Planned Parenthood is in Denial
-
Your contention is that 51%+ of all abortion are "Changed your mind", instead of "Accidental Pregnancy"?
I don't know what the % are.
But it would be great if we could reduce abortions by making sure people use protection, and encouraging abstinence as a tool.
I don't want to throw a young girl out because she got pregnant outside of attempting to have a child with the intent of providing the most stable home she can. And I don't want to throw a man in prison because he got a girl pregnant (and everything else from above).
However, there should be some accountability for that.
Not the judgmental
stigmatismstigmata from today, but honest accountability.
-
Not the judgmental stigmatism from today, but honest accountability.
Some judgmental stigmatism is more equal than others.
-
I wanted to stay out of this, but when you post something that is easily debunked bullshit, I have to step back in for a moment. Let's look at the entire quote, in the interest of intellectual honesty:
Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae -- in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
So, the next time you decide to pull some graphic from a right-wing nutjob website, at least do a tiny amount of cursory fact-checking to see if it is bullshit. She never said that she had concerns, she said that there may have been concerns from others and she approved of the upholding of the Hyde Amendment.
If we are going to villify people that we do not like, let's at least keep the scope limited to blakey.
-
So, the next time you decide to pull some graphic from a right-wing nutjob website,
Fucking facebook. OK, it was from one of my enlightened right wing groups. But I guess I shouldn't argue your ad hominem, since it's your best argument in this post.
easily debunked bullshit
If it's so easy, then why didn't you do it? The quote is right there. I don't see how the context makes her say anything different than the way I read it in the graphic. It's not like there's anything new about the racism of abortion activists.
If we are going to villify people that we do not like, let's at least keep the scope limited to blakey.
It's funny how often correctly and accurately quoting a liberal leads to accusations of hate or vilification.
-
If it's so easy, then why didn't you do it?
I did. Apparently there is something wrong with your reading comprehension when reading something that contradicts your POV.
The quote is right there.
And you did not read it, so I can't help you.
I don't see how the context makes her say anything different than the way I read it in the graphic.
And that is because you have your head too far up your ideology. Fine, you are pro-life. I get it. That doesn't mean you can just cherry-pick a quote, leave out context, make it fit your ideology and then expect no one to call you on it.
It's not like there's anything new about the racism of abortion activists.
So now anyone who is adamantly pro-choice is racist? Gotcha.
It's funny how often correctly and accurately quoting a liberal leads to accusations of hate or vilification.
Except you did none of the above.
-
I did. Apparently there is something wrong with your reading comprehension when reading something that contradicts your POV.
What message was in the graphic? What was it in the context of the interview that you provided that contradicted what was in the graphic?
That doesn't mean you can just cherry-pick a quote, leave out context, make it fit your ideology and then expect no one to call you on it.
Except there was nothing in your call.
So now anyone who is adamantly pro-choice is racist? Gotcha.
That's a leap of bad faith, there.
Except you did none of the above.
Sorry, but I can't see how I didn't. And you still haven't been able to say why I didn't. You've only asserted it.
-
I am out of here. There is still too much crazy in this thread for my tastes. I like you in other threads, but when your ideology gets in the way of reason I have to bow out.
-
If you don't want to communicate, that's cool. Seriously, I have no idea what you've been on about in the last few posts.
-
there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of
Who had that concern?
Apparently enough concern that it caught the eye of a justice.So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them.
This is hard to interpret.
My guess is that the concern is that Medicaid would pay for abortions.
Apparently tax money is going to abortions, so I'm not sure what the difference is.Which some people felt would risk coercing women
And they are coerced, on a regular basis.
Read about a woman that was convinced to have a chemical abortion because her child has died in the womb. It was unnecessary entirely, but the doctor wanted the fetus cleared up faster (similar to our over-reliance on anti-biotics).
Turned out she had twins, and the remaining twin would have come out healthy.Another social worker coerced a girl into having an abortion and threatened to remove her from her foster family otherwise. Apparently children in the foster system BELONG to the government.
It just happens that McRae eliminated Medicaid funding for abortion.
But the government in all its wisdom felt necessary to privately fund abortion.
So, Ginsburg was concerned that government would find a way to fund abortion, and end up finding ways to coerce abortion of poor people.
Turns out, government found a round-about way of doing it.
So.... seems to me the concern has come to fruition.
And to be clear, this isn't a concern for actual coercion, but concern for the conflict of interest that could become coercion.
Even if the concerns were coming from the conservative side, they are still very real rational concerns, with examples of it actually occurring.
It's not a slippery slope when you have examples.
-
Fetal tissue has multiple research uses, which is what the whole fucking talk is all about. Your point?
