Planned Parenthood is in Denial
-
However, I don't object to Planned Parenthood because they hand out bad sex literature and praise socialist eugenists (though I certainly would find them objectionable if that was what they did) - I object to them because they murder children.
Well thank you for letting us know of your heavy bias and that we shouldn't take anything you say seriously, I guess?
And 327 thousand a year is 327K too many.
Yeah, better to put them in a dumpster or in a family that can't feed them. Or have the women use a dirty coat-hanger in some smoke-filled basement.
The only costs Planned Parenthood takes on are the costs to run the back-light and wash out the dish
Man-hours, preservation, etc, etc...
So $60 to $100 for each intact organ or system that can be re-sold at $400-$24,000 (no that's not a typo)
Well one more reason for them to haggle the prices, they're getting ripped the fuck off!
Imagine that a non-profit that oversaw end-of-life care was responsible for pulling the organs out of donors and offering them to others who were selling them on the open market.
Fine. I mean, if you get the permission, which is the case here, I don't see the problem. What were they supposed to do with them, since they're used for research in non-public companies, put them up on a wall?
There were rumors that they might be encouraging their patients to sign up to be donors
That's... much less bad than you probably wanted it to sound. And you're still free to deny the encouragement.
and then being a wee-little-bit hasty to declare them dead
I'm not sure what you're drawing the analogy with here.
Is it worth investigating further
Based on this video? Not really.
Overall? Maybe, and there's an investigation in place, so knock yourselves out.
-
Yeah, better to put them in a dumpster or in a family that can't feed them. Or have the women use a dirty coat-hanger in some smoke-filled basement.
The child who's going to live in a dumpster, the child starving to death in a back alley, and the woman who's in such a desperate situation that killing her own child is the happy ending are all in terrible situations that need to be addressed. But in none of those situations is the taking of human life the solution to the problem.
- Can't keep the baby? Don't throw it in the dumpster, put it up for adoption.
- Families going hungry in your town? Donate food, money, and time to food banks and pantries. Make deliveries to shut-ins who can't make it to the pantries.
- Know someone whose boyfriend will kill her if he finds out she is pregnant? Help her get out of that relationship before he kills her for some other reason.
Note that in none of these cases is the problem ignored and in none of them is it solved with , , or the child or the mother.
-
But in none of those situations is the taking of human life the solution to the problem.
I bet a good dose of the nanny state could solve it!
-
At the end of the day, y'all are still defending the people who casually talk about crushing babies.
-
-
Because none of these organizations exist, huh?
Well, if you had any amount of intelligence I think you would have realized that I was referring to national organizations and that I was not implying that they were the one single source of free healthcare for women in the entire world. The blakey is strong with this one.
But, since you mention it, your first link is already dead. So apparently they have already went out of business since you shot off your mouth?
-
Apologies, I missed the implicit inherent in:
I am also not OK with [people] trying to kill the one [NATIONAL] organization where women of any economic circumstance can go to get gynecological visits and birth control
An organization could be at any level from the county to international. At the risk of channelling blakey, say what you mean, don't take offense at me not reading your mind. Otherwise it feels likes .
That said, the first entry in my list is The National Association of Free & Charitable Clinics ... seems like a national organization to me, but maybe I don't read so good. (Planned Parenthood being a franchise, this seems like a reasonable apples-to-apple-pear-hybrid comparison to me).
your first link is already dead
I'm confused, is it this link that's dead?
Or is it this one:
I'd do the other four, but that might get a wee bit repetitive
Filed under status:no-repo
-
-
Let's remove fetuses from the equation. Let's say you and I are negotiating a transaction to sell widgets. Due to raisins, I am not allowed to turn a profit from the transaction, but you lowball me and put try to set a price well below what my costs are. So, I try to get a higher price.
In such a situation, you say, "Widgets cost me $X to produce. I am not allowed to profit from this transaction. I cannot afford to sell for less than $X. The price is not negotiable. If you cannot afford to pay $X, then you will need to find another supplier."
