abortion.

  • JDelia

    People just don’t get it. They are filled with so much nonsense and noise, so easily deterred from the truth and the light. This article is spot on, bottom line.

  • Chihuahuatude

    Here is a factual statement: Planned Parenthood’s abortion care represents 3 percent of its medical services. Nearly all the care offered at Planned Parenthood health centers is preventive services and screenings, including contraception, testing for sexually transmitted infections, pap smears and breast exams.

    “Hugh Hefner contributes money to PP as well as NARAL, as a matter of fact. (Radical pro-choice feminists don’t like to talk about that.)”

    Really? PROVE that radical pro-choice feminists don’t like to talk about that, back up that claim with some FACTS, or STFU