Fourth PP video released, it's bad

[Coyote]

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.

There are also longer lasting contraceptives available that make it easier to stay protected.

 

[Coyote]

Nobody wants to hurt another person's children. Just as it's wrong to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy it is wrong to force another woman to have an abortion. I don't think anyone here feels that is right.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

And you will never be able to lay a hand on my children. I too, feel better knowing that you will never be able to hurt them. There, that makes us even. (Weirdo)

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

Certainly in the new regime of technically bankrupt governments like ours and the rest of them, there IS a trade-off between abortion services and food. Everyone of those procedures saps the ability to fund programs for people who aren't having their 2nd or 3rd pro bono abortion.. If it's FREE --- there is no incentive (for some) to take any personal responsibility. And they take away opportunities to spend that money elsewhere. PERHAPS at some point -- like your 3rd visit to PP abortion theater --- You just gotta say no....

 

[Valerie]

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.

wow, good thing you got that off your chest...

thanks for the clear demonstration of your complete disconnect from reality.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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?

Once again, 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?

How is it a straw man when you are clearly against the Government spending money on poverty? A straw man would me misrepresenting you on your stance, when I have done no such thing.

 

[BlindBoo]

Weird, because I keep hearing a fetus not a human life by those who favor abortion.

Name some names then meaty.

 

[Coyote]

Part of the problem is that many who are against abortion are also against easy availability of contraception and science-based sex education. That usually means poor women are less likely to get contraception.

Texas Policy Evaluation Project

The Republican War on Contraception Mother Jones

 

[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?

Certainly in the new regime of technically bankrupt governments like ours and the rest of them, there IS a trade-off between abortion services and food. Everyone of those procedures saps the ability to fund programs for people who aren't having their 2nd or 3rd pro bono abortion.. If it's FREE --- there is no incentive (for some) to take any personal responsibility. And they take away opportunities to spend that money elsewhere. PERHAPS at some point -- like your 3rd visit to PP abortion theater --- You just gotta say no....

I'm not sure of your point since most states/government do not fund abortions. How many abortions a woman has is between a woman and her doctor.

I'm all for investing money in programs that will reduce the need for abortions and or public assistance. There's a really good thread about this topic now.

CDZ - Teen pregnancy rate reduced abortion rate reduced what s wrong with this US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The study shows funding has reduced teen pregnancies and abortions by 40%, however they are getting ready to lose their funding.

 

[flacaltenn]

The mother only gets labeled a slut and a parasite if she's a slut who has multiple children by multiple baby daddies. She is only labeled a parasite, because she expects others to fulfill her responsibilities for her.
Conservatives aren't about to let children starve, but we will do what we feel necessary to prevent more children being born into poverty.
If that means making living off the labor of others uncomfortable, so be it.

"Conservatives aren't about to let children starve, but we will do what we feel necessary to prevent more children being born into poverty."

You change "more children being born into poverty" to more UNWANTED children being born into poverty and I'll agree to the rest of that. Except that -- lacking cooperation and personal responsibility from those MULTIPLE "slut" offenders --- abortion is one tool that accomplishes that goal.. Isn't it?

It wasn't your choice or my choice -- wasn't a good choice at all.. "We" didn't make those baby-daddy choices.. Heck it wasn't even "HER" choice to get pregnant multiple times. It's a reflection of some hefty deeper dysfunctions that need to be fixed. And (Listen carefully Lefties !!!! )) You're not gonna fix that with a check from Wash, D.C.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It's a reflection of some hefty deeper dysfunctions that need to be fixed. And (Listen carefully Lefties !!!! )) You're not gonna fix that with a check from Wash, D.C.

Agreed!

And it most certainly isn't going to fixed by disenfranchising the poor and eliminating school programs either.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's a reflection of some hefty deeper dysfunctions that need to be fixed. And (Listen carefully Lefties !!!! )) You're not gonna fix that with a check from Wash, D.C.

Agreed!

And it most certainly isn't going to fixed by disenfranchising the poor and eliminating school programs either.

Probably a whole nother topic, but NO program from Wash cures that kind of cyclical dysfunction. What cures it is HUMAN interaction and intense counseling. Something that DC sucks at but LOCAL orgs and religious orgs excel at. Give a man a checkbook and he'll probably starve. Teach a man how to BALANCE a checkbook and budget and he can feed himself kinda deal..