Either that or you find a way to reduce your costs. Man, that was hard!
So you're a pro-life nutcase?
So telling people to deal with the consequences of their choices is being a nutcase*? Saying, "You chose to have sex, so you now must deal with the consequences," makes someone a nutcase? Insisting that people accept personal responsibility is now nutcase territory?
* Yes, I am aware that there are scenarios where the mother had no choice in the matter. But those scenarios do not make up the majority of abortions. Such situations just go to show that the topic of abortion is not so cut-and-dry and the pro-life and pro-choice loud mouths want everyone to believe.
Though I would argue that visits to the clinic is probably a better measure than # patients, which would put it at 7.1%, not 12%.
I disagree, since some states require at least one visit at least 24 hours before the abortion can be performed. That means that some of those visits, while not strictly for performing an abortion, are abortion related. Without looking at the actual records, pinning down an actual percentage based on the visits would be difficult.
@svieira said:
And 327 thousand a year is 327K too many.
Yeah, better to put them in a dumpster or in a family that can't feed them.You know, there's this amazing process called "adoption." It allows a woman to give up her unwanted child. Then, that child can legally become part of another family who wants them! It's almost magic!
-
Weird, the NAFC link doesn't work for me either from this location. @svieira, do you have an IP address for that hostname?
-
He was behind the Acorn videos that got everyone all riled up and turned out to be nothing at all.
I think we watched different videos.
-
Let's remove fetuses from the equation.
This is now an irrelevant conversation.
But still, fucking idiots watch the edited video, get all enraged because they see it as Planned Parenthood turning a huge profit on fetal tissue and don't even bother watching the unedited version, because they are fucking easily-swayed idiots.
It's more like going after Al Capone for tax evasion.
-
but I am also not OK with fucking idiots and liars trying to kill the one organization where women of any economic circumstance can go to get gynecological visits and birth control
Wow. And you're calling people nutcases?
oh yay the foxnews weighs in.
Right back into your wheelhouse, eh?
-
Have you ever considered there might be a difference between not being bothered by abortions and not wanting to deny women the right to have one?
Yes! Kind of like honor killings.
-
Weird, the NAFC link doesn't work for me either from this location. @svieira, do you have an IP address for that hostname?
okay, that's weird. Here's what
ping
anddig
produce for me:$ ping www.nafcclinics.org PING nafcclinics.org (166.62.39.86): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 166.62.39.86: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=78.908 ms 64 bytes from 166.62.39.86: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=80.669 ms 64 bytes from 166.62.39.86: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=87.293 ms 64 bytes from 166.62.39.86: icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=76.217 ms ^C $ dig www.nafcclinics.org ; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> www.nafcclinics.org ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 42232 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;www.nafcclinics.org. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.nafcclinics.org. 1132 IN CNAME nafcclinics.org. nafcclinics.org. 1131 IN A 166.62.39.86 ;; Query time: 34 msec ;; SERVER: 172.31.0.2#53(172.31.0.2) ;; WHEN: Wed Jul 29 11:32:17 2015 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 67
-
going after Al Capone for tax evasion
"Give me a man and I will find the crime", eh? Well shit, guess they shouldn't even bother with the hearing, it's so obvious they're eeeevil.
-
Even hitting the IP address directly, it doesn't go. 2
-
I get timeouts when I ping the IP:
Edit: Whoops, @acclia'd the first octet.
Edit2: Correct IP, still times out:
-
@boomzilla said:
going after Al Capone for tax evasion
"Give me a man and I will find the crime", eh? Well shit, guess they shouldn't even bother with the hearing, it's so obvious they're eeeevil.
Get them where they're vulnerable, more like. I mean, yeah, they are evil. But their kind of evil has been enshrined as a right in some emanation of a penumbra of the Constitution, so you have to fight evil where you can.
