Discussion: Planned Parenthood

[SentinelMind]

I don't like the killing of fetuses either, but it simply skeeves me out MORE that we should treat women like incubators instead. Once a woman is pregnant, she ceases to exist as a person and is a human incubator. That's what the anti-choicers are saying when they take away a woman's right to choose.

That's basically it. Abortion sucks, but taking away the individuality of someone sucks more.

The bold makes no sense. You talk about individuality but the only choice that is important to liberals in this stage is whether she can carry out the pregnancy. She's being defined by her reproductive decisions, not her character, hobbies, passions, discussions, talent...just whether she'll carry out a pregnancy or abortion. Its the pro-abortion liberals that have limited the individuality of women by treating them like sex commodities. Abortion is just a means to control one's own sex life without worrying about consequences....screw the baby in the middle of it all.

IT comes down to what is more important, the value of human life or inconvenience of woman who doesn't want to raise a child she helped create.

 

[SentinelMind]

Do you know how small of a percentage abortion procedures at Planned Parenthood actually are compared to their overall services Sent?

Mussolini made the trains run on time.

The modern day KKK don't participate in lynchings much nowadays...they do a lot of community service, outreach, and neighborhood watches.

 

[SentinelMind]

I agree with that too. If the money allocated for Planned Parenthood is not to be used for abortion (and I'm fine with that) and they suspect that it is, make them open their books and investigate.

Ideally, fix the problem. Don't punish the women who use those facilities for so many other reasons, who need the help. Doesn't sound particularly pro-life (or particularly pro-Christian) to me.

Send the money to organizations that don't perform abortions...problem solved...if the people are sincere in that compromise.

 

[Pagan]

Send the money to organizations that don't perform abortions...problem solved...if the people are sincere in that compromise.

yes you should always send your charitable contributions directly to those doing the work and not a 3rd party middleman who takes a cut where possible.

 

[danoyse]

wait..........seriously? that's the analogy you are going to use?

Yup. If lawmakers want to trample all over my reproductive health, the only fair thing to do is investigate theirs.

 

[Pagan]

The bold makes no sense. You talk about individuality but the only choice that is important to liberals in this stage is whether she can carry out the pregnancy. She's being defined by her reproductive decisions, not her character, hobbies, passions, discussions, talent...just whether she'll carry out a pregnancy or abortion. Its the pro-abortion liberals that have limited the individuality of women by treating them like sex commodities. Abortion is just a means to control one's own sex life without worrying about consequences....screw the baby in the middle of it all.

IT comes down to what is more important, the value of human life or inconvenience of woman who doesn't want to raise a child she helped create.

what social value is gained by forcing women (usually poor and unfit to be parents) to bring a blastocyst to term? And then abandon the baby by cutting vital social programs ,health,education etc in favor of giving some billionaire derivatives trader with offshore accounts a tax cut?

Oh I suppose there is some value in creating cannon fodder for the Military industrial complex. or neo slave labor through a private detention systems.

but as I see it it's a huge drain on the taxpayer to force these kids into the world.

 

[SentinelMind]

When it comes down to it, you have to decide whether you value human life or not. If you don't think all human life is worth fighting for and just economic utility for you is important, then yeah...abortion makes lot of economic sense.

I don't get the argument people use with social programs...a child shouldn't be allowed to live based on whether or not some program exists. The funny thing is if liberals had their social program utopia in place, they'd still be pro-abortion.

 

[danoyse]

The bold makes no sense. You talk about individuality but the only choice that is important to liberals in this stage is whether she can carry out the pregnancy. She's being defined by her reproductive decisions, not her character, hobbies, passions, discussions, talent...just whether she'll carry out a pregnancy or abortion. Its the pro-abortion liberals that have limited the individuality of women by treating them like sex commodities. Abortion is just a means to control one's own sex life without worrying about consequences....screw the baby in the middle of it all.

IT comes down to what is more important, the value of human life or inconvenience of woman who doesn't want to raise a child she helped create.

I would say contraception would be the means to control one's sex life without worrying about consequences: with them, there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions. It's cheaper for all of us, and it doesn't involve terminating a pregnancy.

But these lawmakers want to shut down a facility that provides that's used as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies, not to mention make it harder for women anywhere to have access to contraception.

That's not saving lives. That's stupid.

Do you really think every woman having an abortion is doing it because they're inconvenienced? What do you think about women who were raped? Women whose lives are in danger due to a health issue during a pregnancy?

Think about that while you're comparing women to the KKK, Mussolini, and pedophiles.

 

[SentinelMind]

I would say contraception would be the means to control one's sex life without worrying about consequences: with them, there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions. It's cheaper for all of us, and it doesn't involve terminating a pregnancy.

