Jump to content

"Safe, legal and rare" - Planned Parenthood didn't get the memo


TitanTiger

Recommended Posts

When would you support abortion rights?

When allowing a pregnancy to go to term would kill the mother. They are both human beings. The life of the mother is the only thing that rises to the same level as the life of the child. Every effort should be made to try and preserve the life of both, but if ending a pregnancy is literally the only way to save the mother's life (such as an ectopic pregnancy), then it should be permitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





It won't make any difference to most folks, but they do see it from a different perspective than the framing presented here:

http://www.plannedpa...ng-access-care/

People who have worked there, as managers of a clinic, say differently.

And there's no other way to spin this...awarding an increase in abortions...as anything other than having certain "expectations" (read: quotas) for the number of abortion visits. It's rather pitiful for them to pretend otherwise.

There's no other perspective you can see because of how strongly you fill about it. I see abortion as a complex moral issue and never something to be celebrated. PP sees it as a rights/access issue for women and are in an environment where access is increasingly limited, thus curtailing the option and limiting the right. I understand that perspective, although I think they would be better served by not doing this.

You're right. I have strong feelings about basic human rights. PP doesn't see it as a morally complex issue. They celebrate more of them. I believe it is a 'quota' just as described.

I could possibly respect (while still disagreeing) with a stance that it's a 'necessary evil' to be used in rare circumstances (not as a substitute for a preventive birth control method). PP has no such qualms or qualifications on the issue. In their minds, it's an objective good on the level of tallying cure rates for ebola.

I understand your perspective as well as theirs. I do recall you arguing a few months ago, however, that conservatives better understood liberals motives/perspectives than vice versa. Yet here, instead of seeing PP's perspective as this also being a basic human rights issue for women, you dismiss their position as being primarily a revenue stream. One can see another's perspective and disagree with it.

If you only understand basic human rights for one side of a zero sum, life/death decision, you don't understand basic human rights. They see one side as human, the other side as "products of conception." It's anti-human.

Personally, I fall between the two extremes on this issue, but thanks for proving my point. ;)/>

I proved your point how? By showing that I can see there are two human lives to consider and the other side, which openly fights for the right to end the life of one of them right up until birth without restriction, insists that there's a human and a wad of tissue?

How can any honest intelligent person argue otherwise? Seriously?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious how many of you have ever stepped foot one in a PP clinic or talked to anyone who has had to go? I ask b/c most who are opining on this thread don't seem too knowledgeable about what actually goes on there and/or why people have to use their services ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious how many of you have ever stepped foot one in a PP clinic or talked to anyone who has had to go? I ask b/c most who are opining on this thread don't seem too knowledgeable about what actually goes on there and/or why people have to use their services ...

I've spoken to one who went to one and heard another speak who has. At least that I know of. It's possible I've spoken with more than one but they didn't mention to me (why would they necessarily) that they'd been to one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't make any difference to most folks, but they do see it from a different perspective than the framing presented here:

http://www.plannedpa...ng-access-care/

People who have worked there, as managers of a clinic, say differently.

And there's no other way to spin this...awarding an increase in abortions...as anything other than having certain "expectations" (read: quotas) for the number of abortion visits. It's rather pitiful for them to pretend otherwise.

There's no other perspective you can see because of how strongly you fill about it. I see abortion as a complex moral issue and never something to be celebrated. PP sees it as a rights/access issue for women and are in an environment where access is increasingly limited, thus curtailing the option and limiting the right. I understand that perspective, although I think they would be better served by not doing this.

You're right. I have strong feelings about basic human rights. PP doesn't see it as a morally complex issue. They celebrate more of them. I believe it is a 'quota' just as described.

I could possibly respect (while still disagreeing) with a stance that it's a 'necessary evil' to be used in rare circumstances (not as a substitute for a preventive birth control method). PP has no such qualms or qualifications on the issue. In their minds, it's an objective good on the level of tallying cure rates for ebola.