-
Does it at least pull up a pretty yellow cPanel page, or is the internet well and truly bifurcated today?
-
If I use the hostname, DNS lookup fails. If I use the IP, it appears to time out, like it did for @Polygeekery. Fucked up, it is.
-
Chuckles Looks like it's hosted by GoDaddy and something is a bit messed up with either this website or their DNS setup:
$ whois "n 166.62.39.86" http://whois.arin.net/rest/nets;q=166.62.39.86?showDetails=true&showARIN=false&showNonArinTopLevelNet=false&ext=netref2 NetRange: 166.62.0.0 - 166.62.127.255 CIDR: 166.62.0.0/17 NetName: GO-DADDY-COM-LLC NetHandle: NET-166-62-0-0-1 Parent: NET166 (NET-166-0-0-0-0) NetType: Direct Allocation OriginAS: AS26496 Organization: GoDaddy.com, LLC (GODAD) RegDate: 2012-11-14 Updated: 2014-02-25 Comment: Please send abuse complaints to abuse@godaddy.com Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-166-62-0-0-1
-
Yes! Kind of like honor killings.
? DOES_NOT_COMPUTE
BTW: See raw of the post you replied to.
-
I mean, yeah, they are evil. But their kind of evil has been enshrined as a right in some emanation of a penumbra of the Constitution, so you have to fight evil where you can.
Jesus fuck. You guys make me empathize with Blakey.
-
@boomzilla said:
Yes! Kind of like honor killings.
? DOES_NOT_COMPUTE
BTW: See raw of the post you replied to.
Some people see abortion as murder. That's not something you tolerate if the kid is 16 or -0.25.
-
@boomzilla said:
I mean, yeah, they are evil. But their kind of evil has been enshrined as a right in some emanation of a penumbra of the Constitution, so you have to fight evil where you can.
Jesus fuck. You guys make me empathize with Blakey.
OK? Obviously we'll disagree about the evilness...but I'm not going to disagree that people who do abortions are doing evil, even if the original statement was in jest. The emanations and stuff was not something I made up. It was said by a US Supreme Court Justice when he made shit up on the road to creating an effective right to abortion:
The original and literal meaning of penumbra is "a space of partial illumination between the perfect shadow … on all sides and the full light" (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., 1996). The term was created and introduced by astronomer Johannes Kepler in 1604 to describe the shadows that occur during eclipses. However, in legal terms penumbra is most often used as a metaphor describing a doctrine that refers to implied powers of the federal government. The doctrine is best known from the Supreme Court decision of griswold v. connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965), where Justice william o. douglas used it to describe the concept of an individual's constitutional right of privacy.
I'll give you a pass on not knowing that bit of US history, but I'd mock you for it if you were an American.
-
In such a situation, you say, "Widgets cost me $X to produce. I am not allowed to profit from this transaction. I cannot afford to sell for less than $X. The price is not negotiable. If you cannot afford to pay $X, then you will need to find another supplier."
Either that or you find a way to reduce your costs. Man, that was hard!
And as has been shown in many, many, many news outlets, they are not turning a profit on this. There is no way that they can at those prices. It is not possible. Lots of experts have weighed in on it.
Yes, you are outraged at the subject matter, and the way that the conversation took place because you have moral issues with it. But don't assign profit where there is none. You can debate how the conversation could have taken place, and perhaps there should have been less levity and more seriousness given the subject. But here's the deal, people who work in things like this all the time can become desensitized, or they can see it as contributing to the greater good.
So telling people to deal with the consequences of their choices is being a nutcase*? Saying, "You chose to have sex, so you now must deal with the consequences," makes someone a nutcase? Insisting that people accept personal responsibility is now nutcase territory?
Different people put the cutoff for life at different stages of the game. You, and others, put it at the moment of conception. Me, personally, I put it at the point that the fetus can reliably live outside of the mother's body. Very early term abortions I have no moral qualm with. I have no moral problems with "Plan B". I definitely do not see birth control as any sort of moral dilemma.
