Fourth PP video released, it's bad

[Valerie]

Abortion rates are at their lowest point since 1973: Study Abortion rate at lowest point since 1973 - The Washington Post

planned parenthood success...? oh my!


what would delusional finger waggers do if they couldn't act holier than thou on behalf of government intrusion?

The study ignored the effect of common sense restrictions on abortion.

SCOTUS has already repeatedly accounted for them, but that hasn't stopped the decades of irrational and dishonest hysteria...

 

[EverCurious]

Welp all I can say is good luck to you then. Neither science nor the law support the idea that life begins at conception and I dare say the majority of American's believe it is the woman's right.

Well, you're partially right. Science does say that non-human life begins at conception. Human life doesn't, though, because Roe v. Wade ruled that it doesn't and we've built our abortion laws around that fact. The majority of Americans believing it is just further proof that this is the case. Thank you for teaching these dumbasses how real science works.

That would depend on which field of science if you want to discuss the whole truth. Geneticist's say that "human life" begins at fertilization when the sperm and egg chromosomes have combined. Embryologist's say it starts at gastrulation, roughly 14 days after fertilization when twining is no longer possible, and/or about 6 weeks after fertilization when sex is determined, at which point they claim it becomes an "individual life", Neurology claims that life begins when there is an EEG brain wave roughly 24-27 weeks, Ecologists say that the start of life is when the fetus can sustain itself outside the womb, earliest known to medical science is 21 weeks but that comes with a severe risk of development issues, so they say roughly 25 weeks. So the truth is that only Geneticists agree that life begins at fertilization.

"Conception" is more of a religious based idea, which in and of itself has it's own time frame definitions; by Judaism and historical Christian standards it was originally "ensoulment" or when the baby's movements could be felt, usually between 40days and 4 months, but the modern pro-life Christians argue it's conception. Hinduism similarly has "changed its mind" on the matter, historically it was believed to be around the 7th month, but around the 1st century they decided it was the 7th week that "ensoulment" took place. Buddhism can't really agree on a time frame within it's own diverse practices; one "camp" even believes that life (or I should say "rebirth") begins with the consummation of a marriage (so anytime one has sex, life might begin, if three things align and the karmic residue of a previously lived life is ready to be implanted.)

Roe vs Wade was about the cut off between when the states interest in a potential life became large enough to outweigh the woman's right to privacy. They set the precedence that point was "viability" which is, according to /all/ medical scientists regardless of when they believe life begins, toward the end of the first trimester.

It is a woman's choice until the potential life is viable. You want to believe life starts at conception, that is, of course, your right. However, others do /not/ believe that, and that is /their/ right as well. Same shit with homosexuality being "icky", and that is why abortion (at least in the first trimester) will almost undoubtedly never be illegal (unless we get another zealot in the oval office with a pen and a phone heh)

It's not your choice as a woman to murder your husband's child any more than it's your choice as a white person to murder your black neighbor.

So if the father agrees it's alright then? I would be willing to add something that a proven father has a right in the decision. (Of course, I'm guessing that in the vast majority of cases the father is a) already on board or b) already abandoned the girl so they're not going to say no.) We have the technology currently to do two types of paternal testing in the first trimester.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity (NIPP): A non-invasive prenatal paternity test is the most accurate non-invasive way to establish paternity before the baby is born. The process is state-of-the-art, combining the latest technology and proprietary methods of preserving and analyzing the baby’s DNA found naturally in the mother’s bloodstream. This test requires only a simple blood collection from the mother and alleged father and can be performed any time after the 8th week of pregnancy. The test is 99.9% accurate.

and

Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS): This test consists of a thin needle or tube which a doctor inserts from the vagina, through the cervix, guided by an ultrasound, to obtain chorionic villi. Chorionic villi are little finger-like pieces of tissue attached to the wall of the uterus. The chorionic villi and the fetus come from the same fertilized egg, and have the same genetic makeup. This testing can be done earlier in pregnancy from the 10th-13th weeks. A doctor’s consent is needed to do this procedure for paternity testing.

However, I think such a thing would be at a) the expense of an immediate filing of something similar to child support upon the proven abortion blocking father, regardless of relationship status with the mother; this includes ALL medical costs, pre-natal, birth, etc., in addition it should include some compensation for the mother's physical needs in bearing the child (similar to the cost of a surrogate mother's compensation perhaps.) In addition the mother should be given /some/ compensation for any "side effects" like if she looses her job because she had to take leave, or if she doesn't have paid maternity leave kind of thing, then he should pay some kind of temporary alimony or something like that. Child visitation/custody should immediately be filed for and heard by the court /during/ the pregnancy; if the father wanted the kido and the mother did not then he should be given full custody and the mothers parental rights terminated so that she is not obligated by child support.

Similarly I believe that proven fathers should have the same rights if /they/ desired the child to be aborted but the mother did not. Though we'd have to have a serious discussion about any financial obligations the father might have to dissuade abuse. At present, regardless if the father wanted the child (as it is often the woman lies to the boyfriend saying she's on birth control when she is not) the father is then tagged for 18 years of child support as "punishment" for not "marrying" her. (By her choice alone I might add) I've always felt there should be a better balance of that common trap.