I understand your perspective as well as theirs. I do recall you arguing a few months ago, however, that conservatives better understood liberals motives/perspectives than vice versa. Yet here, instead of seeing PP's perspective as this also being a basic human rights issue for women, you dismiss their position as being primarily a revenue stream. One can see another's perspective and disagree with it.

If you only understand basic human rights for one side of a zero sum, life/death decision, you don't understand basic human rights. They see one side as human, the other side as "products of conception." It's anti-human.

Personally, I fall between the two extremes on this issue, but thanks for proving my point. ;)/>

I proved your point how? By showing that I can see there are two human lives to consider and the other side, which openly fights for the right to end the life of one of them right up until birth without restriction, insists that there's a human and a wad of tissue?

Proved it again.

Yet you can't explain how.

I did explain how. You can't/won't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhhmmm, I could be wrong on this... but the whole being able to abort up to delivering the child thing. I thought that if medically it could be assumed the child could survive out of the womb then no abortion could take place.

IE: 30 weeks in a child has a decent chance of survival outside the womb, you can not legally remove the child and purposely kill it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhhmmm, I could be wrong on this... but the whole being able to abort up to delivering the child thing. I thought that if medically it could be assumed the child could survive out of the womb then no abortion could take place.

IE: 30 weeks in a child has a decent chance of survival outside the womb, you can not legally remove the child and purposely kill it.

Depends on the state as well as the "exceptions" the law has in each state. In many states, loopholes such as the mental health of the mother are worded so widely that the net effect is that you can abort for any reason right until the magical moment the child's head exits the vagina.

But NOW, NARAL and PP all advocate and lobby for abortion without restriction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really have a strong stance with abortion one way or the other. I'm actually more upset about police having to hit quotas than abortion clinics.

That being said, it seems odd that if the child could survive outside the womb that it would be legal to kill it.... I guess I'm looking at it from the "it's not a life" argument, if it can survive out of the womb doesn't that make it a human life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really have a strong stance with abortion one way or the other. I'm actually more upset about police having to hit quotas than abortion clinics.

That being said, it seems odd that if the child could survive outside the womb that it would be legal to kill it.... I guess I'm looking at it from the "it's not a life" argument, if it can survive out of the womb doesn't that make it a human life?

Really. Well at least we know where your priorities are
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious. How many here actually KNOW about abortion on demand ? (as it exists TODAY)Processes, etc... Knowledge may indeed VASTLY change opinions. Example: What % of abortions are supposedly due to rape or incest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhhmmm, I could be wrong on this... but the whole being able to abort up to delivering the child thing. I thought that if medically it could be assumed the child could survive out of the womb then no abortion could take place.

IE: 30 weeks in a child has a decent chance of survival outside the womb, you can not legally remove the child and purposely kill it.

It is done every day...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PP was started as a means to reduce the number minorities and poor people. using birth control was the first method. Since 1973 abortion gave them another method. The number of blacks and Hispanics undergoing abortion is much higher than whites.

Since 1973 over 50 million legal abortions have been performed in the US. The USA is missing those 50 million citizens and all the children they would have had. Is that the reason we have to look the other way and let illegal aliens just walk in to the country and stay to work? We need the illegals to make up for the lives that ended legally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really have a strong stance with abortion one way or the other. I'm actually more upset about police having to hit quotas than abortion clinics.

That being said, it seems odd that if the child could survive outside the womb that it would be legal to kill it.... I guess I'm looking at it from the "it's not a life" argument, if it can survive out of the womb doesn't that make it a human life?

Really. Well at least we know where your priorities are

Well, I've never worried that someone in my family would be forced into a clinic to have a fetus removed against their will.

I do worry about the actions and motivations of police under a deadline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over 50,000,000 "legal" murders. Think about THAT for a moment......."fetus" is used to avoid the fact that a human life was taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can exchange the word "fetus" with cutesy wootsy itty bitty baby, and I still don't worry about anyone ever forcing someone in my family to get an abortion.