I also allow for the fact that there is some research that cannot be done without the procurement of fetal tissue. Work that has the very real potential to save millions of lives and enhance the standard of life for millions of others. I am generally opposed to the idea of animal testing also, but I am realistic to realize that in many circumstances it is necessary.
Yes, I am aware that there are scenarios where the mother had no choice in the matter. But those scenarios do not make up the majority of abortions.
But pro-life nutcases want to throw those out also. Hell, we have people in Congress that believe that a woman's body can just "shut down" pregnancies in the case of rape and incest. That is just idiotic, and these are the assholes that we elect.
As far as this video, I have seen the breakdowns and debunkings. It is enough for me to know that this whole video is bullshit when you consider the source.
-
I disagree, since some states require at least one visit at least 24 hours before the abortion can be performed. That means that some of those visits, while not strictly for performing an abortion, are abortion related. Without looking at the actual records, pinning down an actual percentage based on the visits would be difficult.
I thought about editing in a comment about that, but I was already in bed and it didn't occur to me at the time that we have the numbers to figure this out. It doesn't change the answer much.From svieira's sources, if I remember right (not looking now) PP saw about 4.6 million clinic visits. Suppose that all of the 327K or whatever it was of abortions resulted in two clinic visits; that would be 327K abortions to 3.95M non-abortion-related visits, or 8.2%. By any non-nutcase reckoning, it's a very small proportion of what PP does.
-
@abarker said:
So telling people to deal with the consequences of their choices is being a nutcase*? Saying, "You chose to have sex, so you now must deal with the consequences," makes someone a nutcase? Insisting that people accept personal responsibility is now nutcase territory?
Different people put the cutoff for life at different stages of the game. You, and others, put it at the moment of conception. Me, personally, I put it at the point that the fetus can reliably live outside of the mother's body. Very early term abortions I have no moral qualm with. I have no moral problems with "Plan B". I definitely do not see birth control as any sort of moral dilemma.I also allow for the fact that there is some research that cannot be done without the procurement of fetal tissue. Work that has the very real potential to save millions of lives and enhance the standard of life for millions of others. I am generally opposed to the idea of animal testing also, but I am realistic to realize that in many circumstances it is necessary.
And none of what you said addresses my point. You stated that pro-lifers are nutcases. That is an awfully dismissive statement. You have done nothing but attempt to sweep my response out of the way. Here's the way I see it: most of the time, abortion is an attempt to escape responsibility for one's actions. If you choose to have sex, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of that choice, including the potential for pregnancy. If you are not aware that pregnancy is a possibility, then you are not capable of choosing to have sex. If you are not prepared to be pregnant, then you should not be having sex[1]. That's it: accept personal responsibility for your choices.
Now, to break down your response:
You, and others, put it at the moment of conception.
You are making a bit of an assumption about where I put the cutoff for life, considering I have never made such a statement. But if I had to assign a cutoff, I'd probably go with week 6, which is actually about 4 weeks after conception, when the heart starts beating. The thing is, by the time a fetus has a heartbeat, most women don't even realize they are pregnant.
I definitely do not see birth control as any sort of moral dilemma.
There's a big difference between birth control and abortion. So big that I see no point in debating birth control.
I also allow for the fact that there is some research that cannot be done without the procurement of fetal tissue. Work that has the very real potential to save millions of lives and enhance the standard of life for millions of others.
So abortion is ok because we need fetal tissue for research purposes? Given what this is in reply to (yay context!), that seems to be what you are saying. I guess by that reasoning you have no problem with the Holocaust because of all the medical research that the Nazi's performed on the Jews. Ends justify the means, right?
But pro-life nutcases
And here you go labeling pro-lifers as "nutcases" again. Maybe I'll just start referring to pro-choicers as "murderers" or, given the earlier comparison, "nazis". Seriously, just stop with the generalizations.