How did you get that from what I said? I'm genuinely confused. Being against it doesn't mean being for it if the biologically proven father is for it.

You said, that the mother didn't have the right to end the fathers childs life. I can agree that the father might have some rights in that decision. How is that hard to get? I merely extended it from "husband and wife" to ya know, the more likely reality, unwed people.

So what you /really/ meant to say then is that life begins at conception and /no/ abortion should be legal. Say that next time instead of adding in things about men having some choice in the matter.

I employ science and personal belief's just as much as the religious employ religious and personal beliefs so I'm not exactly sure why you read "religious nutjobs" into my statement. History reflects that the church is the one who forwarded the policy of teaching abstinence as birth control in this country, are you saying someone else did as well/instead? Please give me some links so I can further research these supposed non-religious abstinence pushers.

Being anti-abortion has nothing to do with "pushing abstinence" on people. I suspect you got that from the pro-choice claim that people who don't make their choice just hate women and want to control them sexually. By all means, sleep with whomever you want, as much as you want. All I'm asking is that you take appropriate measures to protect yourself and everyone else from diseases and unwanted pregnancy. The last thing that needs to happen is some fatal STI to start spreading or babies to die just because people were looking to ****. I've expressed on here before that I'm totally willing to send pro-choicers money for birth control myself if they can't or don't want to buy it for themselves. That offer is still open.[/quote]

Being pro-abortion/pro-choice has nothing to do with being pro/anti abstinence either, so what? No where did I say that being anti-abortion had anything to do with abstinence, if you read that in there, that's your head not mine. I merely pointed out that the church pushing abstinence, and "traditional values", has stood very much in the way of preventing unwanted pregnancies through proper contraceptive education. Hell I don't even believe that feminist bullshit that churches want women subservient so basically, stop trying to read what /I/ am thinking when you do not know me.

I'm no sheep, my "talking points" are my own not some groups and frankly I'm too old and well off to really give a flying **** if I fit into their stupid little camps. I believe what I believe, because that is what I believe for x reasons.

Now, I know for a fact, from personal experience, that the church very vocally opposed not only sex education in school, but contraception, sex before marriage, and any number of ideals that directly impeded getting proper sex education and various birth control methods into schools. In fact, it was widely argued when I was in elementary school that teaching sex education would promote more sex and to quote the "religious leaders" of my area, "If one practices sex before marriage and becomes pregnant, than that is God's punishment for the couple." These would be the same folks who pushed for laws requiring marriage if pregnancy was discovered, and a host of other bullshit. What I find sad is that even my peers knew they were stupid morons, luckily my "peers" finally took over the damn government and are working to repair the stupidity.

Yes well, again the church is generally the one who stands against putting free condoms in schools are they not? (I'm fine to add in your supposed non-religious pushers in here as well.)

The Catholic Church is one of the biggest backwards forces standing against providing adolescents access to contraception. I fight them on this all the time. They're literally just hurting my cause of making sure every conceived baby is a wanted baby and shooting both of us in the foot by creating a market for your abortion industry. That's what happens when you take marching orders from a silly little man in a dress...

/my abortion industry/ Seriously? What a ******* joke... Oh hey, another person to add to my "I have no respect for" list. Nothing new to see here lol

I find it interesting that your solution to a policy of non-responsibility is a socialist agenda... Considering that a lot of socialism relies on no one taking care of themselves... I personally find that socialist flavored policies are what /caused/ the "downward spiral" of self-responsibility in the first place. Still, I'm afraid I personally will not rebel against the majority of the USA, it is their country just as much as it is mine, and it is the very principle of her foundation. While I may mourn her changing, I will not "fight" what the majority wishes for her, other than with my vote, because this is what her people want. I love the "idea" of America, not what she has become; but she is not mine alone...

Socialism is going to fail without the general public being conscious of our interrelation. People hear "we're all family" and think it's hippy garbage. They don't step back and think and realize that, holy shit, yeah. We as a species actually are all literally one big incestuous fucked up family. Despite very few people seeing it, though, it's still very much a demonstrable truth, and that truth means means we have a hard and fast obligation to take care of one another. You wouldn't let your first cousin starve on the street. Why would you let your third? You would defend your unborn sister, so why not your third unborn niece? That realization is ultimately my motivation here. That's what drives me. It has nothing to do with any bullshit religion. It has everything to do with the fact that, like it or not, you might be a stranger but you're still my blood relative and I have an obligation to see that you're at least provided with the basic needs in life. That means safety, food, shelter, proper medicine... The Socialist Agenda(tm).

