If everybody agrees abortion is bad, why is Pro-life so unpopular?

[Silence]

I hope you are not arguing against abortion as a way of looking out for the overall health of women. That would be like arguing against heterosexual relationships for similar reasons.

how many women get hurt or die in heterosexual relationships and where are the mrs. kravitzs of the world on this one?

(not meant personally unless taken so)

I hope you take a reading 101 course in the near future. I'm pro-choice in case you missed it. I'm saying that not getting pregnant in the first place is better for the woman's overall health than getting pregnant and aborting....and I'm speaking mentally and physically.....

but you feel free to be as overzealous and reactionary as the pro-life nutters of the world...that really helps your cause

 

[eots]

correct.

It is my opinion that one must be born to have rights. I disagree with any law that gives rights to a life inside a womb. Why? Because of the law of unintended consequences. Plus any rights of a fetus will inevitably go up against the rights of the carrier of that fetus. I will side with the living outside the womb for now.

and... I WILL SPEAK FOR THOSE WITH NO VOICE

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

People have been committing murder, incest and rape forever.

That doesn't make it right.

now lookie here...we agree! Common ground has been achieved.

Her post isn't disingenuous or ignorant. It's a well thought out question. And your post proves that those who support abortion are liars when they say there's not an "anti-life" and "anti-pro-lifer" agenda.

My post proves nothing about anyone not even myself. It is an opinion I hold and unlike you my opinions do not define me. I define them and they are A-L-W-A-Y-S subject to redefinition as new data comes in. You are either hysterical or easily angered. Maybe both.

She's also not mis-characterizing what pro-lifers about. It's the pro-abortionists who mischaracterize us as ignorant, backwards thinking retards who refuse to agree that a grown woman's right to convenience is more important than a person's right to live.

Stop arguing with yourself. I am getting embarrassed for you.

 

[Silence]

However there's really no way to keep track as they don't answer to anyone.

And their malpractice insurance is nowhere near as expensive, or their clinicians as skilled.

they don't answer to anyone? there are regulations on ALL medical services and abortion is a medical service Allie.

Their malpractice insurance isn't as expensive because the risk of complication or error aren't as high..... and I'm not sure how you know the skill level of the clinicans but I'll just add that to the long list of things you think you know, but clearly haven't a clue.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I hope you take a reading 101 course in the near future. I'm pro-choice in case you missed it. I'm saying that not getting pregnant in the first place is better for the woman's overall health than getting pregnant and aborting....and I'm speaking mentally and physically.....

but you feel free to be as overzealous and reactionary as the pro-life nutters of the world...that really helps your cause

I am aware you are pro-choice. Maybe reading and comprehension 101 is in your future?

Must I explain everything?

 

[Silence]

and... I WILL SPEAK FOR THOSE WITH NO VOICE

awww the mute have a champion...how sweet

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and... I WILL SPEAK FOR THOSE WITH NO VOICE

a self-appointed savior with delusions of grandeur? are you a gay man?

 

[AllieBaba]

Let's talk about how little money those assholes make:

Planned Parenthood's Unseemly Empire
The billion-dollar "non-profit."
by Charlotte Allen
10/22/2007, Volume 013, Issue 06

In mid-July the top three Democratic presidential contenders paid their respects at an important shrine on the pilgrimage circuit of party fundraising: the Washington-based political arm of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. With its unceasing and aggressive advocacy of what it calls "women's reproductive health," Planned Parenthood has come to function as a gatekeeper to the treasuries of the progressive-minded Hollywood and Silicon Valley millionaires and billionaires who (along with their family foundations) increasingly control the purse-strings of the Democratic party during national elections, and for whom the right to unrestricted abortion for females of all ages is the sacred cynosure of the Constitution. And so they came to Planned Parenthood, clearly coveting the endorsement that would open the fundraising spigot and declaring that they were on board with the Planned Parenthood agenda 200 percent: Barack Obama, John Edwards (who, campaigning that day in Pittsburgh, sent his wife Elizabeth), and Hillary Clinton."