I am opposed to abortion, so why would I be okay with selling fetal tissue?
@abarker said:
The fetus in an abortion has had no chance at life. It has done nothing wrong. The only thing held against it is that it is alive.
Same for animals.
Not quite. There's also the following that's "held against" animals:
- Traditional prey animals are a food source.
- Pelts and hides are useful for making leather. Leather has many, many uses.
- Scavengers and predators can be serious nuisances, endangering human lives.
And those are just a few points. So your "same for animals" argument doesn't hold up.
the whole point of abortion is to not wait too long, before the kid develops a nervous system
About 35% of abortions occur at ≤6 weeks of gestation[1]. As already discussed, the brain begins developing at 5 weeks. So at least some of that 35% percent has a brain at the time of abortion. That isn't even counting the other 65% that definitely has a brain at the time of abortion. Well, fuck, it looks like the majority of abortions miss this milestone that you set.
an understanding of pain
Not quite sure what you mean by "understanding of pain". Current studies, based solely on physical developments, show that a fetus starts feeling pain at 7 weeks, 18 weeks, or 26 weeks[2]. The first developments necessary for feeling pain, the free nerve endings and their connection to the brain, form at 7 weeks. I already mention that about 35% of abortions happen at 6 weeks or earlier, which means that 65% happen at 7 weeks or later. This means that in 65% of abortions, the fetus has the bare minimum physiology to feel pain. The next milestone in pain development occurs at 12 weeks. About 15% of abortions are performed at or after 12 weeks, which means that those fetus can probably feel pain. The final milestone, at 26 weeks, is after any abortions are legally permitted in the US.
So based on this, 65% of aborted fetuses may respond to pain stimuli, and 15% may actually be able to process it. Guess that eliminates your second condition.
and/or becomes born.
Well it wouldn't be an abortion at that point. Then it's murder.
I'm sorry that you can't see how a lot of the arguments you just raised in support of hunting and death sentence can be used to support abortion.
Wow, is that what you thought I was doing? You really need to work on your reading comprehension. I was illustrating how they are all different. Trying to use pro-hunting or pro-death-sentence arguments as support for an anti-abortion position would … not work. Let me try this again:
- I mentioned that abortion is the end of a life, forgetting where I
Wwas I failed to include the conditions "innocent" and "human". - You then brought up hunting and the death sentence.
- I illustrated how the three are different to dismiss your argument.
- You misconstrued my point as using hunting and the death sentence to support anti-abortion.
We arrived at stage 4 because:
- You ignore context.
- Your resort to ignorant claims (such as those dispelled above), which indicates that you can't be bothered to actually back up your position with research.
- You resorted to ad hominem and straw man arguments. One can only assume you don't have any meaningful rebuttal.
-
But it would be great if we could reduce abortions by making sure people use protection, and encouraging abstinence as a tool.
I don't want to throw a young girl out because she got pregnant outside of attempting to have a child with the intent of providing the most stable home she can. And I don't want to throw a man in prison because he got a girl pregnant (and everything else from above).
However, there should be some accountability for that.
Not the judgmental
stigmatismstigmata from today, but honest accountability.QFFT
-
I don't know that I agree with you, but I have to respect this post.
-
I am opposed to abortion, so why would I be okay with selling fetal tissue?
But your argument for hunting is "because we can make use of what we hunt". Obviously I understand that it doesn't justify abortion in itself, but I can't see how you can go between "making use of carcass is one of the reasons why hunting is OK" and "making use of fetal tissue is Hitler-wrong" without any dissonance.
Traditional prey animals are a food source.
Pelts and hides are useful for making leather. Leather has many, many uses.So I can "hold against" fetuses that they're the source of useful stem cells?
Scavengers and predators can be serious nuisances, endangering human lives.
Fair enough; but lots of animals being hunted are neither, and even the species which are aren't necessarily immediately dangerous.
Well, fuck, it looks like the majority of abortions miss this milestone that you set.
Well, fuck, don't you think I'd rather they didn't? But then you say:
So based on this, 65% of aborted fetuses may respond to pain stimuli, and 15% may actually be able to process it.
Given that by "may respond to pain stimuli" you mean "has the wiring in place" and not "is conscious and able to actually feel pain", which we have no idea when happens, let's do a compromise here and stick to the second number (which also seems to be supported by the article you quoted). 15%, you say? And for the purpose of this part of discussion, shave off all the post-22 week abortions which necessitate anaesthesia. Not a lot, not a necessity, and easily remedied without putting a kibosh on abortion, period.
>I'm sorry that you can't see how a lot of the arguments you just raised in support of hunting and death sentence can be used to support abortion.