Yeah sorry I'm not an emotional type, I don't believe that a brain dead or non-brained "life" is "worth" saving, also ohi I'm one of those hated capitalist 1%'ers socialists are trying to /steal/ from. I've even tried to discuss ideas like a guaranteed income and crap but when people start talking about they /need/ $70k a year to "just to survive." I'm afraid I go, "Noooo, you're not being greedy and selfish at all" /sarcasm

Good will toward man, is a nice thought but one only has to walk down the street to see it's a nothing but a lie, a false hope, a dream world. Socialist leaders are Shepard's, they pretend they are helping, but they're only keeping you around because of what their followers provide THEM. Their followers, the sheep, like to pretend it is "good will," but the reality is that herd animals only run together because there's a higher likely hood that someone else will die instead of them. Socialists made the decision, upon their own, that the money earned by the successful belongs to everyone, it's a lie and they know it, but they decide that /those/ people are worth "sacrificing" - unity and "equality" my ******* ass... On the plus side, the sheep are stupid and fall for the lies, on the down side, the folks with the money see right through it and they have the ability to leave the herd at will.

I'd wanted to be a politician when I was younger but I found I couldn't deal with the hatred that abounds in this country. Funny how it doesn't change much from HS to adulthood; the hate is just as strong, just as unreasonable, and just as stupid for co-existence. There is zero desire for unity in this country, only a desire to forward one side or the other, there is no middle ground, there is no compromise, there is nothing for me personally to "forward" or "accomplish." I'm too even keeled, too middle of the road, to much a balancer of everything to have any chance in politics. So yea, I'm "just" on a forum board saying shit, trying to inform others, and analyzing the other side's opinions, "just" teaching my kids what /I/ believe in, and "just" living my life. I'm afraid my desire to be a "hero" died a long time ago when I lost... empathy for the stupid selfish greedy majority of the people of this country, on both sides of the political fence.

That larger goal of unity is exactly what I have in mind. That's what we should be fighting for: those stupid, selfish greedy people that are our cousins and nieces and nephews who just happen to be too far enough removed from each other to be out of sight, out of mind.

Unity via inequality, no thanks.

I had no qualms watching my brother lose everything when he fucked up, I certainly don't have a problem watching some 10k years ago relative loses everything for being a **** up. Sorry.


(EDIT - I give up trying to fix the stupid quotes on this post when the damn thing bugged up doing 1 character a minute. You'll have to deal with it being borked sorry.)

 

[Coyote]

It's no more absurb or stupid or idiotic as the claim that liberals don't care about the baby before it's born.

You just became the first liberal I've ever in my 23 years seen admit without any qualification or doublespeak that she is, in fact, a baby before he's born. What have I heard from the rest? "Let him die" at best. Often including tortured explanations of how he can't really die yet anyway because he's not alive and won't be until the personhood fairy waves her magic wand over his crowning head.

Cecile Richards? I would like to see it in the written transcript and yes - you can mangle it in editing.

You don't accept that the videos the CMP claims to be the unedited originals aren't "heavily edited"*. Instead you want to see the written transcripts of the videos... which would have also been created by the CMP. You do realize why I'm having a hard time understanding this, right?

*Which is the term the media and left wing blogosphere universally uses to refer to the shortened summary videos CMP openly admits were edited by definition.

It's not hard to understand - I prefer written material to videos and I do not want to parse entire videos looking for things you claim Cecilie Richards said when I can much more quickly find them - and their context in a transcript. Videos are a pain in the butt and I'm not going to waste my time parsing them.

 

[Valerie]

You just became the first liberal I've ever in my 23 years seen admit without any qualification or doublespeak that she is, in fact, a baby before he's born. What have I heard from the rest? "Let him die" at best. Often including tortured explanations of how he can't really die yet anyway because he's not alive and won't be until the personhood fairy waves her magic wand over his crowning head.

maybe you should stop listening to idiots and try comprehending the crux of the legal matter instead...

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

That would depend on which field of science if you want to discuss the whole truth. Geneticist's say that "human life" begins at fertilization when the sperm and egg chromosomes have combined. Embryologist's say it starts at gastrulation, roughly 14 days after fertilization when twining is no longer possible, and/or about 6 weeks after fertilization when sex is determined, at which point they claim it becomes an "individual life", Neurology claims that life begins when there is an EEG brain wave roughly 24-27 weeks, Ecologists say that the start of life is when the fetus can sustain itself outside the womb, earliest known to medical science is 21 weeks but that comes with a severe risk of development issues, so they say roughly 25 weeks. So the truth is that only Geneticists agree that life begins at fertilization.

An ecologist studies how organisms relate to each other and their external environment. Of course she's not going to have much to say about what doesn't exist out in the external environment yet. Her professional interest comes into play when the baby is born and interacting with the world outside the womb. The brain would be a somewhat better place to start. Only somewhat, though. While it develops during the gestation process, it's still a relatively late structural development. The embryologists are much closer to the beginning of life. The only ones that go the little bit further to touch on the beginning itself would be those studying the very moments when the very first diploid cell of the new being is formed. It should be obvious which I side with here.

"Conception" is more of a religious based idea, which in and of itself has it's own time frame definitions; by Judaism and historical Christian standards it was originally "ensoulment" or when the baby's movements could be felt, usually between 40days and 4 months, but the modern pro-life Christians argue it's conception. Hinduism similarly has "changed its mind" on the matter, historically it was believed to be around the 7th month, but around the 1st century they decided it was the 7th week that "ensoulment" took place. Buddhism can't really agree on a time frame within it's own diverse practices; one "camp" even believes that life (or I should say "rebirth") begins with the consummation of a marriage (so anytime one has sex, life might begin, if three things align and the karmic residue of a previously lived life is ready to be implanted.)