I've learned that every time I've volunteered. Whether is was Head Start in the 80s or the GED counseling that I've done recently.. THAT's the level of commitment required to even make a dent. And you don't BUY that with tax dollars..

 

[hadit]

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?

Once again, 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?

How is it a straw man when you are clearly against the Government spending money on poverty? A straw man would me misrepresenting you on your stance, when I have done no such thing.

The straw man is your attempting to divert the discussion into the arena of sin.

Now, as for government spending on poverty, it obviously isn't working, because no matter how much we confiscate from the productive sectors of the economy, poverty continues. It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to consider alternative solutions for dealing with poverty. I believe money raised and spent at the local level to be much more efficient in dealing with local concerns. Utilizing the federal government to deal with poverty is much like using a sledge hammer to eliminate a fly infestation. You might hit some flies, but you're going to miss an awful lot of them, do nothing to the population, and mess up your house. I believe if two things were to happen, we would see a reduction in poverty. One, get the federal government out of the poverty war, because it's not working. Two, return the money previously confiscated from the economy to the people in the communities. One of the reasons charities are not getting a lot of donations today is people don't feel any obligation to help their neighbors. Why should they? They don't know their neighbors and they pay huge taxes that the government is supposed to use to help. More money in the hands of the people who earned it is a good thing. If a community can't raise enough funds voluntarily, they can vote at the local level on the issue of taxes and fees. Local administrators know a whole lot more what their communities need than do bureaucrats insulated in Washington, DC.

 

[hadit]

It's a reflection of some hefty deeper dysfunctions that need to be fixed. And (Listen carefully Lefties !!!! )) You're not gonna fix that with a check from Wash, D.C.

Agreed!

And it most certainly isn't going to fixed by disenfranchising the poor and eliminating school programs either.

Far better, though, to move those programs to the local level.

 

[hadit]

Part of the problem is that many who are against abortion are also against easy availability of contraception and science-based sex education. That usually means poor women are less likely to get contraception.

Texas Policy Evaluation Project

The Republican War on Contraception Mother Jones

It's a "war on women" when people don't want to pay for someone else's birth control? Why should anyone be forced to pay for either an old geezer's boner pills OR a law student's birth control pills? A "war" would be laws forbidding the use of contraception and eliminating rape as a crime. This is no more a "war" than refusing to force taxpayers to subsidize pron is a war on art. A box of condoms is easy to get at any drug store in the nation.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It's a reflection of some hefty deeper dysfunctions that need to be fixed. And (Listen carefully Lefties !!!! )) You're not gonna fix that with a check from Wash, D.C.

Agreed!

And it most certainly isn't going to fixed by disenfranchising the poor and eliminating school programs either.

Probably a whole nother topic, but NO program from Wash cures that kind of cyclical dysfunction. What cures it is HUMAN interaction and intense counseling. Something that DC sucks at but LOCAL orgs and religious orgs excel at. Give a man a checkbook and he'll probably starve. Teach a man how to BALANCE a checkbook and budget and he can feed himself kinda deal..

I've learned that every time I've volunteered. Whether is was Head Start in the 80s or the GED counseling that I've done recently.. THAT's the level of commitment required to even make a dent. And you don't BUY that with tax dollars..

I agree that just throwing money at the problem is ineffective.

And yes, it takes a commitment and dedication to change the next generation.

But if we want to stay on topic then part of that commitment is to provide poor teenage females with good sex education and long acting contraception so that they can complete their education and find good jobs.

That will take more than just a commitment, that also takes funding, which is being terminated even as it it proving to have an 80% success rate.

 

[hadit]

The mother only gets labeled a slut and a parasite if she's a slut who has multiple children by multiple baby daddies. She is only labeled a parasite, because she expects others to fulfill her responsibilities for her.
Conservatives aren't about to let children starve, but we will do what we feel necessary to prevent more children being born into poverty.
If that means making living off the labor of others uncomfortable, so be it.

"Conservatives aren't about to let children starve, but we will do what we feel necessary to prevent more children being born into poverty."