Yeah, they don't have any money.

And the fact that pro-abortionists despise and suspect people who "hide behind the children"....i.e., actually give a shit about the children being aborted and getting the abortions. Gosh, those people are terrible. Planned Parenthood has a much better plan...give anyone an abortion at any time and never ask any questions or report underage illegal sex no matter what:

"For nearly a year, Gault had allegedly hidden a runaway girl, now 15, in the house he shared, Hugh Hefner-style, with two other girlfriends (ages 26 and 40 and also charged with crimes arising from the incident). He had gotten the teenager pregnant and procured an abortion for her on May 1 at a Planned Parenthood clinic in West Hartford. About a month later, police discovered the 15-year-old, whose mother had been searching frantically for her since her disappearance from home in June 2006, locked in a storage space under a staircase at the residence of Gault, a onetime workplace acquaintance of the girl's stepfather. A DNA test on the corpse of the fetus indicated that Gault was its father. It is not known what sort of identification the girl, too young for a driver's license, presented the clinic's administrators. She apparently wouldn't name the father, and it is all but certain that no one at Planned Parenthood went out of their way to inquire into the circumstances that led to her pregnancy."

That's right. Because showing any sort of concern for children is "suspect". It's "hiding behind the children" who after all, are worthless anyway. No matter what their age.

"In one of those cases, the abuser, now serving a five-year prison sentence, was the victim's own father, who had forced his daughter to share his bed and have sex with him starting at age 13; another, involving the same Planned Parenthood branch in Cincinnati, Ohio, also featured a 13-year-old, this one impregnated by her school soccer coach who accompanied her to the clinic and paid for the abortion with his credit card, while she showed the staff her junior high school ID card. Spokesmen for Planned Parenthood have insisted that such cases are flukes (or that the victims lied, relieving the clinics of responsibility), and that clinic staff are carefully trained to report all instances of suspected abuse.
No matter what one may think about abortion, episodes such as those above would turn most charitable organizations into political pariahs. Not Planned Parenthood. The mammoth tax-exempt nonprofit with 122 affiliates nationwide reported revenues in June of a record $903 million during its 2005-06 fiscal year, and it continues to bask in an amazingly exalted reputation, at least among Democratic politicos, celebrities, a largely sympathetic and even
sycophantic press, and the gigantic family foundations set up by such tycoons past and present as David Rockefeller, David Packard, Bill Gates, and the ubiquitous George Soros, all of whom have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood causes."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/223livny.asp?pg=2

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

awww the mute have a champion...how sweet

correction:
the mute, deaf, dumb and blind have a squeak box.

 

[Shogun]

It is difficult to argue with your reasoning except that I think we are speaking about different things here. 80s test tube babies would make an entirely emotional campaign and an emotional campaign is not what is needed (imnsho).

I disagree. How many pro choicers could look into the face of a grown testube baby and question their humanity despite their cellular origin?


The purposeful taking of a human life is one thing. The carrying of another potential life and the fact that it is a part of oneself is another altogether.

so, too, are PREVENTATIVE CHOICES versus IRRESPONSIBLE CHOICES. For instance, I have no desire to control the sexuality of anyone. But, in this day and age of liberty to fuck and options available to prevent pregnancy, there really is no excuse for an abortion. You'll notice that even the original feminists and womens rights advocates felt that it was a male dominated society that FORCED women to have babies without preventive choices.. not so much just the choice to kill feti.


The argument that a fetus is a human being is disingenuous. What is a human being? Is a dead body human? What is life? What is death? I do not wish to argue 'when life begins' because that is an argument that I say science will keep changing in ways we cannot even imagine. But we are dealing with the here and now.


Again, genetics avoids this trap entirely. I don't care about comparing opinions about when a human being qualifies as a "person". Using a genetics argument you cannot deny that a zygote IS a distinct genetic human being; look at the test tube baby proof. Coupled with the idea that pro-life IS the ORIGINAL PRO (preventive) CHOICE....