But pro-life nutcases want to throw those out also.
Not all pro-lifers want to completely ban abortion. There are pro-lifers that want to ban abortion, with exceptions made for cases of rape, incest, or where the pregnancy is seriously endangering the health of the mother.
Hell, we
have peoplehad one person in Congress that believed that a woman's body can just "shut down" pregnancies in the case of rape and incest. That is just idiotic, and these are the assholes that we elect.FTFY.
And guess what? He wasn't re-elected. At least it was Missouri that had to clean that mess up.
[1] I say this even if you are using contraceptives. No contraceptive methods are 100% effective - aside from abstinence and the complete removal of the gonads.
-
Some people also think eating meat is murder. Your point being? Also, how in the name of Jesus-Fucking-Christ is this related to honor killings?
-
@abarker said:
Yes, I am aware that there are scenarios where the mother had no choice in the matter. But those scenarios do not make up the majority of abortions.
But pro-life nutcases want to throw those out also.It's generally taken for granted that's it's OK to abort if the child was conceived in rape. I can understand that obviously this wasn't something that was the choice of the woman in the way a consensual pregnancy would be, but it kind of ignores the argument about the morality of killing a perceived person.
Which I guess means that we should be able to treat these people after they're born as less than human, too. I can understand using that sort of exception makes practical sense, because you can always work on getting rid of that later, too. It's a natural political compromise.
-
By any non-nutcase reckoning, it's a very small proportion of what PP does.
Murdering and raping boys was also (probably) a very small portion of John Wayne Gacy's typical day.
-
Your comparisons get even worse as this thread progresses.
-
Some people also think eating meat is murder. Your point being? Also, how in the name of Jesus-Fucking-Christ is this related to honor killings?
Directly? Not at all. It was an analogy to another sort of killing that some people seem to think should be condoned, even if they don't do it. Or anyways, it's a socially approved sort of killing in parts of the world.
You asked a rhetorical question meant to make people who are not willing to tolerate abortion look ridiculous and I used a different analogy that I thought would appear to you the way your original statement appeared to me.
-
Your comparisons get even worse as this thread progresses.
It's true. PP has killed millions of babies over the years. I'll bet Gacy never even made triple digits!
-
You stated that pro-lifers are nutcases.
Eh, maybe that is what I said, but I was mostly trying to get under @FrostCat's skin due to the BS he was spouting at the time. There are reasonable pro-life people. The problem with debates like this is that the loudest, and craziest, of both sides tend to get the airplay.
Here's the way I see it: most of the time, abortion is an attempt to escape responsibility for one's actions. If you choose to have sex, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of that choice, including the potential for pregnancy. If you are not aware that pregnancy is a possibility, then you are not capable of choosing to have sex. If you are not prepared to be pregnant, then you should not be having sex[1]. That's it: accept personal responsibility for your choices.
Fair enough. But what about the child? There is a very strong statistical correlation between Roe V. Wade and the serious drop in crime that we saw in the 90's. What about the mother, who may have went on to make something of herself, but ended up pregnant too young and instead ends up in poverty?
Yeah, yeah, personal responsibility. I am all for personal responsibility, but I was also young once. I lived in a small town and if I had gotten someone pregnant I would probably still be living there and making 1/10th of what I am now. I have never had to be involved in the decision on an abortion, but I can see the pros in many cases.
You are making a bit of an assumption about where I put the cutoff for life, considering I have never made such a statement.
Fair enough. Your view is more moderate than one would infer from earlier statements.
So abortion is ok because we need fetal tissue for research purposes?
Not at all. But, if a woman is going to have the abortion anyway then society may as well see some benefit to it.
Seriously, just stop with the generalizations.
Done. Unless I am trying to get under @FrostCat's skin again. Then all bets are off.
