Women's Health System Unready For Planned Parenthood Cuts

Abortion in the case of pregnancy resulting from a father's rape of his daughter: result, fetus removed and terminated.

Abortion in any other case of pregnancy; result, fetus removed and terminated.

The outcome is the same in both circumstances, but one is understandable and acceptable and one is murder?

Or is murder acceptable only if condoned by religion or good book?

What utter nonsense and rot!

a reply to: Bennyzilla

It's so much easier to deal with these things when you convince yourself it wasn't wrong in the first place.

It's much easier to guilt people into compliance if you can get them to agree that abortion is wrong, in certain circumstances. But you'll never get me to agree that abortion is inherently wrong. It is not. It's been practiced since the dawn of humanity.

Women don't have a duty to give birth to every egg that passes through, fertilized or not. Women have the right to control if and when and how many children they want. There's nothing sacred about a fertilized egg. There's no magic that suddenly turns a woman's egg into a tiny person. An embryo has no thoughts, hopes fears. A woman does.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So your argument is if we can kill rape babies we can kill them all.

At least we'd be consistent right?

Also I think your view is skewed by your clear bias against religion as noone has mentioned religion or the "good book" but you. This tells me you come at this from on angle of "religion says it's bad, I hate religion, therefore abortion is good"

I don't know what religion did to you but I know it wasn't some unborn babies fault so try not to kill them for it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

its not a political issue for me, its a moral and ethical one.....which is why i dont take my cues from the muppets on television.


Opinions can be based on all kinds of things. My retort was calling out the member who appealed to the legality of abortion as a rationale for supporting it. I very reasonable pointed out that changing your views or having your views merely as a consequence of what the state or popular opinion is makes one rather undeveloped in the philosophical, self made sense. I make myself, i dont let others dictate to me what i am or what i choose to believe.

If someone wants to believe something let the own it rather than basing it on what someone else says. Is that really so unreasonable? I rather think thats the more responsible and enlightened path.

originally posted by: harvestdog
a reply to: Krazysh0t
They investigations are for determining illegality. I never accused them of breaking the law. In fact I conceded corporations get around they law with fancy accounting tricks all the time. That does not necessarily make it honest though.

My point is that, since the 1990's pro-life groups have manufactured scandals against planned parenthood causing them to be constantly under the microscope. If PP was ACTUALLY breaking the law, I'm pretty sure either the pro-life crowd would jump on it (after all they wouldn't have to manufacture a scandal for once) or any number of the investigations into them would uncover something.

I agree with the posters who have said Planned Parenthood should stick with their other 97% of services. Then they wouldn`t be an issue with Pro-lifers.

OR the government can do the responsible thing and prosecute groups like CMP for inciting false alarm to deter future pro-life groups from doing that. Why should Planned Parenthood change because a bunch of dishonest pro-life people have a problem with them? They didn't do anything wrong. It's the pro-lifers that broke the law, not PP.

Many would not agree with their money going to fund deliberateending of a fetus. Some Pro-choice philanthropists could use their private funding to help the women they are so worried about. It`s not like government funds abortion anyways, right?

Do you not agree with fetal tissue research? Do you not like modern medical advancements into parkinson's, diabetes, vaccines, cancer, and other medical maladies?

a reply to: windword

Oh man i was talking to this embryo the other day on the phone....oh wait...

She should have "Thoughts" about contraception methods before she get her eggs fertilized

She should have "Hopes" for the future of the life she had a part in creating


We just fundamentally disagree so we should just disengage from one another. You said "There's nothing sacred about a fertilized egg" I agree there's nothing sacred but that's just you putting your religious bias on it. Trying to paint all those who disagree as religious fanatics who think eggs are sacred, how stupid. They aren't sacred, but they are important.

I shouldn't have to have a discussion with people about how being alive is significantly an improvement from being dead and/or non existence.

As for the dawn of humanity argument.....C'mon, let's have a discussion about things that happened at the dawn of humanity and see how many of them are now seen as barbaric.

originally posted by: ratsinacage
a reply to: Krazysh0t

its not a political issue for me, its a moral and ethical one.....which is why i dont take my cues from the muppets on television.