To idea that the people of a nation have a legitimate state interest in the demanding individual women have to carry a pregnancy to term is abhorrent to me. It is the text book definition of a nanny state out of control and it smacks of authoritarianism and/or fascism in the name of 'the children'.


The idea that a people of a nation would stand by and let human feti get butchered for the sake of irresponsible sex and poor choices is abhorrent to me. By all means, go fuck. Just do so in a way that does not cause the potential of another human life having to pay the ultimate price for your seconds of pleasure. If you think the prevention of human death is a nanny state then so be it. You may have loved the lawless wild west where you could get shot and killed just for being downtown during a gun fight. Thankfully, we chose, as a society, to enforce our laws against taking human life. We can all toss around the same trite authoritarian fascist labels but the fact remains that pro-choices already HAVE a preventative choice that they refuse to make for the sake of personal irresponsibility.

 

[Silence]

I am aware you are pro-choice. Maybe reading and comprehension 101 is in your future?

Must I explain everything?

yes please...cuz you asked if I was arguing AGAINST ABORTION as a basis for the woman's overall health when clearly that is not what I said....perhaps you could make your words match your meaning....

 

[AllieBaba]

No, Silence, they DON'T ANSWER TO ANYONE. They're protected in fucking bubble wrap, and won't keep or provide records.

The CDC recognizes it and the Guttmacher Instititute recognize it...when you attempt to find statistics on abortion (as I've posted here over and over again, with links to those esteemed institution links) have disclaimers which SAY THERE IS NO WAY TO ACCURATELY TRACK who is getting abortions, at what age, and at what stage in the development of the babies because the abortion clinics don't keep records.

Grow up and do a little research. Before you commit to defend something to the death at least know what the fuck you're sticking up for. Then if you want to defend it, you won't sound so stupid.

 

[AllieBaba]

Here's more on poor Planned Parenthood, which Silence scoffs isn't making any money because they don't charge as much as OB/GYNs (btw..OB/GYNs are essentially a dying breed because they DON'T make any money after paying malpractice insurance)

From the link above:

"...So good, in the eyes of many federal, state, and local legislators, that nearly one-third of Planned Parenthood's near-billion dollars in revenues--$305.3 million in 2005-06--came from government subsidies of one sort or another. Gross revenues from "health services" at clinics accounted for another $345.1 million, and "private contributions and bequests" accounted for $212.2 million. The federal government alone was responsible for $120 million or more (the last available figures date from 2001), with at least $59 million coming from the supposedly Bush-starved Title X program.

That's not bad for an organization that also boasted a total of $839.8 million in net assets for the 2005-06 fiscal year, up from $784.1 million for the previous financial year. Planned Parenthood also reported a $55.8 million surplus of revenue over expenses last fiscal year, which, if it were an ordinary taxpaying business, would have amounted to a tidy 6 percent profit. Thanks in part to government generosity, Planned Parenthood has more money than it can spend. Whatever one might think personally about abortion and birth control, it is certainly worth asking whether U.S. taxpayers should be digging into their pockets to support a cash-engorged organization that reported that it paid its outgoing president, Gloria Feldt, an annual compensation package approaching $1 million.

 

[Silence]

Planned Parenthood does FAR MORE than just provide abortions Allie.... stop acting like that is the only service they provide.... it makes you look stupid....

and where is all this revenue information coming from if they don't answer to anyone Allie? I believe you just proved yourself a liar what you said... congrats...

 

[AllieBaba]

And then there's this:

"A large number, perhaps a majority, of underage teen pregnancies are not puppy love gone awry, but involve adult men who are significantly older than the pregnant girl. A study published in the journal Family Planning Perspectives in 1992 found that 62 percent of first-time births to teen mothers had been preceded by experiences of molestation, rape, or attempted rape, with the mean male-offender age 27.4 years. The Guttmacher Institute reported in 1995 that more than 40 percent of mothers age 15-17 had sexual partners three to five years older; nearly 20 percent had partners six or more years older.