I have to regard the religious ideas as being just as preposterous as the pro-choice Crotch-Dwelling Personhood Fairy concept. About all I can say on that whole subject.

Roe vs Wade was about the cut off between when the states interest in a potential life became large enough to outweigh the woman's right to privacy. They set the precedence that point was "viability" which is, according to /all/ medical scientists regardless of when they believe life begins, toward the end of the first trimester.

There are still others who believe it begins at birth. I'm sure you could even find people who think it begins with adolescents and a true ability to survive independently. It's a rare case where we err against the side of least possible harm.

So what you /really/ meant to say then is that life begins at conception and /no/ abortion should be legal. Say that next time instead of adding in things about men having some choice in the matter.[/quote]I was pointing out that her child isn't really her child, even though that is how we discuss it. Their child is the flesh and blood of both. It is an injustice to say that she can just destroy a part of him simply because that part resides inside her. It would equally be an injustice to her and their child for him to murder the child after birth. It was more a counter of a typical talking point than any sort of assertion that he should have a say in something that shouldn't be happening to begin with.

Being pro-abortion/pro-choice has nothing to do with being pro/anti abstinence either, so what? No where did I say that being anti-abortion had anything to do with abstinence, if you read that in there, that's your head not mine.

I thought it was here:

I employ science and personal belief's just as much as the religious employ religious and personal beliefs so I'm not exactly sure why you read "religious nutjobs" into my statement. History reflects that the church is the one who forwarded the policy of teaching abstinence as birth control in this country, are you saying someone else did as well/instead? Please give me some links so I can further research these supposed non-religious abstinence pushers.

You seemed to be clearly equating religious, abstinence, and pro-life causes.

I merely pointed out that the church pushing abstinence, and "traditional values", has stood very much in the way of preventing unwanted pregnancies through proper contraceptive education. Hell I don't even believe that feminist bullshit that churches want women subservient so basically, stop trying to read what /I/ am thinking when you do not know me.

See above. I agree that Christianity has been a serious roadblock in creating a worthwhile society. I'm surprised you don't identify as a feminist. That's kind of interesting.

Now, I know for a fact, from personal experience, that the church very vocally opposed not only sex education in school, but contraception, sex before marriage, and any number of ideals that directly impeded getting proper sex education and various birth control methods into schools. In fact, it was widely argued when I was in elementary school that teaching sex education would promote more sex and to quote the "religious leaders" of my area, "If one practices sex before marriage and becomes pregnant, than that is God's punishment for the couple." These would be the same folks who pushed for laws requiring marriage if pregnancy was discovered, and a host of other bullshit. What I find sad is that even my peers knew they were stupid morons, luckily my "peers" finally took over the damn government and are working to repair the stupidity.

Like here. I have nothing to add to this. It's perfect as is.

Yes well, again the church is generally the one who stands against putting free condoms in schools are they not? (I'm fine to add in your supposed non-religious pushers in here as well.)

The Catholic Church is one of the biggest backwards forces standing against providing adolescents access to contraception. I fight them on this all the time. They're literally just hurting my cause of making sure every conceived baby is a wanted baby and shooting both of us in the foot by creating a market for your abortion industry. That's what happens when you take marching orders from a silly little man in a dress...

/my abortion industry/ Seriously? What a ******* joke... Oh hey, another person to add to my "I have no respect for" list. Nothing new to see here lol

K.

Yeah sorry I'm not an emotional type, I don't believe that a brain dead or non-brained "life" is "worth" saving, also ohi I'm one of those hated capitalist 1%'ers socialists are trying to /steal/ from. I've even tried to discuss ideas like a guaranteed income and crap but when people start talking about they /need/ $70k a year to "just to survive." I'm afraid I go, "Noooo, you're not being greedy and selfish at all" /sarcasm

I don't see it as emotional at all. I just honestly don't see you as anything but a fifth cousin I've never met offline. I wouldn't let the family I have met live on the streets or go without necessities. I'm obligated not to do so. It's literally not a choice. This extends to you and everyone else as well, because, as I said, like it or not you and I are flesh and blood family and there is no changing this. It has nothing to do with stealing from you. It has nothing to do with greed. I don't want your $70k a year. I just want you to survive because I can see the obvious.

Good will toward man, is a nice thought but one only has to walk down the street to see it's a nothing but a lie, a false hope, a dream world. Socialist leaders are Shepard's, they pretend they are helping, but they're only keeping you around because of what their followers provide THEM. Their followers, the sheep, like to pretend it is "good will," but the reality is that herd animals only run together because there's a higher likely hood that someone else will die instead of them. Socialists made the decision, upon their own, that the money earned by the successful belongs to everyone, it's a lie and they know it, but they decide that /those/ people are worth "sacrificing" - unity and "equality" my ******* ass... On the plus side, the sheep are stupid and fall for the lies, on the down side, the folks with the money see right through it and they have the ability to leave the herd at will.