You change "more children being born into poverty" to more UNWANTED children being born into poverty and I'll agree to the rest of that. Except that -- lacking cooperation and personal responsibility from those MULTIPLE "slut" offenders --- abortion is one tool that accomplishes that goal.. Isn't it?

It wasn't your choice or my choice -- wasn't a good choice at all.. "We" didn't make those baby-daddy choices.. Heck it wasn't even "HER" choice to get pregnant multiple times. It's a reflection of some hefty deeper dysfunctions that need to be fixed. And (Listen carefully Lefties !!!! )) You're not gonna fix that with a check from Wash, D.C.

The census says that African-Americans make up 12-13% of the US population.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons says that African-Americans make up about 38% of the US prison population. I've heard some say that's proof of racism when you consider number 1.

Approximately 36% of abortions are done on black women. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Carla_Danger]

It's a reflection of some hefty deeper dysfunctions that need to be fixed. And (Listen carefully Lefties !!!! )) You're not gonna fix that with a check from Wash, D.C.

Agreed!

And it most certainly isn't going to fixed by disenfranchising the poor and eliminating school programs either.

Far better, though, to move those programs to the local level.

And states like Mississippi, where approx 45% of their GDP is federal welfare, are going to support these programs how? I've asked twice now, specifically how are poor states/communities going to help poor people?

I know its a feel good talking point, but please be specific.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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?

Once again, 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?

How is it a straw man when you are clearly against the Government spending money on poverty? A straw man would me misrepresenting you on your stance, when I have done no such thing.

The straw man is your attempting to divert the discussion into the arena of sin.

Now, as for government spending on poverty, it obviously isn't working, because no matter how much we confiscate from the productive sectors of the economy, poverty continues. It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to consider alternative solutions for dealing with poverty. I believe money raised and spent at the local level to be much more efficient in dealing with local concerns. Utilizing the federal government to deal with poverty is much like using a sledge hammer to eliminate a fly infestation. You might hit some flies, but you're going to miss an awful lot of them, do nothing to the population, and mess up your house. I believe if two things were to happen, we would see a reduction in poverty. One, get the federal government out of the poverty war, because it's not working. Two, return the money previously confiscated from the economy to the people in the communities. One of the reasons charities are not getting a lot of donations today is people don't feel any obligation to help their neighbors. Why should they? They don't know their neighbors and they pay huge taxes that the government is supposed to use to help. More money in the hands of the people who earned it is a good thing. If a community can't raise enough funds voluntarily, they can vote at the local level on the issue of taxes and fees. Local administrators know a whole lot more what their communities need than do bureaucrats insulated in Washington, DC.

It obviously is working.

The goal of the program is “to alleviate hunger and malnutrition … by increasing food purchasing power for all eligible households who apply for participation” as stated in the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended (P.L. 108-269).

The goal of SNAP is to feed hungry people. I'd say they are reaching their goal. In 2012 they lifted 4.9 million people above poverty line.

Infographic 50 Years of SNAP Food Research Action Center

 

[Carla_Danger]

The mother only gets labeled a slut and a parasite if she's a slut who has multiple children by multiple baby daddies. She is only labeled a parasite, because she expects others to fulfill her responsibilities for her.
Conservatives aren't about to let children starve, but we will do what we feel necessary to prevent more children being born into poverty.
If that means making living off the labor of others uncomfortable, so be it.

"Conservatives aren't about to let children starve, but we will do what we feel necessary to prevent more children being born into poverty."

You change "more children being born into poverty" to more UNWANTED children being born into poverty and I'll agree to the rest of that. Except that -- lacking cooperation and personal responsibility from those MULTIPLE "slut" offenders --- abortion is one tool that accomplishes that goal.. Isn't it?

It wasn't your choice or my choice -- wasn't a good choice at all.. "We" didn't make those baby-daddy choices.. Heck it wasn't even "HER" choice to get pregnant multiple times. It's a reflection of some hefty deeper dysfunctions that need to be fixed. And (Listen carefully Lefties !!!! )) You're not gonna fix that with a check from Wash, D.C.

The census says that African-Americans make up 12-13% of the US population.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons says that African-Americans make up about 38% of the US prison population. I've heard some say that's proof of racism when you consider number 1.

Approximately 36% of abortions are done on black women. Draw your own conclusions.

And what conclusions have you reached?