Thus, Planned Parenthood's confidentiality principles can thus run squarely up against laws in every state, typically bearing criminal penalties, that require health care workers to report suspected incidents of sexual abuse or statutory rape to law enforcement. In 2002, a Texas-based pro-life group called Life Dynamics launched a sting operation, hiring an actress to call more than 800 abortion clinics nationwide, including many Planned Parenthood clinics. She told the receptionists that she was a 13-year-old girl who needed an abortion, except that her boyfriend was 22 and she didn't want him to get into trouble. The reported response at 91 percent of the clinics (including Planned Parenthood's) was: Don't mention your boyfriend's age when you come in, and all will be well. "[O]therwise, there's going to be a lot of stuff going on that you're probably not going to want to have happen," said a receptionist at a Planned Parenthood facility in New London, Connecticut, according to a Life Dynamics tape. Although Fox News reported the Life Dynamics story, the reaction of most of the media was: How dare anyone deceive a Planned Parenthood receptionist?"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/223livny.asp?pg=2

 

[jillian]

You need to link that.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is difficult to argue with your reasoning except that I think we are speaking about different things here. 80s test tube babies would make an entirely emotional campaign and an emotional campaign is not what is needed (imnsho).

I disagree. How many pro choicers could look into the face of a grown testube baby and question their humanity despite their cellular origin?

appealing to emotion will change any facts. I am not arguing that it would not be effective on some levels. What I am arguing is for sanity and reason.

The purposeful taking of a human life is one thing. The carrying of another potential life and the fact that it is a part of oneself is another altogether.

so, too, are PREVENTATIVE CHOICES versus IRRESPONSIBLE CHOICES. For instance, I have no desire to control the sexuality of anyone. But, in this day and age of liberty to fuck and options available to prevent pregnancy, there really is no excuse for an abortion. You'll notice that even the original pro-choicers felt that it was a male dominated society that FORCED women to have babies without preventive choices.. not so much just the choice to kill feti.

here we go: choices are individual. Legislating personal choice(s )is what you desire of the government? I am not excuses for abortion. People are not data---they make poor choices. I am not one who is angry or worse and who thinks people N-E-E-D to suffer for their every mistake in judgment. The options to prevent pregnancy are few or many, but so what? I am still puzzled by the concern for what other people do and do not do that does not affect the perennially angry.

The argument that a fetus is a human being is disingenuous. What is a human being? Is a dead body human? What is life? What is death? I do not wish to argue 'when life begins' because that is an argument that I say science will keep changing in ways we cannot even imagine. But we are dealing with the here and now.


Again, genetics avoids this trap entirely. I don't care about comparing opinions about when a human being qualifies as a "person". Using a genetics argument you cannot deny that a zygote IS a distinct genetic human being; look at the test tube baby proof. Coupled with the idea that pro-life IS the ORIGINAL PRO (preventive) CHOICE....

Genetics avoids nothing. You do not yet know what genetics is going to say and when it has it's say we will reevaluate things. Then the law of unintended consequences will kick in. I ask:

What is death? What is life? Is death the end of life and why?

think!

To idea that the people of a nation have a legitimate state interest in the demanding individual women have to carry a pregnancy to term is abhorrent to me. It is the text book definition of a nanny state out of control and it smacks of authoritarianism and/or fascism in the name of 'the children'.


The idea that a people of a nation would stand by and let human feti get butchered for the sake of irresponsible sex and poor choices is abhorrent to me. By all means, go fuck. Just do so in a way that does not cause the potential of another human life having to pay the ultimate price for your seconds of pleasure.