Again, it has nothing to do with "good will toward man". It has to do with genetic fact. Take a look in your family tree. I'll take a look in mine. We're both in each other's. You know why that is? Because they're the same one. You really are part of the herd just by virtue of your DNA. Again, I'm not saying anything about your money. I'm not saying anything about sacrificing anyone - you should know better than that by now. I'm saying that you deserve to be guaranteed the basics of survival and it is society's - your family's - obligation to ensure that you have these. All I want are the same necessities, and I'm entirely happy to find them all myself. My beliefs are not about me.

Unity via inequality, no thanks.

I had no qualms watching my brother lose everything when he fucked up, I certainly don't have a problem watching some 10k years ago relative loses everything for being a **** up. Sorry.

That's completely irrelevant. The thing about obligation is that there's no way to get out of it. It doesn't matter what kind of person you are. You're still a person and that means more than you apparently know.

 

[Valerie]

"as preposterous as the pro-choice Crotch-Dwelling Personhood Fairy concept."



Pedro de San Patricio - what's that? ^

 

[Carla_Danger]

What's stupid about that is that those same conservatives will fight tooth and nail to grant you the same protection after you are born that they want to give you before you are born. They want to protect you from being cut to pieces with a saw after you are born too.

They don't give a damn about you after you're born - your mother get's labeled a slut and a parisite on the welfare system. You're too busy defunding programs that help mothers and children.

Take a saw to a baby after he/she has been born and see what conservatives do to you.

The same thing Liberals will do.

I didn't say they wouldn't. Just pointing out how absolutely absurd, stupid, and idiotic is the claim that conservatives don't care about anyone after their born.

Does that mean you'd like to end abortion and increase SNAP benefits?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

"as preposterous as the pro-choice Crotch-Dwelling Personhood Fairy concept."



Pedro de San Patricio - what's that? ^

The idea that she's a non-living tumorous parasitical fetus with zero moral worth up until the exact moment she leaves the birth canal, at which point she magically instantly becomes a baby with full personhood and rights and worth. You can do whatever you want to her with no moral implication, including killing her in any way you like, up until that exact nanosecond the Personhood Fairy throws her pouch full of personhood dust upon her tiny brow.

 

[Valerie]

"as preposterous as the pro-choice Crotch-Dwelling Personhood Fairy concept."



Pedro de San Patricio - what's that? ^

The idea that she's a non-living tumorous parasitical fetus with zero moral worth up until the exact moment she leaves the birth canal, at which point she magically instantly becomes a baby with full personhood and rights and worth. You can do whatever you want to her with no moral implication, including killing her in any way you like, up until that exact nanosecond the Personhood Fairy throws her pouch full of personhood dust upon her tiny brow.

the crux of the legal matters involved do not actually depend upon those typical red herrings that you rely upon...




Welcome to Parents Against Personhood! We are an advocacy organization dedicated to fighting "personhood" ballot initiatives and legislation, and raising voter awareness about how personhood poses dangerous potential consequences to infertility treatment, birth control, and pregnancy care.

Find out more about how personhood can threaten women's and families' access to medical care:

• Infertility Treatment
• Birth Control
• Pregnancy Care

Parents Against Personhood -





In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws...

...the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection.

The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade 1973 PBS

 

[hadit]

What's stupid about that is that those same conservatives will fight tooth and nail to grant you the same protection after you are born that they want to give you before you are born. They want to protect you from being cut to pieces with a saw after you are born too.

They don't give a damn about you after you're born - your mother get's labeled a slut and a parisite on the welfare system. You're too busy defunding programs that help mothers and children.

Take a saw to a baby after he/she has been born and see what conservatives do to you.

The same thing Liberals will do.

I didn't say they wouldn't. Just pointing out how absolutely absurd, stupid, and idiotic is the claim that conservatives don't care about anyone after their born.

It's no more absurb or stupid or idiotic as the claim that liberals don't care about the baby before it's born.

Of course. Some liberals are pro-life.

 

[hadit]

What's stupid about that is that those same conservatives will fight tooth and nail to grant you the same protection after you are born that they want to give you before you are born. They want to protect you from being cut to pieces with a saw after you are born too.

They don't give a damn about you after you're born - your mother get's labeled a slut and a parisite on the welfare system. You're too busy defunding programs that help mothers and children.

Take a saw to a baby after he/she has been born and see what conservatives do to you.

The same thing Liberals will do.

I didn't say they wouldn't. Just pointing out how absolutely absurd, stupid, and idiotic is the claim that conservatives don't care about anyone after their born.

Does that mean you'd like to end abortion and increase SNAP benefits?

It means I'd like to end abortion and strengthen communities that support the less fortunate. Why does everything have to come down to government spending more money as the only way to make things better?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

the crux of the legal matters involved do not actually depend upon those typical red herrings that you rely upon...

"NO U!" K...

Welcome to Parents Against Personhood! We are an advocacy organization dedicated to fighting "personhood" ballot initiatives and legislation, and raising voter awareness about how personhood poses dangerous potential consequences to infertility treatment, birth control, and pregnancy care.