Wow, is that what you thought I was doing?
No, that's what I did. Why would I wait for you to support abortion?
I was just showing how your arguments are incompatible with each other for a large part.
I mentioned that abortion is the end of a life
If you so choose, as I said, not going to argue that.
forgetting where I Wwas I failed to include the conditions "innocent" and "human".
Huge ommision. Look, you can be anti-abortion and pro-hunting all you want, but so far I can't see an argument from you that would differentiate the cases you're for with the cases you're against. You make a case that fetuses are "innocent" lives, but then so are animals. You make the case that they're "human" lives, but then so are death row inmates. You make the case that animals provide resources, but then so do fetuses. You make the case that killing other species is a part of nature, but then so's killing the cubs. Et caetera, et caetera.
And of course eventually, with trial and error, you'll find the stars to align as you want, but that's cherry picking.
-
but I can't see how you can go between "making use of carcass is one of the reasons why hunting is OK" and "making use of fetal tissue is Hitler-wrong" without any dissonance.
Really? Really? I have a very difficult time believing that.
You make the case that they're "human" lives, but then so are death row inmates.
Who are the opposite of innocent.
And of course eventually, with trial and error, you'll find the stars to align as you want, but that's cherry picking.
Oh FFS.
-
Really? Really? I have a very difficult time believing that.
Why? At that point, the only difference is that one was once human, and the other was once an animal. That's not much to praise one as a good reason to kill, and condemn the other as evil.
-
-
Why? At that point, the only difference is that one was once human, and the other was once an animal. That's not much to praise one as a good reason to kill, and condemn the other as evil.
It's...freakin' huge! But I'll agree to disagree. I can see how if you cannot see how someone else could have a different value for something like that everything looks arbitrary and "cherry picked."
I still have a hard time believing that you really can't see it. That's just...hmm....shit!
Hey, @flabdablet, I think I've been microaggressed! My experience is being denied here!
-
I still have a hard time believing that you really can't see it. That's just...hmm....shit!
Well now you know how I feel debating with you guys.
Filed under: also bringing our old pal @flabdablet here is a bold move
-
Well now you know how I feel debating with you guys.
Fair enough, I suppose. I mean...I try to argue the substance (generally trolling and snark aside), but I certainly can be incredulous at some people's strongly held beliefs.
BTW, I have a similar dichotomy regarding things my government does to people. So: spying, bombing, killing...I'm pretty OK with that stuff going on against foreigners in a way that I'm vehemently against if it happens domestically.
Filed under: also bringing our old pal @flabdablet here is a bold move
I guess I felt like I needed to be scolded by an obscure comic or comedian.
-
Well now you know how I feel debating with you guys.
No, I completely see your argument, how you derived it, and what you expect us to reflect on.
I just happen to also disagree with it.
-
I can't see how you can go between "making use of carcass is one of the reasons why hunting is OK" and "making use of fetal tissue is Hitler-wrong" without any dissonance.
Well, I've never made the claim that "making use of fetal tissue is Hitler-wrong", so there isn't any dissonance. I've only claimed that the way Planned Parenthood is doing it (i.e., making a profit, which is illegal) is wrong. Again, no dissonance there since poaching is wrong, too.
So I can "hold against" fetuses that they're the source of useful stem cells?
If you start claiming that fetal tissue harvesting is a legitimate reason for an abortion, I will end this discussion.
Given that by "may respond to pain stimuli" you mean "has the wiring in place" and not "is conscious and able to actually feel pain"
By "may respond to pain stimuli", I meant that there is an observable, physical response to pain stimuli. Kind of like how an adult will yank their hand away from a hot burner before their brain actually registers the sensation of being burned.
You make the case that animals provide resources, but then so do fetuses.
Oh, you're back to making abortion ok because we get necessary research material again. I'm done.
-
Well, I've never made the claim that "making use of fetal tissue is Hitler-wrong", so there isn't any dissonance
Well you said:
Making use of the animals killed at least puts some use to them
Then I said:
Fetal tissue has multiple research uses, which is what the whole fucking talk is all about. Your point?
Then you said:
I am opposed to abortion, so why would I be okay with selling fetal tissue?
So either that last one was really about selling fetal tissue, which I did not address and I'm not sure why you brought that up, or it was about using fetal tissue, and you're now backing out of it.
Again, no dissonance there since poaching is wrong, too.
Last time I checked, poaching referred to illegal hunting (without a proper permit, endangered species, etc.) and had nothing to do with whether anyone turned a profit on that. So how's that even remotely related?
If you start claiming that fetal tissue harvesting is a legitimate reason for an abortion, I will end this discussion.
