September 14, 2017

OK Cupid partners with Planned Parenthood to help pro-abortion singles avoid pro-life users

StaffRebel Columnist

Ultra left-wing dating service OK Cupid has formed an alliance with Planned Parenthood to make it easier for pro-abortion users to avoid pro-life individuals.

On Twitter, OK Cupid posted an image that read, “I would never date someone who doesn’t support Planned Parenthood. (OkCupid makes it easy to find them.)”

According to Breitbart, the platform will attempt to filter out users by making their views Planned Parenthood public on their profile pictures.

The report claims, “The badge will read ‘#IStandWithPP’ and will be prominently displayed on the profile of every OkCupid member who has publicly responded ‘no’ to the question ‘Should the government defund Planned Parenthood?'”

OkCupid’s CMO Melissa Hobley issued a statement saying the company was “really exciting because it enables us to help people connect on the issues that matter to them.”

“In this current climate, this matters more than ever when it comes to finding ‘your person,” she added. “We know that Planned Parenthood is driving conversations, support and education that millions care about. When we looked at the data, we saw that our community on OkCupid was talking about Planned Parenthood…so we decided to make it easy to find the folks who cared about the same thing.”

Meanwhile, Dawn Laguens, Executive Vice President of Planned Parenthood claimed in a statement, “Knowing your prospective date supports equal rights, access to reproductive health care and the best, evidence-based sex education is undeniably sexy, and OkCupid’s new Planned Parenthood badge will let users see that immediately.”

Well, at least now pro-life users will have an idea on who to avoid.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-09-15 20:29:24 -0400
Andrew, I skimmed your posts and have decided that based on your history here, I will not invest any time responding to you, simply, you are not worth my time and effort. Peace be with you!
commented 2017-09-15 20:25:09 -0400
Jack, you allow yourself to be confined.
You have bought into the abortion industry hook line and sinker! Repeating what you have been instructed to isn’t a truth accepted by all that preceded us.
Thinking you are enlightened is a false position to be starting from.
commented 2017-09-15 20:13:39 -0400
Shapiro’s analogy misses the most crucial aspect of the debate, which is that someone on life support does not rely on access to your body to survival.

Perhaps, if he was on life support and desperately needed a blood transfusion, and you were the only compatible donor that could donate before he died, are you legally or morally obligated to donate even if refusing means his death is inevitable? The moral argument is your own problem, but from a legal perspective, the answer is an emphatic no, you can’t be forced since that would violate your security of person. Yes, it is fully in your rights to refuse to help him even if he dies.

“n commented 6 hours ago
Andrew, don’t like murder? Don’t commit one. I will not force you to make a decision, it’s your prerogative. Your example actually works against you|” It doesn’t actually, since your scenario lacks the security-of-person aspect so central to the abortion debate.

“Al Peterson commented 6 hours ago
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 2 hours ago
The nature of the Supreme Court decision essentially nullifies any legislation that would infringe upon the mother’s security of person, even before it passed…
I think you are reading more into their decision than what was there. All they said was that that particular law was unconstitutional.”

The implications are pretty significant. If the law was struck down because it violated a woman’s security of person, then that means that you cannot re-enact any law that re-establishes that violation.

Perhaps you can think of an abortion regulation that doesn’t infringe on a woman’s right to self determination, but I can’t. The government cannot tell you what you can or can’t do with your uterus.
commented 2017-09-15 20:07:25 -0400
Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt,

It’s not a cop-out at all. It’s the reality we live in even if you don’t like it. A person is only a person with those rights and privileges WHEN THEY ARE BORN.
commented 2017-09-15 20:05:37 -0400
Terry MacLeod,

Point me to an example. All I ever see here are conservatives pointing fingers at liberals only when it comes to being pro-choice and how “sick” they are. I don’t see conservatives getting called out either by The Rebel’s content or Rebel supporters when it comes to being “sick” for supporting “the murder of babies”.
commented 2017-09-15 20:02:48 -0400
Jack, what a cop out!
commented 2017-09-15 20:01:20 -0400
Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt,

I have already been born and thus I am officially a person in every sense of the word, including by society’s standards and legally.

Ben’s scenario doesn’t apply here.
commented 2017-09-15 19:57:02 -0400
“A fetus doesn’t officially become a life….” Well, this is an example of what abortionists tell themselves when they are in the process of stopping a heartbeat and ending brain activity; while often stabbing a helpless human!

I like Ben Shapiro’s analogy and will use it here. So Jack, if you are in a coma and rely on life support to keep you alive; can I come to your hospital room and stab you to death?
commented 2017-09-15 19:42:22 -0400
James Van Halen asked “Where is the outrage over conservatives that are pro-choice?” Obviously you’re new here or tone deaf. Stick around and you’ll see it.
commented 2017-09-15 18:58:50 -0400
Dan Mancuso,

A fetus doesn’t officially become a life until it is born by society and legal standards.

The woman supersedes the glob inside of her that wouldn’t survive outside the womb prior to 22 weeks.

You should read this – you might learn something.