"Parents Against Personhood?" I don't even care anymore right now tbh. I just don't expect any better from you people at this point. At least you'll never be able to pose a threat to my children's lives and safety...

Find out more about how personhood can threaten women's and families' access to medical care:

• Infertility Treatment
• Birth Control
• Pregnancy Care"

Yeah... If you ever find yourself opposing human rights just so you can do what you want to do, then you might just be ******* up this whole "being a decent person" thing. That's all I can really say to you at this point. You're literally that far gone when you're literally attacking the idea of a class of human beings having personhood because that would threaten your ability to do what you want to do to whomever you want to do it.

 

[Carla_Danger]

They don't give a damn about you after you're born - your mother get's labeled a slut and a parisite on the welfare system. You're too busy defunding programs that help mothers and children.

Take a saw to a baby after he/she has been born and see what conservatives do to you.

The same thing Liberals will do.

I didn't say they wouldn't. Just pointing out how absolutely absurd, stupid, and idiotic is the claim that conservatives don't care about anyone after their born.

Does that mean you'd like to end abortion and increase SNAP benefits?

It means I'd like to end abortion and strengthen communities that support the less fortunate. Why does everything have to come down to government spending more money as the only way to make things better?

Could you please give some specific examples of how poor communities are going to support the less fortunate? Next, will you tell us why you think it's a sin for Government to try to end hunger in this country?

 

[flacaltenn]

Since I am not in this game, im just sloppy I suppose. But from where I sit, the zealots on one side would have abortions AFTER delivery, and the zealots on the other side include those who believe that just masturbating is interfering with reproduction. Or condoms. So I take digs at both. Your pro choice side has been mooved off their original insane positions on choice to actually THINK about partial birth or parental consent or late term abortions. That train DID start out from the station as a pro abort train. ?.. this slow motion train wreck called the abortion debate has changed the shape of both sides in a slow and painful way.

I'm pro-choice, not pro-abort. From where I sit - it seems like you are labeling all of us pro-abort. I know of few - very few, who support unlimited abortion in the third trimester and no one who supports abortion after delivery. It's like the pro-some-life crowd - and claiming they support a woman dying over terminating a pregnancy or they don't even support abortion in incest or rape. Those views are more extreme end of the spectrum and unfortunately the more extreme end has the louder voice. And that louder voice is attempting to portray the majority of abortions as "late term" through false imagery, etc to generate an anti-abortion backlash. And that is just plain wrong too.

This has been one of better "abortion" threads I've ever been in. Largely because the topic ain't about all the usual arguments of "viability" or conditions on abortions like you mentioned. It cuts to the issue of the dignity and respect for the procedure. That it entails ending a life.

My wife, about 25 years ago, went for a 2nd ultrasound at 15 weeks, and I begged out because I had been there for the previous one. She had to endure looking at a fully formed fetus with no brain and drive home alone.. Anencephaly. And she had a D & C procedure within days. I know folks who had full funerals for full term still borns and miscarriages. And this little journalistic episode taps into those moral issues of the responsibility of REALIZING what an a abortion is.

Which brings me to your issue with me -- and my choice of terms for the different sides. Of course -- I can use all those terms for the players. But if anyone doesn't feel violated by the callousness and unprofessional medical detachment of these PP doctors -- I would insist that THEY are pro-Aborts. Folks who have no clue of the sensitivity required to discuss abortion and politics in the same breath..

If you can't respect that you are advocating for ending a life without some feeling attached -- you ARE a zealot fringe. And if you CAN -- you can work with the vast middle to make abortion rarer and more dignified. Learned a lot in this thread about "de-sensitizing" the topic. We get farther if we all agree to treat it with respect.

When you argue about viability, with the definition centering around survival OUTSIDE the womb, you already lost that sensitivity. Because that little baby fetus is PERFECTLY "viable" where it is -- til you end it...

I am sorry, for what happened with you and your wife - that is probably one of the hardest things to have happen you are expecting a child

I know that I am sometimes flippant about this but I fully realize what abortion is.

I am not going to go into details and probably even talking about this will open me up to a shitload of crap from some folks here but years ago I had an abortion and yes, it was by choice. I was young, stupid, pregnant and in a poor place to be a parent and I was terrified. My boyfriend adamently did not want fatherhood. My experience with PP at the time was hardly callous - we talked about options, what an abortion entailed, how I felt about it, how I felt about parenthood. I was given time to back out if I wanted and encouraged to talk with friends or family if I needed to. It was also blessedly non-judgemental. I think I would have fallen apart then if I had been accused of being a "baby killer" or such. Afterwards, they helped to decide what birth control would be best and set me up with it (I could not afford to see a regular doctor and pay for it at the time). My experience with PP was very postiive. The experience was as positive as something that horrible can be and I was fully aware of what it entailed. Yes - it IS a blob of cells at that point, but it is a blob of cells that has the potential to become a human being. Life is unique and precious.

Then, you have people here using this doctor and what are essentially private conversations to broadbrush the entire practice. I don't think that is right either. Every group has it's outliers and to portray them as the norm in order to destroy something has done and still does huge amounts of good for women's health at a very low cost seems wrong to me.

