The War on Planned Parenthood.

[Diamond Jim]

20 weeks is a little late for me. That's around when the nervous system is developed. Drawing an exact line for when something is human is difficult, but I'm pretty comfortable saying that something that has never had a nervous system isn't a person. 15-16 weeks or so seems relatively unproblematic to me. 20 gets a little iffy, and that's not really acceptable when discussing human life.

According to WebMd and a bunch of other sites, 90% of US abortions are done within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

 

[Teen Wolf]

don't see people against abortion lining up to adopt these kids.

nah more kids born into shit the better eh. that's what this world needs, more people.

 

[method115]

Oddly enough it is the bible itself, in the OT, that places the punishment for causing unintentional miscarriage and death to the unborn well below the punishment for unintentionally killing an adult or a child outside the womb.

So it would appear God Himself makes some sort of distinction between a fetus and a baby.

lol good catch.

 

[Quipling]

I agree. Would have no problem with a ban on abortion after 15 weeks (with potential exceptions for rape, incest, congenital malformations, life of mom).

I think people fighting for the "right" of women to have abortions for purposes of birth control beyond 15 weeks (give or take) are some morally debauched mofo's.

I have two responses:

First, why 15 and not 20? Actually, why either of those and not viability (which is varies 20-28 weeks). Viability had been the cutoff previously - I'm not sure I follow the argument for moving it earlier. I know some people had expressed that this was because of how the 20 week fetus looked, but that doesn't go very far. I've seen "nervous system," but I'm not clear on why this is a better measurement of being an independent life than any of the three currently being promoted: viability, birth, conception.

Second, the vast majority of abortions past the 20 or so week mark are for rape/incest/life of mother/etc. I'm comfortable with the idea that late-term abortions should be restricted to when medically necessary (+rape/incest), but I think that "medically necessary" should be left to the judgement of the medical practitioner, and not a legislative body. A big part of the reason I think this is that most of the legislative restrictions thus far, while allegedly being for medical purposes, have had little to do with medical evaluation. In addition, this is something that would need to be made on a case-by-case basis. Legislation is entirely inappropriate for medical diagnoses and analysis.

One could create evaluation committees out of independent medical practitioners, but I very much doubt that those would either get the funding to their jobs properly (as creating a huge backlog via minimal funding would mean that nobody gets through, and "muh abortion taxes"), and even if they did, they would likely be stacked by people uninterested in objective analysis.

 

[second sight]

don't see people against abortion lining up to adopt these kids.

nah more kids born into shit the better eh. that's what this world needs, more people.

you clearly know NOTHING about adoption

 

[Teen Wolf]

you clearly know NOTHING about adoption

you clearly missed the point.

but then again you are special poster.

 

[ripskater]

don't see people against abortion lining up to adopt these kids.

nah more kids born into shit the better eh. that's what this world needs, more people.

There are lots of people that want to adopt babies and are waiting for that. Some people go overseas to do it. I don't know if it's because there are not enough here.

 

[Teen Wolf]

There are lots of people that want to adopt babies and are waiting for that. Some people go overseas to do it. I don't know if it's because there are not enough here.

there's plenty to go around in the USA.

they probably just want an exotic baby to show off to friends or they can't pass the standards test to adopt in the US so fuck off aboard to grab one there.

 

[Uchi Mata]

I have two responses:

First, why 15 and not 20? Actually, why either of those and not viability (which is varies 20-28 weeks). Viability had been the cutoff previously - I'm not sure I follow the argument for moving it earlier. I know some people had expressed that this was because of how the 20 week fetus looked, but that doesn't go very far. I've seen "nervous system," but I'm not clear on why this is a better measurement of being an independent life than any of the three currently being promoted: viability, birth, conception.