I don't care about comparing opinions about when a human being qualifies as a "person"

If you think the prevention of human death is a nanny state then so be it. You may have loved the lawless wild west where you could get shot and killed just for being downtown during a gun fight. Thankfully, we chose, as a society, to enforce our laws against taking human life. We can all toss around the same trite authoritarian fascist labels but the fact remains that pro-choices already HAVE a preventative choice that they refuse to make for the sake of personal irresponsibility.

butchered? I guess we butcher dead animals all the time. Does that bother you? The term 'butcher' has many connotations and I choose to ignore many. To butcher is but to commit an action. What one is butchering is another question altogether.

The arguments about potential human life that you make are interesting. So you are arguing about the rights of a potential life?

thank you for the clarification


personal responsibility starts at home. It starts with honesty, integrity and openness. personal responsibility would be to admit things one hides behind words with.

 

[AllieBaba]

Planned Parenthood does FAR MORE than just provide abortions Allie.... stop acting like that is the only service they provide.... it makes you look stupid....

and where is all this revenue information coming from if they don't answer to anyone Allie? I believe you just proved yourself a liar what you said... congrats...

Bullshit. They SAY they do more than provide abortions, but abortions is their money maker, and they count every procedure that leads up to and follows an abortion as a "differnent" women's health procedure so they can boost those numbers.

So the pelvic you get for an abortion..that's a "different" service provided by PP. The ultrasound is a "different" service. The contraceptives they send you home with and the other stuff...that's all a different service.

But the TRUTH is all other non-abortion related services are DECLINING while the percentage of abortions is increasing.

As I said, do a little fucking research before you pop off. There's nothing more frustrating than defending something and then finding out you were an IDIOT for doing so. I know whereof I speak. I defended big oil the whole time oil prices were skyrocketing.

Now I kick myself every time the cost goes down for being an idiot.

Do the research. And get your information from sources OTHER than planned parenthood.

 

[AllieBaba]

"One way Planned Parenthood massages the numbers to make its abortion business look trivial is to unbundle its services for purposes of counting. Those 10.1 million different medical procedures in the last fiscal year, for instance, were administered to only 3 million clients. An abortion is invariably preceded by a pregnancy test--a separate service in Planned Parenthood's reckoning--and is almost always followed at the organization's clinics by a "going home" packet of contraceptives, which counts as another separate service. Throw in a pelvic exam and a lab test for STDs--you get the picture. In terms of absolute numbers of clients, one in three visited Planned Parenthood for a pregnancy test, and of those, a little under one in three had a Planned Parenthood abortion."
Planned Parenthood's Unseemly Empire

Moreover, in terms of revenues generated, abortion accounted for at least one-third, probably more, of Planned Parenthood's $345.1 million in clinic income reported for the last fiscal year. A no-frills (local anesthesia that does not hinder cramping), no-complications, first-trimester surgical abortion typically costs about $400. Multiply that by 264,943 and you have $106 million, more than 10 percent of Planned Parenthood's entire revenues from every source last fiscal year. Furthermore, many abortions cost more than $400. An extra $150 or so buys better, IV-administered, anesthesia; a "medication abortion" (RU‑486 plus a second drug that induces labor) costs about $450, and a second-trimester abortion can run to well over $1,000, depending on complications.

 

[Shogun]

1. We already have our genetic answer: test tube babies.


2. dead animals are not dead human beings. Im eating a hamburger right now. This is, in no way shape or form, comparable to eating a dead baby. I sue the term butcher because it applies insomuch that one thing must lose it's life, without a choice, for the choices of others. I doubt this cow that im eating would have chosen to become a hamburger. Which doesn't matter because I still need to eat. Likewise, what fetus can you fathom would choose to become a coathanger for the sake of irresponsible sex while other options are available?


3. In regards to the appeal to limit an emotional response.. what ELSE would you describe the pro-choice talking point about choice that smacks of a time in America where women didn't have the CHOICES they do now? Namely, before birth control was widely available? It's disingenuous to rebuke pro-lifers for fishing for an emotional response when the entire pro-choice concept hinges on the ghosts of male oppression and lack of options. Again, the original feminists would have been able to make the distinction.