The problem with arguing about viability - or refusing to argue about is this - how can you justify abortion? How can you say a woman has the right to terminate? And at what point? When does the baby's right supercede hers to end it?

Thanks for sharing that in return..

I'm am definitely on the side of keeping abortion as an option. And working harder and SMARTER to minimize the number. Especially after 12 weeks. There are hardly any GOOD reasons why contraceptives should NOT be over the counter with the counseling of a Reg. Pharmacist. That would grossly cut the number of abortions and end a large portion of the NEED for PP.. Side effects and mis-prescribed incidents would be far and few between for almost all YOUNG women. GP Docs dont do a lot of rechecks anyway on those prescriptions.

Your experience with PP was helpful. I don't think those videos condemn PP entirely. But the funding mechanism for PP with $$500Mill tax dollars/year going to it -- needs to be rethought. They should not be a govt sponsored monopoly that launders money back to the DNC to ensure their survival. That money ought to go to a specified pocket in MediCaid so that ANY clinic that wanted to provide those services could.

Not so sure more contraceptives = fewer abortions. There are a LOT more contraceptives FAR more readily available today than there ever have been, and abortion rates remain nearly as high as they ever have been. One would think that as more contraceptives become more available, the abortion rates would drop.

The abortion rates HAVE to drop with easier access to contraceptives. There's no other outcome.. Problem must be that they are not getting to the young women having unwanted babies. OR they are not being used continuously because of economic issues. Smarter would be -- GIVING the young mother free contraceptives after her FIRST abortion if that procedure was not insured or private paid.. To make certain -- she doesn't become a regular customer.. Clearly a better outcome for all sides.

 

[hadit]

Take a saw to a baby after he/she has been born and see what conservatives do to you.

The same thing Liberals will do.

I didn't say they wouldn't. Just pointing out how absolutely absurd, stupid, and idiotic is the claim that conservatives don't care about anyone after their born.

Does that mean you'd like to end abortion and increase SNAP benefits?

It means I'd like to end abortion and strengthen communities that support the less fortunate. Why does everything have to come down to government spending more money as the only way to make things better?

Could you please give some specific examples of how poor communities are going to support the less fortunate? Next, will you tell us why you think it's a sin for Government to try to end hunger in this country?

Why would I say that? Can you say straw man? Have fun knocking it down, but be careful. I hear they jump out of the way at the last moment.

We've spent trillions on the war on poverty. We still have poverty.
We spend more per student on education than anyone else. Our government education system sucks.

And on it goes. Why do people persist in believing that more government spending is actually going to accomplish desired goals in the face of reality?

 

[hadit]

I'm pro-choice, not pro-abort. From where I sit - it seems like you are labeling all of us pro-abort. I know of few - very few, who support unlimited abortion in the third trimester and no one who supports abortion after delivery. It's like the pro-some-life crowd - and claiming they support a woman dying over terminating a pregnancy or they don't even support abortion in incest or rape. Those views are more extreme end of the spectrum and unfortunately the more extreme end has the louder voice. And that louder voice is attempting to portray the majority of abortions as "late term" through false imagery, etc to generate an anti-abortion backlash. And that is just plain wrong too.

This has been one of better "abortion" threads I've ever been in. Largely because the topic ain't about all the usual arguments of "viability" or conditions on abortions like you mentioned. It cuts to the issue of the dignity and respect for the procedure. That it entails ending a life.

My wife, about 25 years ago, went for a 2nd ultrasound at 15 weeks, and I begged out because I had been there for the previous one. She had to endure looking at a fully formed fetus with no brain and drive home alone.. Anencephaly. And she had a D & C procedure within days. I know folks who had full funerals for full term still borns and miscarriages. And this little journalistic episode taps into those moral issues of the responsibility of REALIZING what an a abortion is.

Which brings me to your issue with me -- and my choice of terms for the different sides. Of course -- I can use all those terms for the players. But if anyone doesn't feel violated by the callousness and unprofessional medical detachment of these PP doctors -- I would insist that THEY are pro-Aborts. Folks who have no clue of the sensitivity required to discuss abortion and politics in the same breath..

If you can't respect that you are advocating for ending a life without some feeling attached -- you ARE a zealot fringe. And if you CAN -- you can work with the vast middle to make abortion rarer and more dignified. Learned a lot in this thread about "de-sensitizing" the topic. We get farther if we all agree to treat it with respect.

When you argue about viability, with the definition centering around survival OUTSIDE the womb, you already lost that sensitivity. Because that little baby fetus is PERFECTLY "viable" where it is -- til you end it...

I am sorry, for what happened with you and your wife - that is probably one of the hardest things to have happen you are expecting a child

I know that I am sometimes flippant about this but I fully realize what abortion is.