There are pro-lifers that want to ban abortion, with exceptions made for cases of rape, incest, or where the pregnancy is seriously endangering the health of the mother.
Given what I said earlier about the loudest getting the most attention, you can see why most of us think that they are in the monority...
And guess what? He wasn't re-elected.
Thank fuck. But he is far from the only one.
-
You asked a rhetorical question meant to make people who are not willing to tolerate look ridiculous
No, I didn't. Yes, the question was rhetorical, but it was meant as a defense against the assumption that pro-choice people like abortions, not as an attack. You just chose to interpret it as one for some reason.
-
No, I didn't. Yes, the question was rhetorical, but it was meant as a defense against the assumption that pro-choice people like abortions, not as an attack.
Ah, OK. I stand by my analysis of the position, if not the intent.
You just chose to interpret it as one for some reason.
Sorry, it felt like one to me. Terse posts often come across in wildly different ways than we intend. You were probably a victim of @polygeekery's calling people nutcases to create a tone.
-
Murdering and raping boys was also (probably) a very small portion of John Wayne Gacy's typical day.
So even though I consider myself squarely in the moderate pro-choice camp (surprise surprise), I'm actually a lot more sympathetic to the pro-life position than I am to the opposing position on many other issues. (Except for the few people who want to prohibit abortion even when it endangers the health/life of the mother, which I consider to be a thoroughly morally-bankrupt position.) So to the extent this is a pro-choice/pro-life debate, fine, though I'm not really in the mood for another political debate that won't change anyone's mind. :-)But let's have a refresher at what FrostCat said:
Also, let's not forget the vast, vast, majority of what PP does is abortions.
This statement is not even remotely close to being even kind of almost correct.
-
Except for the few people who want to prohibit abortion even when it endangers the health/life of the mother, which I consider to be a thoroughly morally-bankrupt position.
I don't think we should even need a law for that. It seems like self defense to me.
This statement is not even remotely close to being even kind of almost correct.
I agree. But no amount of pap smears makes up for the abortions AFAIC, which was my point.
-
I don't think we should even need a law for that. It seems like self defense to me.
At best you would likely only be able to apply existing self-defense laws when it's the fetus itself that is causing the danger. That wouldn't apply in other cases, e.g. when the mother is diagnosed with cancer and needs to undergo chemo. Even in the first case it's questionable; for self-defense to apply, usually you have to be defending against an unlawful action, and there's effectively no way that a fetus could be carrying out such an action. There are other possible defenses (like necessity), but they also hinge on value judgements and are far from a surefire success. Not codifying that exception in law is a very bad idea.On top of that, you have very very occasional bills introduced that, if enacted, would prohibit late-term abortions in all cases, without even that exception. (I'll see if I can find an example this evening.)
-
I would never generalize and call all pro-lifers nutcases, although most I talked to so far were religious fanatics that didn't even know the difference between a morning-after pill and an abortion pill.
In case you're actually interested in my point of view: I personally think abortions are immoral, because my personal opinion is that abortion is, in fact, murder. That opinion is based on my personal definition of human life, though, probably biased by my religious beliefs, and I can see why others would disagree. Also, there is some evidence that making abortion legal and regulated reduces both crime against children and - interestingly - the abortion rate. (Disclaimer: The study I'm referring to was not conducted in the US, so statistics there might differ.) Because of that and because I don't like to impose my personal opinion on others when I can't be sure I'm right, I view abortion as one of the many things I strongly disagree with, but that should better be legal and regulated than illegal and unregulated.
-
And as has been shown in many, many, many news outlets, they are not turning a profit on this. There is no way that they can at those prices. It is not possible. Lots of experts have weighed in on it.
I wonder how many of those experts were assuming that the cost was for preserving, shipping, and handling of the remains by Planned Parenthood and its staff? Because, if you watch the third video you'll see that the $60-$100 per-specimen is entirely profit - the purchasing company sends a courier who picks through the remains, bottles, bags, and ships them on the purchasing company's dime. The only way you could count it as reimbursement is if you assume that the money is paying for the air the courier breaths while picking up the remains.