But these lawmakers want to shut down a facility that provides that as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies, not to mention make it harder for women anywhere to have access to contraception.

That's not saving lives. That's stupid.

Do you really think every woman having an abortion is doing it because they're inconvenienced? What do you think about women who were raped? Women whose lives are in danger due to a health issue during a pregnancy?

Think about that while you're comparing women to the KKK, Mussolini, and pedophiles.

Your first case makes up less than 1% of abortions. The second makes up approximately 5%. You can handle the 90%+ while dealing with those individually. Ninety+ percent out of convenience. That's pretty sick.

I don't care whether one uses contraceptives...I favor keeping them legal. However, I can understand some being opposed to funding other's sex life and I wish people would have the character to show enough self-control. But its 2012, that's way too much to ask for anymore. Teaching people about self-control is prohibited, but we want to give out condoms freely like thats the solution to teenage pregnancy ills. I may be able to support some funding for contraception (let there be a copay for user or something) in specific instances if abortions were curtailed in some way and condoms weren't thrown around freely in classroom.

 

[danoyse]

Your first case makes up less than 1% of abortions. The second makes up approximately 5%. You can handle the 90%+ while dealing with those individually. Ninety+ percent out of convenience. That's pretty sick.

I don't care whether one uses contraceptives...I favor keeping them legal. However, I can understand some being opposed to funding other's sex life and I wish people would have the character to show enough self-control. But its 2012, that's way too much to ask for anymore. Teaching people about self-control is prohibited, but we want to give out condoms freely like thats the solution to teenage pregnancy ills. I may be able to support some funding for contraception (let there be a copay for user or something) in specific instances if abortions were curtailed in some way and condoms weren't thrown around freely in classroom.

So let's play by your math:

According to this CDC report from 2008, there were 825,564 abortions reported from 49 reporting areas.

Let's round up to a full 1% regarding your statistic about women who've been raped. That makes at least 8255 women who were the victims of rape.

Your 5% figure comes up to a whopping 41,278 women who faces a health risk if she doesn't terminate a pregnancy.

That's a lot of women. And you never answered the question: would you support an abortion for women facing either of these things?

As for your claim that the rest have them out of convenience? Unless you've personally interviewed them all, you can't make such a blanket statement about every single woman who's ever had an abortion.

I know several women who've had them, and none of the ones I know had them because they were inconvenienced.

Those kind of women are out there, but it's just not all of them. Putting the rest under that umbrella isn't right.

You're also contradicting yourself like crazy: you want people to have better "self-control" and not get pregnant in the first place...well, the best way to do that is to eductate and provide contraception. Even in the classroom.

Since two girls in my high school class had babies of their own by graduation day, I would say especially in the classroom.

If you want abortions to stop, best way you can do it is to make sure contraception is available to anyone who needs it.

 

[Anita18]

Your first case makes up less than 1% of abortions. The second makes up approximately 5%. You can handle the 90%+ while dealing with those individually. Ninety+ percent out of convenience. That's pretty sick.

Frankly, sometimes abortion out of convenience is the best option.

I have a pregnant friend who's been depressed the entirety of it. She's about 5 months along. Her entire Facebook newsfeed is all how about how depressed and upset she is over the fact she's going to be a mother. She's convinced any semblance of her life will end and she'll be stuck at home for the rest of her days caring for this child. Her not looking forward to motherhood is the understatement of the year.

I was trying to give her a pep talk (as I'm wont to do) and she admitted that her husband LIED when he told her he wanted to have kids soon. Lied or changed his mind - either way, he's not talking other than to "rail at her for the past 5 months" about their predicament. I couldn't believe it. We all had figured he was being supportive and that she was going through a bout of hormonal depression, not that he was the main cause of her distress. I mean, isn't supporting your partner what you signed up for when you got married????

They completely disagree on how to raise children - they apparently didn't even talk openly and honestly about WHEN to have them before they got married. Their only hope now IMO is marriage counseling and therapy, and STAT. He wasn't open to it before they tied the knot, but I really hope he is now now that a baby's on the way. Or maybe he'll just keep ignoring her and the "situation" like he's been doing this whole time.

FYI, they're extremely religious and don't believe in abortion. (She's going to fight tooth and nail to save her marriage, but I'm not sure if it can be done.) I don't think they're nutty enough to not believe in using BC either, but they apparently didn't take the consequences of sex seriously enough (yes, stuff can happen even when you're married!) and if she thought they'd be having kids soon, she probably thought it was okay if they didn't have BC.

Is this a situation you'd want a kid to be born into? To have a mother who isn't looking forward to motherhood and a father who never wanted you to exist in the first place?