Well it IS a political and legal issue for the country regardless of how you feel about it and until you can accept that, your opinion is worthless since it is based on strawmans that you are willing to believe thanks to your emotions.

Opinions can be based on all kinds of things. My retort was calling out the member who appealed to the legality of abortion as a rationale for supporting it. I very reasonable pointed out that changing your views or having your views merely as a consequence of what the state or popular opinion is makes one rather undeveloped in the philosophical, self made sense. I make myself, i dont let others dictate to me what i am or what i choose to believe.

Abortion being legal is a GOOD idea.

Legal or Not, Abortion Rates Compare

A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.

Abortion Rates Are Higher In Countries Where Procedure Is Illegal, Study Finds

Abortion rates are higher in countries where the procedure is illegal and nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, with the vast majority in developing countries, a new study concludes.

Abortion Rate Hits Record Low. Thanks, Birth Control Advocates!

The U.S. abortion rate has fallen to a 30-year low, reports the Guttmacher Institute, which records the abortion rate by surveying the known abortion providers in the country. Between 2008 and 2011, the number of abortions fell to 1.1 million a year, a drop of 13 percent. Overall, abortion has been in a long-term decline for most of the time it's been legal. In 1981, 29 women per 1,000 ages 15-44 had an abortion. In 2011, it was only 17 per 1,000.

Anti-choicers should avoid congratulating themselves for the decline, however. As the Guttmacher's press release indicates, this descent happened before the most recent wave of abortion restrictions began closing clinics. Instead, it seems that women are just getting pregnant less often. Over the same period, the birth rate was also in decline, hitting a record low in 2012.

And sorry, Mike Huckabee, it's probably not because women have decided they find sexual intercourse to be debasing. In fact, it's pro-choice activists and groups like Planned Parenthood, with their tireless work at making contraception socially acceptable and affordable, that should take the credit. Contraception use, especially highly effective long-term forms like the IUD, is up. Indeed, contraception has become universal, with 99 percent of sexually active women having used contraception before and 62 percent of women reproductive age using contraception now. Also, it's not that the country is being taken over by the urbane single ladies who haunt conservative nightmares—the Sandra Flukes of the world who delay getting married and love their birth control pills. Married women are more likely to use contraception than never-married women.

If someone wants to believe something let the own it rather than basing it on what someone else says. Is that really so unreasonable? I rather think thats the more responsible and enlightened path.

You obviously don't know me very well on these forums. I research most of my opinions rather thoroughly.

a reply to: Bennyzilla

She should have "Thoughts" about contraception methods before she get her eggs fertilized

Even the best contraception is only 98% effective. A sexually active young women using birth control regularly can still expect an unplanned pregnancy about once every 8 years. Or, looking at monthly, 2 out of every 100 sexually active women using regular birth control will have a unplanned pregnancy this month.

Trying to paint all those who disagree as religious fanatics who think eggs are sacred, how stupid. They aren't sacred, but they are important.

Potayto/potahto.....sacred/important............you're just playing with words.

a reply to: windword

You should include the caveat "as far as we know"......because certainly there are many examples in science of us not understanding something when we thought we did.....and often it was based on the limitations of our instruments and measuring processes.

Thoughtful, reasonable people have pointe out that when roe v wade was passed we had hardly an inkling of understanding into the development of the fetus and what each stage of development entailed. The limits on when abortions could be performed was largely arbitrary and based on a very crude understanding of fetal development compared to now. Would it be reasonable at all to keep a law exactly the same as it was 40 years ago though science has revealed so much more about a thing? what is logical about not allowing a law to change and adapt with increased understanding???


ill tell you why it doesnt matter how much we understand and why even if we learn that fetuses are dreaming and having wordless thoughts and emotions and experiencing pain it wont change anyones mind: because we want what we want, how we want it.

There are those who say a baby only has rights when it can survive on its own. There are those who say a baby only has rights once its separated from the mother and umbilical cord cut. Those arguments are totally abritrary and lacking in any scientific rationale whatsoever.