-
Fair enough. But what about the child? There is a very strong statistical correlation between Roe V. Wade and the serious drop in crime that we saw in the 90's. What about the mother, who may have went on to make something of herself, but ended up pregnant too young and instead ends up in poverty?
Yeah, there are lot's of "What if's". But you know what's also an option if you get pregnant and can't take care of the baby? Adoption! You still deal with some of the consequences of your actions (the pregnancy) and then some family that wants a kid gets a kid! And it isn't unknown to arrange an adoption where the birth-mother's expenses are paid for by the adoption agency or the adopting family.
There is a very strong statistical correlation between Roe V. Wade and the serious drop in crime that we saw in the 90's.
Correlation means nothing. Here's a something on the topic in 2014:
Today, the abortion hypothesis holds less water. “Generally speaking, it has been discredited,” Rosenfeld says. Violent crime continued to rise into the early years of the 1990s, when the first generation of boys who went through the “abortion filter” were already in their late teens to early 20s, older than the age—13—at which criminal behavior typically emerges. Evidence from other nations showed little relationship between the legalization of abortion and the crime rate. If abortion does account for a fraction of the American crime decline, it is likely a small one.[[1]]
On top of that, crime rates in Canada were dropping at the same time[2], but abortion wasn't fully legalized in Canada until about 15 years after Roe v Wade[3]. If access to abortion was a major factor in the drop in crime rate, you would expect the decrease in crime rates in Canada to have lagged behind the changes in the US by nearly the same amount of time *.
* Considering the theory is that those who would have become criminals were being aborted, or families turned to crime to support children they couldn't afford, it is unlikely that those people would have been able to afford traveling to the US to get an abortion.
Yeah, yeah, personal responsibility. I am all for personal responsibility
That doesn't mesh with your position on abortion. Abortion is all about escaping personal responsibility. "Shit, I got pregnant. I could either accept that as a natural consequence of my choice to get laid, or I could have an abortion and go on living my life. Abortion FTW!" **.
** This monologue is a dramatization. Any similarity to any other dramatization, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
But he is far from the only one.
Citation needed.
-
At the end of the day you're still defending organizations that think women should be left to die in the event of a complication.
-
Correlation means nothing. Here's a something on the topic in 2014:
Source? Without me being able to research the source, I cannot know if the source is complete BS...or even exists.
That doesn't mesh with your position on abortion.
According to you.
Abortion is all about escaping personal responsibility.
According to you.
Citation needed.
-
I wonder how many of those experts were assuming that the cost was for preserving, shipping, and handling of the remains by Planned Parenthood and its staff? Because, if you watch the third video you'll see that the $60-$100 per-specimen is entirely profit - the purchasing company sends a courier who picks through the remains, bottles, bags, and ships them on the purchasing company's dime. The only way you could count it as reimbursement is if you assume that the money is paying for the air the courier breaths while picking up the remains.
None of them. And yes, they have to have special procedures just to make sure the tissue is viable. You talk about it like the courier comes and rummages through their dumpster. Get a clue.
-
You were probably a victim of @polygeekery's calling people nutcases to create a tone.
I am just trying to raise the level of discourse around here.
-
I object to them because they murder children.
Anyone who opposes abortion because their religion (most likely Christianity) says that it's murder needs to go back and read the Bible again - it's pretty explicit that the death of an unborn child is not equivalent to murder.
-
Correlation
meansproves nothing.FTFY
Correlation, while not proof, often means that a point merits further investigation.
This discussion seems to have slowed down. If it's better to abort a child then to have them grow up to a life of poverty and petty crime, would it be acceptable to apply the death penalty to these petty crimes? Being able to afford a decent lawyer would filter for poverty, too. You know, just to be consistent and all that.