Sometimes abortion that isn't from medical necessity isn't just out of sheer "hampering of jetsetting lifestyle," but for the sake of the mental health of the parents involved. My friend even told me she'd been seriously considering suicide, but what it's worth, she couldn't do it with a baby inside her. I hope to God they get this sorted out before the baby is born.

 

[danoyse]

Komen has also been halting funding for stem cell research...even though the grants they gave never actually funded embryonic stem cell research. Now it's just groups even associated with embryonic stem cell research.

 

[Destructus86]

Why....is Komen still around?

 

[danoyse]

They didn't really reverse any decision. They'll continue with the grants that have already been approved, but they'll have to reapply for grants next year.

And...I think we all know what the answer will be then. Because I'm assuming they all want to go through this again when they turn them down.

 

[Lighthouse]

Frankly, sometimes abortion out of convenience is the best option.

I have a pregnant friend who's been depressed the entirety of it. She's about 5 months along. Her entire Facebook newsfeed is all how about how depressed and upset she is over the fact she's going to be a mother. She's convinced any semblance of her life will end and she'll be stuck at home for the rest of her days caring for this child. Her not looking forward to motherhood is the understatement of the year.

I was trying to give her a pep talk (as I'm wont to do) and she admitted that her husband LIED when he told her he wanted to have kids soon. Lied or changed his mind - either way, he's not talking other than to "rail at her for the past 5 months" about their predicament. I couldn't believe it. We all had figured he was being supportive and that she was going through a bout of hormonal depression, not that he was the main cause of her distress. I mean, isn't supporting your partner what you signed up for when you got married????

They completely disagree on how to raise children - they apparently didn't even talk openly and honestly about WHEN to have them before they got married. Their only hope now IMO is marriage counseling and therapy, and STAT. He wasn't open to it before they tied the knot, but I really hope he is now now that a baby's on the way. Or maybe he'll just keep ignoring her and the "situation" like he's been doing this whole time.

FYI, they're extremely religious and don't believe in abortion. (She's going to fight tooth and nail to save her marriage, but I'm not sure if it can be done.) I don't think they're nutty enough to not believe in using BC either, but they apparently didn't take the consequences of sex seriously enough (yes, stuff can happen even when you're married!) and if she thought they'd be having kids soon, she probably thought it was okay if they didn't have BC.

Is this a situation you'd want a kid to be born into? To have a mother who isn't looking forward to motherhood and a father who never wanted you to exist in the first place?

Sometimes abortion that isn't from medical necessity isn't just out of sheer "hampering of jetsetting lifestyle," but for the sake of the mental health of the parents involved. My friend even told me she'd been seriously considering suicide, but what it's worth, she couldn't do it with a baby inside her. I hope to God they get this sorted out before the baby is born.

Just curious, why haven't they considered putting the baby up for adoption? If she's five months in and really doesn't want the baby, wouldn't that be the best option?

 

[Anita18]

Just curious, why haven't they considered putting the baby up for adoption? If she's five months in and really doesn't want the baby, wouldn't that be the best option?

I don't know for sure, but I believe it's because their families are very traditional and it might be VERY looked down upon if they gave up the child. Even when neither of them are looking forward to parenthood. Everyone's been telling them, "Oh, you'll make great parents!" which I'm sure is their way of trying to cheer them up, but given the way things look, I think it's just resigning both of them to their fates.

I think the thing to be done now is marriage counseling, and have a big sit-down serious discussion about parenthood right away once both are open. She's just so down and the husband seems to be MIA. I really wouldn't want to wish this kind of thing on anybody - married folks or their unborn children.

 

[Pagan]

Just curious, why haven't they considered putting the baby up for adoption? If she's five months in and really doesn't want the baby, wouldn't that be the best option?

maybe. if it was a white baby in perfect health and the parents were not drug abusers or having some other undesirable trait. it might have a good chance of getting adopted before it was past it's prime adoption age. people want babies. not toddlers. not adolescents. and definitely not teens.

if not adopted they will be shuffled around in the foster care system. or live in an orphanage.

my question to all the pro lifers out there is a challenge. if you want to force women you should adopt a kid you don't want and can't afford and raise it first and see how that works out for you. Because my moral sensibilities think that you shouldn't be a hypocrite when you oppress your will onto others. you want to impose your will on them? Let me impose mine on you first.

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't know for sure, but I believe it's because their families are very traditional and it might be VERY looked down upon if they gave up the child.

I am pro-choice, but I don't know if this is the best argument for an abortion for connivance. It seems like her depression comes from her total lack of control based on her stringent religious family and beliefs. If these weren't in place, she might feel free to have more options.