Don't get me wrong, I can fully understand why some people dislike/hate our current abortion laws. But it's no where on my worry list for my family, and as such it's something I have only a mild "passerby" interest in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am "worried" and it effects everyone. 50,000,000 murders should "worry" everyone...sad that it does not. What a callous society. "Me-me / Mine-mine" ....just sad. This is not a new question. "Am I my Brother's Keeper?"(This was asked after the First Murder btw)......."No man is an island entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. ....Never ask For Whom the bell tolls. IT TOLLS FOR T H E E ". !!! (Proper answer indeed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problems with a women eliminating a parasite from her body, should that be her decision.

Despite our human emotions regarding abortion, a fetus is a parasite. I realize I'm a tiny minority here but let's call a spade a spade

par·a·site

ˈperəˌsīt/

noun

noun: parasite; plural noun: parasites

an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problems with a women eliminating a parasite from her body, should that be her decision.

Despite our human emotions regarding abortion, a fetus is a parasite. I realize I'm a tiny minority here but let's call a spade a spade

par·a·site

ˈperəˌsīt/

noun

noun: parasite; plural noun: parasites

an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

You do realize that if the mother experiences a medical issue while carrying a baby, the baby sends stem cells to repair the issue right? A baby doesn't leech off of the mother, he or she takes care of the mother as well. Parasite? Uh...no.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problems with a women eliminating a parasite from her body, should that be her decision.

Despite our human emotions regarding abortion, a fetus is a parasite. I realize I'm a tiny minority here but let's call a spade a spade

par·a·site

ˈperəˌsīt/

noun

noun: parasite; plural noun: parasites

an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

A parasite is not related genetically or of the same species as its host. A fetus is of the same species and has half the genetic code of its host/ parent. The host/ parent is actually using the fetus to pass its genes along via reproduction. The closest humans can come to achieving immortality.

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Parasite&submit.x=33&submit.y=22

1. Biology An organism that lives and feeds on or in an organism of a different species and causes harm to its host.

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Fetus&submit.x=34&submit.y=20

1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problems with a women eliminating a parasite from her body, should that be her decision.

Despite our human emotions regarding abortion, a fetus is a parasite. I realize I'm a tiny minority here but let's call a spade a spade

par·a·site

ˈperəˌsīt/

noun

noun: parasite; plural noun: parasites

an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

A parasite is not related genetically or of the same species as its host. A fetus is of the same species and has half the genetic code of its host/ parent. The host/ parent is actually using the fetus to pass its genes along via reproduction. The closest humans can come to achieving immortality.

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Parasite&submit.x=33&submit.y=22

1. Biology An organism that lives and feeds on or in an organism of a different species and causes harm to its host.

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Fetus&submit.x=34&submit.y=20

1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.

Touche' and very well done. Game-set-Match !!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fetus as a parasite, well points for shock value I guess? lol

But we'll have to take all those points back plus many more for the inaccuracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not FOR abortions . I would rather not ever hear about them. I reluctantly do think they have to be allowed, but I would push the term limit way back to 20 weeks or less unless the mother was at risk. It does always amaze me to see a person state in a thread that welfare should not be available,basically poor, lazy, addicted AND their kids should starve under a bridge then come here and make it mandatory to bring illegitimate children into those environments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not FOR abortions . I would rather not ever hear about them. I reluctantly do think they have to be allowed, but I would push the term limit way back to 20 weeks or less unless the mother was at risk. It does always amaze me to see a person state in a thread that welfare should not be available,basically poor, lazy, addicted AND their kids should starve under a bridge then come here and make it mandatory to bring illegitimate children into those environments.

I actually agree with you somewhat here. An example:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121216/rubio-lee-tax-plan-features-penalties-poor-families

To me, this is a prime example of being anti-abortion, yet not pro-life. As a blogger I read regularly said:

When lefties compel the poor to have more abortions, prolife conservatives
rightly protest
.

When anti-abortion-but-not-prolife conservatives compel the poor to have abortions, “prolife” conservatives cheer far too often.

If we are pro-life, we favor not punishing the poor for having children. Period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "award" was politically tone-deaf.

It's not fair to characterize PP as promoting abortions because I really don't think that's what they are about. After all, why would they be?

This misguided award - which I don't really understand unless they are turning people away - certainly doesn't help their image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...