Tell you what......go out into the wild naked without any person to help you and see how long you can survive on your own. We all need people to survive.


Almost all the opinions on this issue are based on arbitrary, a priori thinking. But most of us try pretty hard to give ourselves a nice, warm comfortable blanket like rationale for why we believe what we do.

a reply to: ratsinacage

The limits on when abortions could be performed was largely arbitrary and based on a very crude understanding of fetal development compared to now.

Nonsense! I was in high school in the 1970's, when Roe V wade was passed. (We sent men to the moon in the 60's) Medicine wasn't crude. In fact, the same measure of fetal "viability" that was assessed by SCOTUS then is the same measure used today.

ill tell you why it doesnt matter how much we understand and why even if we learn that fetuses are dreaming and having wordless thoughts and emotions and experiencing pain it wont change anyones mind: because we want what we want, how we want it.

Now your talking about late term abortions. Only about 1% of all abortions performed are "late term" and usually only occur because of catastrophic fetal anomalies and/or the mother's health is at risk.

a reply to: windword

You're literally backing up your argument by holding up a magical group of women who use contraception perfectly and will still get pregnant once every 8 years as if it's any kind of a representation of the majority of PP users.

You probably need to wash your hands after reaching down to the waaay bottom of the barrel. Be sure to trim your fingernails to get all the stuff out from scratching down there too.

a reply to: Bennyzilla

Them's the statistics. Don't like 'em? Too bad!

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: Gryphon66

So your argument is if we can kill rape babies we can kill them all.

At least we'd be consistent right?

Also I think your view is skewed by your clear bias against religion as noone has mentioned religion or the "good book" but you. This tells me you come at this from on angle of "religion says it's bad, I hate religion, therefore abortion is good"

I don't know what religion did to you but I know it wasn't some unborn babies fault so try not to kill them for it.

If you'd like to quote my argument, do so; spare me your pathetic attempts to lie about what I said.

Review what you said and see if it makes sense to you: "no one has mentioned religion in the matter of abortion."

To state such a preposterous line is the result of lying, ignorance or mental instability.

You don't like logic applied to the "well, some abortions are okay, as long as we agree with them" BS; don't spew it.

a reply to: windword

according to this article the supreme courts decision wasnt based at all on viabilty, but rather personhood and something called the "geography of pregnancy", where since the baby is inside the mother no one can give the baby rights that supercedes the mothers rights.


www.banderasnews.com/1001/hb-roevwade.htm

Maybe you can help me understand exactly what the deciding factor was in Roe v. Wade. Im sure i could dig it up but you probly have a link already locked and loaded you could fire away.


So if its not personhood or viability thats in consideration why have any laws forbidding late term abortion? Is that merely to satisfy the far right conservative types?

The actual basis of the decision in Roe v. Wade reflected on physicians' rights to "ply their trade."

The case did not begin as acceptance of women's rights to control their bodies ... that was merely one of the logical outcomes.

a reply to: Gryphon66

id be interested in knowing more of what you speak. Have you any sites you can link to?

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
I support responsibility and not making other take the fall for decisions you made.

Fairyland doesn't exist...welcome to the real world.

a reply to: ratsinacage

Maybe you can help me understand exactly what the deciding factor was in Roe v. Wade.

www.law.cornell.edu...

HELD:
.................
3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

originally posted by: harvestdog
The argument that PP get Federal funding but they don`t spend any of it on abortions is dishonest in my opinion.
It would be like me not making enough money, so I get food stamps. I buy my food with food stamps and my beer and cigs with cash. I could argue that I didn`t buy my cigs and beer with food stamps. That is dishonest I think, because I chose not buy my food myelf.
It`s hard to sperate the issues honestly.

it's that same argument that is made when churches and religious groups get funding from the gov't claiming that none of that money is going into spreading religion. are they also being dishonest with their claims?

Yeah, as someone who grew up a small town environment, I remember going to the local PP clinic ... Oh wait, no I never did because PP never thought that small town areas were worthwhile.

So, for many people, this wouldn't change anything.