 

[Lighthouse]

maybe. if it was a white baby in perfect health and the parents were not drug abusers or having some other undesirable trait. it might have a good chance of getting adopted before it was past it's prime adoption age. people want babies. not toddlers. not adolescents. and definitely not teens.

if not adopted they will be shuffled around in the foster care system. or live in an orphanage.

my question to all the pro lifers out there is a challenge. if you want to force women you should adopt a kid you don't want and can't afford and raise it first and see how that works out for you. Because my moral sensibilities think that you shouldn't be a hypocrite when you oppress your will onto others. you want to impose your will on them? Let me impose mine on you first.

I totally agree. I was just refering to that specific situation. I am absolutely pro-choice, but I think in situations like that, safe haven laws or adoption are very viable options.

 

[Anita18]

maybe. if it was a white baby in perfect health and the parents were not drug abusers or having some other undesirable trait. it might have a good chance of getting adopted before it was past it's prime adoption age. people want babies. not toddlers. not adolescents. and definitely not teens.

They do happen to be white and in good health (well, aside from the mom's depression in her teens) and not drug abusers.

I just don't think they'd be looked upon favorably by their families if they made that choice. It's very important to them.

I am pro-choice, but I don't know if this is the best argument for an abortion for connivance. It seems like her depression comes from her total lack of control based on her stringent religious family and beliefs. If these weren't in place, she might feel free to have more options.

You mean convenience, I presume.

Yeah I don't think abortion would have necessarily "fixed" anything in this specific situation, but it really should be an option for couples in similar-but-not-identical situations. It's really her outlook on motherhood and marriage that's the issue. And again the question is, would you force parenthood on a couple who doesn't want to be parents? I mean, yeah they should have been honest with each other and thought ahead, but then that's just thinking of parenthood as punishment instead of considering the child coming into that situation!

 

[SentinelMind]

maybe. if it was a white baby in perfect health and the parents were not drug abusers or having some other undesirable trait. it might have a good chance of getting adopted before it was past it's prime adoption age. people want babies. not toddlers. not adolescents. and definitely not teens.

if not adopted they will be shuffled around in the foster care system. or live in an orphanage.

my question to all the pro lifers out there is a challenge. if you want to force women you should adopt a kid you don't want and can't afford and raise it first and see how that works out for you. Because my moral sensibilities think that you shouldn't be a hypocrite when you oppress your will onto others. you want to impose your will on them? Let me impose mine on you first.

If an abortion is murder...then its murder either way. You don't legalize infanticide because the parent doesn't want to raise the child and can't find foster parents. This isn't China.

I'm really tired of the liberal notion that a child born in undesirable circumstances is better of dead than given a chance to live. Many people have lived in difficult, broken homes and gone on to live successful, positive lives. You don't know whats in store for a potential baby so its not your call to suggest they deserve to die.

I may consider adopting in future if it comes to that, but that is completely irrelevant to whether or not murder of a child should be allowed.

 

[Paradoxium]

Parenthood is punishment

 

[SentinelMind]

You're also contradicting yourself like crazy: you want people to have better "self-control" and not get pregnant in the first place...well, the best way to do that is to eductate and provide contraception. Even in the classroom.

Since two girls in my high school class had babies of their own by graduation day, I would say especially in the classroom.

If you want abortions to stop, best way you can do it is to make sure contraception is available to anyone who needs it.

Throwing condoms to students in the classroom is not teaching children self-control. There are studies of kids who have been successful in remaining abstinent until they were an adult or mature and responsible enough to make those type of decisions. It comes down to character and self-control.

Yes, some kids may be able to use condoms properly, but not everyone will always use it properly all the time. There are two risks here....yes, there is risk of kid having sex without contraceptive, but you're presuming that a kid who is out of control and needs to get laid now is responsible enough to always wait until he has access to a condom before sleeping around. That's what happened to Bristol Palin and her boyfriend, who knew about contraception before she got pregnant. It's not practical to make that assumption that a kid is selectively responsible. You run the risk of further sexualizing the child if the child is now peer pressured in school system. You can't just give free condoms at tax payer expense because that further encourages riskier behavior and further subsidizing.

I'm not opposed to contraceptives or some funding/health insurance involving contraceptives, but there has to be a responsible party involved and some incentive to be frugal about it.

 

[Trainwreck2100]

Yup. If lawmakers want to trample all over my reproductive health, the only fair thing to do is investigate theirs.

ED pills are not for reproduction

 

[Paradoxium]

I can see where SentinelMind is coming from, but self-control and willpower as a social problem goes well beyond that. Look at fat people, alcoholics and Batman fans. If you have poor willpower it flows down to every part of you life.

If you want less sexual debauchery, tell guys to start listening to girls for relationship advice