Obviously I understand that it doesn't justify abortion in itself
Oh hey, look who needs a lesson in reading comprehension! You're the one claiming that harvesting the bodies is a legitimate reason for killing. If anything, I was reducing your argument to absurdity as you claimed it.
By "may respond to pain stimuli", I meant that there is an observable, physical response to pain stimuli. Kind of like how an adult will yank their hand away from a hot burner before their brain actually registers the sensation of being burned.
Which is exactly what I said, and which is why the seven-week line is presented as a necessary, but not sufficient for the experience of pain by your very article. Glad we agree!
Oh, you're back to making abortion ok because we get necessary research material again. I'm done.
Say hi to your shoulder aliens on your way out.
And next time, if you're going to quote things out of context and derive bullshit out of them, go all the way:
abortion ok because we get necessary research material
a pregnant woman who is denied an abortion is being denied the right to her own body
pro-lifers are nutcases
After all, I want to get a Lamborghini
-
My experience is being denied here!
Doesn't look like it to me. Would you care to explain how disagreement with your values and beliefs amounts to the same thing as a suggestion that something that happened to you did not in fact happen, or vice versa?
-
I don't see those differences as being that significant. If you're okay with taking innocent animal life for resources, but you're not okay with taking innocent human life for resources, that begs for a question - what's the real difference? And inb4 "well duh, one's human and the other's not" - it's a circular argument.
Since you don't see the difference as significant, I'm sure you won't object to a proposal for a legal hunting season for Polish Internet trolls. Permits €200. Quick, humane kills only (e.g., no bow hunting). Quota of one troll per hunter per season.
-
I know we're in the third trimester, but we both just lost our jobs, and I don't want to go through the pain of adoption.
“Tough luck, lady. You're going through with it unless your doctor specifically advises otherwise.”
Seriously, it makes a bunch of sense to restrict third trimester abortions to where there's a really good reason (such as some previously-undetected medical complication). They're also really rare in practice. Even in countries that apply no restrictions at all, the enormous majority of abortions are in the first trimester, and the rest are in the second. Third trimester abortions are a statistical anomaly, and we shouldn't beat ourselves up over them too much.
IIRC, hormonal (and social) changes mean that mothers-to-be are usually really motivated to carry to term if they can once they get into the second trimester.
-
Would you care to explain how disagreement with your values and beliefs amounts to the same thing as a suggestion that something that happened to you did not in fact happen, or vice versa?
The way I feel is part of my experience. He's saying that he doesn't believe that I feel the way I do. How is saying that I don't feel the way I claim to significantly different from saying that I'm fabricating an event? Either way is saying that I'm a liar. Does the "experience" have to be an actual event?
-
IIRC, hormonal (and social) changes
Gender ROLLS!!!
Alert the feminazis!
But in all seriousness, we should not celebrate abortions, and be focused more on avoiding them in the first place.
But I'm done here.
I'm at the point that everyone understands what I mean to say.
-
Gender ROLLS!!!
Alert the feminazis!
I didn't design the human reproductive system! All that oxytocin is nothing to do with me.
But in all seriousness, we should not celebrate abortions
Agreed. Necessary evil.
be focused more on avoiding them in the first place.
But not to the point of banning them, as there's good evidence from history that that just causes them to become an entirely unregulated medical procedure, as demand does not drop to zero. That would be a very bad outcome. Statistics are difficult to collect though, since the people involved are motivated to not cooperate with official data collectors…
-
I guess I felt like I needed to be scolded by an obscure comic or comedian.
If that's what it takes to help you feel validated, I'm happy to oblige.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZijLQGH1v0
-
If that's what it takes to help you feel validated, I'm happy to oblige.
Your idea of obscure is somewhat lacking.
-
Gender ROLLS!!!
Alert the feminazis!
What, this can't happen to someone who is pregnant but identifies as male? Methinks someone is confusing sex and gender.
-
Your idea of obscure is somewhat lacking.
Well, you wanted
obscure comic or comedian.
He didn't have an obscure comic, so you got a comedian. It's nobody's fault but yours that you failed to disambiguate with parentheses.
-
It's nobody's fault but yours that you failed to disambiguate with parentheses.
I guess I should have used logjam to be unambiguous.
-
But not to the point of banning them, as there's good evidence from history that that just causes them to become an entirely unregulated medical procedure, as demand does not drop to zero.
If they are morally wrong, they should be banned, whether or not the ban is effective.
The reason we don't ban them is not that bans aren't 100% effective- it's because they aren't morally wrong.
Otherwise, any law banning things that isn't 100% effective should be overturned.