I am not going to go into details and probably even talking about this will open me up to a shitload of crap from some folks here but years ago I had an abortion and yes, it was by choice. I was young, stupid, pregnant and in a poor place to be a parent and I was terrified. My boyfriend adamently did not want fatherhood. My experience with PP at the time was hardly callous - we talked about options, what an abortion entailed, how I felt about it, how I felt about parenthood. I was given time to back out if I wanted and encouraged to talk with friends or family if I needed to. It was also blessedly non-judgemental. I think I would have fallen apart then if I had been accused of being a "baby killer" or such. Afterwards, they helped to decide what birth control would be best and set me up with it (I could not afford to see a regular doctor and pay for it at the time). My experience with PP was very postiive. The experience was as positive as something that horrible can be and I was fully aware of what it entailed. Yes - it IS a blob of cells at that point, but it is a blob of cells that has the potential to become a human being. Life is unique and precious.

Then, you have people here using this doctor and what are essentially private conversations to broadbrush the entire practice. I don't think that is right either. Every group has it's outliers and to portray them as the norm in order to destroy something has done and still does huge amounts of good for women's health at a very low cost seems wrong to me.

The problem with arguing about viability - or refusing to argue about is this - how can you justify abortion? How can you say a woman has the right to terminate? And at what point? When does the baby's right supercede hers to end it?

Thanks for sharing that in return..

I'm am definitely on the side of keeping abortion as an option. And working harder and SMARTER to minimize the number. Especially after 12 weeks. There are hardly any GOOD reasons why contraceptives should NOT be over the counter with the counseling of a Reg. Pharmacist. That would grossly cut the number of abortions and end a large portion of the NEED for PP.. Side effects and mis-prescribed incidents would be far and few between for almost all YOUNG women. GP Docs dont do a lot of rechecks anyway on those prescriptions.

Your experience with PP was helpful. I don't think those videos condemn PP entirely. But the funding mechanism for PP with $$500Mill tax dollars/year going to it -- needs to be rethought. They should not be a govt sponsored monopoly that launders money back to the DNC to ensure their survival. That money ought to go to a specified pocket in MediCaid so that ANY clinic that wanted to provide those services could.

Not so sure more contraceptives = fewer abortions. There are a LOT more contraceptives FAR more readily available today than there ever have been, and abortion rates remain nearly as high as they ever have been. One would think that as more contraceptives become more available, the abortion rates would drop.

The abortion rates HAVE to drop with easier access to contraceptives. There's no other outcome.. Problem must be that they are not getting to the young women having unwanted babies. OR they are not being used continuously because of economic issues. Smarter would be -- GIVING the young mother free contraceptives after her FIRST abortion if that procedure was not insured or private paid.. To make certain -- she doesn't become a regular customer.. Clearly a better outcome for all sides.

The only way more contraception actually reduces abortion is to make it mandatory, and that's not possible.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

So my sleep schedule's all fucked up and I'm going to bed. Before I do I just have one thing to say to Carla and Valerie: Regardless of what you believe or think of me here, you will never have the chance to lay a hand on any of my children. That's what I need to hold on to to get me through today. Regardless of what you manage to do with me one day, you'll never, ever even see my kids let alone get any chance to hurt them in any way. That's my comfort.

 

[Carla_Danger]

The same thing Liberals will do.

I didn't say they wouldn't. Just pointing out how absolutely absurd, stupid, and idiotic is the claim that conservatives don't care about anyone after their born.

Does that mean you'd like to end abortion and increase SNAP benefits?

It means I'd like to end abortion and strengthen communities that support the less fortunate. Why does everything have to come down to government spending more money as the only way to make things better?

Could you please give some specific examples of how poor communities are going to support the less fortunate? Next, will you tell us why you think it's a sin for Government to try to end hunger in this country?

Why would I say that? Can you say straw man? Have fun knocking it down, but be careful. I hear they jump out of the way at the last moment.

We've spent trillions on the war on poverty. We still have poverty.
We spend more per student on education than anyone else. Our government education system sucks.

And on it goes. Why do people persist in believing that more government spending is actually going to accomplish desired goals in the face of reality?

There's NO straw man.

You said you want to strengthen communities that support the less fortunate.

I simply asked how, and for you to give specific examples.

Can you not do that?

The money we've spent on poverty has helped feed those babies you did not want to see aborted.

 

[Carla_Danger]

 

[hadit]

I didn't say they wouldn't. Just pointing out how absolutely absurd, stupid, and idiotic is the claim that conservatives don't care about anyone after their born.

Does that mean you'd like to end abortion and increase SNAP benefits?

It means I'd like to end abortion and strengthen communities that support the less fortunate. Why does everything have to come down to government spending more money as the only way to make things better?

Could you please give some specific examples of how poor communities are going to support the less fortunate? Next, will you tell us why you think it's a sin for Government to try to end hunger in this country?

Why would I say that? Can you say straw man? Have fun knocking it down, but be careful. I hear they jump out of the way at the last moment.

We've spent trillions on the war on poverty. We still have poverty.
We spend more per student on education than anyone else. Our government education system sucks.

And on it goes. Why do people persist in believing that more government spending is actually going to accomplish desired goals in the face of reality?

There's NO straw man.

You said you want to strengthen communities that support the less fortunate.

I simply asked how, and for you to give specific examples.

Can you not do that?

You said, and I quote, "Next, will you tell us why you think it's a sin for Government to try to end hunger in this country?". That is a straw man. Do you disagree?