Do The Unborn Have A Right To Life?
commented 2017-09-15 18:49:32 -0400
Correction: should read leftist leaders of first world nations.
commented 2017-09-15 18:45:12 -0400
What I find so very interesting is leftist first world nations are committing billions to the UN to fund/push “women’s health initiatives” in the third world. This is the euphemism that the abortion industry has trotted out. Abortion is opposed by the majority in these third world countries; educating the population (not just women) and, providing contraception options seems a more logical choice than foisting abortionists into their communities.
Trudeau has committed 241 million in the coming years to fund these “procedures”.

I strongly object to no restrictions here in Canada, I also don’t want to pay for an abortion unless the mother’s life is at risk. Call it pro-choice or elective termination of a life, the result is the same. Speaking of elective, isn’t it ironic that so many other “elective procedures” are not eligible for OHIP etc….however, abortion costs are tax payer funded!!!?

For those who simply adhere to the standard rhetoric of the pro-choice movement, ask yourself why the simple slogans are enough for you to support stopping a heartbeat and brain activity. Sit with that for a day or two. Examine why failed abortions are “just part and parcel” of what can happen….or whatever other meaningless justification of ending a life that helps you sleep at night. As others have pointed out, the language you choose doesn’t change what is happening.

The undercover video filmed at a secret Abortion Trade Show April 2017 and was released, and embedded in a report, this video is shocking and appalling. I posted the link last night. Here it is again in case you didn’t see it. The activist is in big trouble, and is facing contempt of court charges for making it public. Another commentor mocked the site that published this video. Many other news outlets published a report confirming this story, many did not publish the video. Probably too disturbing!

.TAMMIE PUTINSKI-ZANDBELT commented 22 hours ago
Abortion Trade Show-
May 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – A federal judge may hold David Daleiden in contempt of court after his attorneys defied a gag order and posted videos on their website of top abortion executives discussing decapitating babies and selling their body parts. The shocking video, which was a compilation of comments made at a secretive abortion trade show, has been pulled from YouTube “for violating YouTube’s Terms of Service.”
commented 2017-09-15 17:12:59 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 5 hours ago…blah, blah, blah.

Yeah, yeah, all your sophistry, rhetoric and other BS aside, just answer the damn question!?
What about the right to life of that human baby in the womb, and what about it’s choice!?

Like I said, you pro-baby-murderers never answer that question. NEVER!
commented 2017-09-15 15:54:02 -0400
Peter Netterville,.

As I said before and you just proved my point about you – there are pro-choice people on the right, hence it’s not a “left” issue at all, but you want to try to make the case for lefties wanting to “murder babies” without pointing the fingers are conservatives that want the same thing as well using your words.

That is what this is really about – an attack on liberals. Where is the outage over conservatives that are pro-choice?
commented 2017-09-15 14:30:20 -0400
All Peterson said to Andrew, “I think you are reading more into their decision than what was there.”

That is the hallmark of the left when they want to justify their sickness; they expand, embellish, massage, and manipulate judicial ruling, laws, quotes from historical figures, and historical facts all to justify their perversions. In this case it is all so they can have unprotected sex any time anyhow they like and when she gets pregnant there is always a tax payer funded murder clinic near by to dispose of the results of their depravity.
commented 2017-09-15 14:23:27 -0400
Andrew said, “The same is true with my comments, but I can actually defend my position.”

So can I defend my position. Don’t blame me if you cannot comprehend what I write. I guess I could draw pictures for you if that helps you understand what I write.
commented 2017-09-15 14:12:50 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 2 hours ago
The nature of the Supreme Court decision essentially nullifies any legislation that would infringe upon the mother’s security of person, even before it passed…
I think you are reading more into their decision than what was there. All they said was that that particular law was unconstitutional. Kinda like the Tater Tot telling us that the Supreme Court said he had to pay Kadahr 10 million bucks. They said no such thing. All they said was that they had to bring hi back to Canada.
commented 2017-09-15 14:09:11 -0400
Kelly, that is such lefty nonsense. So husbands or boyfriends should have no say in the life they helped to create? Possession is 9/10ths of the law? Many woman are pressured into abortions by their boyfriends or husbands. My daughter’s birth mother was because the boy was an irresponsible jerk. Easier to kill the kid than to man up and take care of your handiwork. Fortunately for us the birth mother didn’t go through with it. Unfortunately too many gutless jerks won’t grow up and take responsibility. The result is our silent holocaust.
commented 2017-09-15 14:02:57 -0400
Andrew, don’t like murder? Don’t commit one. I will not force you to make a decision, it’s your prerogative. Your example actually works against you. You are inconsistent. So you have no fright to another human’s organs but you do have the right to destroy another human’s body whenever it suits you.. Nice logic.
commented 2017-09-15 12:21:41 -0400
Al, Dan, Tammie et al ..

You don’t like abortions? Don’t have one. I will not force you to make a decision, it’s your prerogative. It would be nice if you returned the favour.

“’Dan Mancuso commented 11 hours ago
In regard to the pro-baby murderers commenting, et al:
It’s interesting that they will never, ever address the basic RIGHT TO LIFE of the human babies they want to murder, or the baby’s CHOICE in being murdered or not.”