-
If they are morally wrong, they should be banned, whether or not the ban is effective.
That depends on whether the greater harm would be caused by permitting or prohibiting them. To state that a moral wrong is a sufficiently great harm that it outweighs any bad consequences from the ban is a certain type of moral position, but it isn't one that you can count on a majority of people to automatically agree with.
-
To state that a moral wrong is a sufficiently great harm that it outweighs any bad consequences from the ban is a certain type of moral position, but it isn't one that you can count on a majority of people to automatically agree with
Then those people would be wrong. :-) If something is indeed a moral wrong, we as a society should not tolerate it. Better enforcement, tougher punishment for providers, rewards for tips, etc, could all help reduce the bad consequences of illegal procedures.
In this specific case (abortion, that is), that wouldn't happen- but the reason it wouldn't happen is because there isn't a consensus that it's morally wrong.
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
I don't see those differences as being that significant. If you're okay with taking innocent animal life for resources, but you're not okay with taking innocent human life for resources, that begs for a question - what's the real difference? And inb4 "well duh, one's human and the other's not" - it's a circular argument.
Since you don't see the difference as significant, I'm sure you won't object to a proposal for a legal hunting season for Polish Internet trolls. Permits €200. Quick, humane kills only (e.g., no bow hunting). Quota of one troll per hunter per season.
You forgot one condition: the Polish Troll's parts must be sold for research or submitted for organ donation.
-
If they are morally wrong, they should be banned, whether or not the ban is effective.
The reason we don't ban them is not that bans aren't 100% effective- it's because they aren't morally wrong.
Otherwise, any law banning things that isn't 100% effective should be overturned.
That is a bullshit argument because it relies on everyone agreeing on a moral framework.
-
If they are morally wrong, they should be banned, whether or not the ban is effective.
The reason we don't ban them is not that bans aren't 100% effective- it's because they aren't morally wrong.
Otherwise, any law banning things that isn't 100% effective should be overturned.
No -- what @dkf is saying is that you tackle the moral issues on the demand side.
I'm no fan of abortion either, but I at least recognize that the moral wrong is better righted by making it so that there's no demand for elective abortions than trying to cut off the supply.
-
That is a bullshit argument because it relies on everyone agreeing on a moral framework.
I know, right? Consensus is hard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQfNzjGjZ0M
-
-
I'm heartened to see that you've switched to an electric trolley.
-
Gotta do something with all that coal.
-
I'm no fan of abortion either, but I at least recognize that the moral wrong is better righted by making it so that there's no demand for elective abortions than trying to cut off the supply.
Ah, fair enough. What if I said that "If they are morally wrong, we should work to see the practice ended, whether or not a specific method of ending it is effective"?
If it's immoral, it doesn't matter if it's hard to end- it's still the right thing to do.
-
You forgot one condition: the Polish Troll's parts must be sold for research or submitted for organ donation.
But that's the exact thing you were arguing for in defense of hunting! That it's a-ok, because leather and shit has lots of uses!
I am opposed to pure sport hunting. That is, hunting where the only benefit gained from the hunt is a story and a trophy. That is wrong. I have no problem with hunting where the animal is put to use: food, leather, etc.
Not quite. There's also the following that's "held against" animals:
Traditional prey animals are a food source.
Pelts and hides are useful for making leather. Leather has many, many uses.
Scavengers and predators can be serious nuisances, endangering human lives.You know what, fuck that. I'm not the kind of person that's going to kick a fuss over what amounts to fucking death threats from you and @HardwareGeek, but if you're going to make an argument, see it brought ad absurdum in your own moral framework, then somehow make me into a supporter of said absurdity, without addressing the fact that you keep contradicting yourself like a Phoenix Wright tutorial case, and then bring the discussion down to "well, why don't we just shoot you then"...
Fuck it, I agree with you and @Polygeekery, it's time to get outta here.
-
fucking death threats
Note to the NSA: No death threats were given. Simply the presentation of a thought exercise to illustrate how killing an innocent animal and killing a (presumed) innocent human are different.
Edit: As evidence, consider how the thought experiment was not targeted at a specific individual:
legal hunting season for Polish Internet trolls
-
(presumed) innocent human
We're talking about Internet trolls. I'd presume not innocent, and humanity questionable.
-
@abarker said:
(presumed) innocent human
We're talking about Internet trolls. I'd presume not innocent, and humanity questionable.
I was going with the method used by the US judicial system.
-
If it's immoral, it doesn't matter if it's hard to end- it's still the right thing to do.
Yeah. However, oftentimes those who advocate for the ending of immoral things find themselves trying to swim up a waterfall by way of their oversimplified thinking...
-