The issue is that the fetus’s “right to life” conflicts with the mother’s right to self-determination. It’s a situation not incomparable to for example organ donation. If you are dying and desperately need a liver transplant, but there are no donors, you do not have the right to confiscate organs from a potential donor to save your life, and nor does the government. The ethics are left solely in the hands of a potential donor, who will have to live with the consequences of letting you die (livers can be live-donated). The laws protect self-determination of your own body but not to the extent where you can affect that of others. In this way only the mother has inalienable rights to her uterus, and the government similarly cannot confiscate those rights to bodily integrity by forcing you to carry a fetus to term (called “security of person”) even if the fetus is reliant on usage of said organ for viability.

That’s the basis of the Supreme Court decision – that the government cannot violate your right to “security of person” even if doing so would save another’s life, which means that the use of the woman’s uterus is at the sole discretion of the woman and the government has no right to infringe upon that discretion.

That’s also why it’s unregulated. The nature of the Supreme Court decision essentially nullifies any legislation that would infringe upon the mother’s security of person, even before it passed… which is to say, any law forcing a mother to carry a child against her will is automatically unconstitutional.
commented 2017-09-15 11:57:58 -0400
“Peter Netterville commented 16 hours ago
Andrew said, "Pro lifers are like vegans, they never shut up about their beliefs and are constantly trying to force their beliefs down your throat. "

And neither do you about your beliefs, you effing hypocrite.

I guess it is okay for you to continually post your opinion on this website, but not pro-lifers? "

It’s my right to complain about them, much as you are utilizing your right to complain about me. Shall we continue down this rabbit-hole?

They’re allowed to speak their opinion. They are not protected from being challenged on them. The same is true with my comments, but I can actually defend my position.
commented 2017-09-15 11:07:13 -0400
A bunch of men debating abortion, a decision you’ll never have to make.
commented 2017-09-15 10:31:25 -0400
Al Peterson, " so what can language do about the truth of what I saw ".
commented 2017-09-15 10:23:58 -0400
Al Peterson, thanks for the rational thought but don’t expect the vacuous trolls to get it.
commented 2017-09-15 10:17:19 -0400
James Van Halen; Judgement isn’t my department. As for hatred, yes, I have an abiding hatred for what you sanctimonious jerks support. Get over it cookie.
commented 2017-09-15 10:08:51 -0400
Another example of the SJW’s twisting language to ease their consciences about the evil they are doing. Pro-choice. Sounds so life affirming when the reality is they are tearing a tiny human being apart. Oh, and then there is the use of the word “fetus” rather than baby. Sounds so much more clinical and non-judgemental.

So let’s take this view to its logical conclusion. You don’t have to murder someone. But who are you to tell someone else they can’t? Let’s soothe our consciences shall we? Let’s call it a “personal post-natal pro-choice decision.” There. That feels better and far less puritanical.

Every law we have is someone pushing their morality on someone else. You don’t have to play your stereo at 2 AM but who are you to tell someone else they can’t ? Intolerant moralistic nazi!

Some people like to have sex with children. But you are not required to do so. More pro-choice moral inversion. Get with the times. Live like you want to live, baby.

Some people get their kicks out of torturing animals. Are you still pro-choice? You don’t have to torture animals. But why push your morality on someone who does?

When SJW’s want to fund their abortion projects they insist that I pay for it out of my taxes. Suddenly there is no concern about free choice any more. They are telling me it is morally wrong for me to not fund someone else abortion. If I don’t pay that portion of my taxes the coercive power of the state will come down hard and I will do jail time.

What kind of depraved sicko finds abortion sexy? Jeremiah 17:9 Here is how sexy a fetus removed from the womb is:
Yup. Just a “blob of tissue” , that is.

So spare me the BS and mental and moral gymnastics. Couching evil in less realistic terms does not make it less evil.
commented 2017-09-15 09:37:54 -0400
James said, "You do realize that most Canadians support abortion with some restrictions. "

There are no laws in Canada that restrict when the baby can be aborted. It is, very sadly, legal to abort a baby minutes before birth in Canada.

James, I get “hyperbolic” because to me abortion is one of the most vile disgusting and yes, evil, practices in our modern society.

The baby has no right to the life it was given, both the life and the death were no choice of its’ own.

Very cruel and inhumane … and oddly supported in the highest percentage by the self-proclaimed humanitarians, the political left.
commented 2017-09-15 07:57:27 -0400
In Canada, many people wrongly assume there are restrictions. Pro-choice supporters don’t seem to know exactly what they are supporting, I find that very problematic.
commented 2017-09-15 02:26:15 -0400
Terry MacLeod,

You do realize that most Canadians support abortion with some restrictions. You talk as if being pro-choice is some sort of fringe demographic. You are the minority and the among the ones spewing hate and judgement for those that are pro-choice.
commented 2017-09-15 01:23:37 -0400
James Van Halen; The only thing you and your trio of trolls are able to be reasonable about is capitulation. You won’t get that here. You prochoicers are no different than antifa. Violent proponents of infanticide.