Second, the vast majority of abortions past the 20 or so week mark are for rape/incest/life of mother/etc. I'm comfortable with the idea that late-term abortions should be restricted to when medically necessary (+rape/incest), but I think that "medically necessary" should be left to the judgement of the medical practitioner, and not a legislative body. A big part of the reason I think this is that most of the legislative restrictions thus far, while allegedly being for medical purposes, have had little to do with medical evaluation. In addition, this is something that would need to be made on a case-by-case basis. Legislation is entirely inappropriate for medical diagnoses and analysis.

One could create evaluation committees out of independent medical practitioners, but I very much doubt that those would either get the funding to their jobs properly (as creating a huge backlog via minimal funding would mean that nobody gets through, and "muh abortion taxes"), and even if they did, they would likely be stacked by people uninterested in objective analysis.

You raise very important points. On the cutoff issue, if you don't buy the religious argument of 'human since conception' there's really no definite reason to make the cutoff at 20 vs. 15 vs. any arbitrary number, because it's all a judgment call. But that doesn't mean it isn't a morally weighted question. I'd guess most secularists have no issue with Plan B but would have a huge problem with someone aborting a healthy 37 week old fetus. Why? Because we all (we being secularists, religious people presumably think they're equally reprehensible) recognize that there's some ethical difference between detaching a small bundle of cells from the placenta and killing what is essentially a fully formed infant. So why 15 vs 20? I suppose you could make the argument that what defines humanity is our minds, and what defines independent life might be the ability to feel pain, both of which require a nervous system which forms around that time. If you're choosing demarcations for humanity vs. being only a physical extension of the mother's body the first spark of consciousness is a pretty good one.

I agree too that a simple 13 week cutoff no questions with later term being at doctor's discretion asked wouldn't really work in the US like it does elsewhere, because of the religious right. I do think you raise a great point about medical privacy, and it's worth recalling that Roe v. Wade is actually about the right to privacy and the state not being able to make private medical decisions on behalf of its citizens. That's solid reasoning IMO, but it does ignore the possibility of fetal rights, which I do think develop along with the fetus as I more or less outlined above. What I'd really like to see is an actual fetal rights bill go before Congress that outlined what rights fetuses have at various points in the pregnancy, because something like that would really help crystallize the abortion rights debate even if it didn't pass. As it is we basically just have that conversation case by case in state and federal courts, which I don't think is the best venue.

 

[kahiljabroni]

I never judge a politician by their opinion on abortion because they dont have the power or intention to overturn roe.

And i don't object to abortion on any religious grounds.

For me, i just look at the issue pragmatically.

We educate kids in grade school about sex and pregnancy. We provide free access to birth control, to condoms, and try to preach abstinence. Its not hard to not have an unwanted pregnancy...it just takes the smallest amount of effort.

So let's say you get pregnant. There are countless families that would gladly adopt your baby. There are programs so you can keep the kid and still pursue a career, education, etc.

But despite all these opportunities, you choose to abort your child. There is a child growing inside the womb, that without intervention on your part will become fully human. And this life that overcame trillion to one odds to find itself growing in its mothers warm safe womb will get grinded up and sucked out like a piece of garbage. Why? Because the mother couldn't be responsible and didn't want the hassle of bring pregnant.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I never judge a politician by their opinion on abortion because they dont have the power or intention to overturn roe.

And i don't object to abortion on any religious grounds.

For me, i just look at the issue pragmatically.

We educate kids in grade school about sex and pregnancy. We provide free access to birth control, to condoms, and try to preach abstinence. Its not hard to not have an unwanted pregnancy...it just takes the smallest amount of effort.

So let's say you get pregnant. There are countless families that would gladly adopt your baby. There are programs so you can keep the kid and still pursue a career, education, etc.

But despite all these opportunities, you choose to abort your child. There is a child growing inside the womb, that without intervention on your part will become fully human. And this life that overcame trillion to one odds to find itself growing in its mothers warm safe womb will get grinded up and sucked out like a piece of garbage. Why? Because the mother couldn't be responsible and didn't want the hassle of bring pregnant.

I've never seen anyone support abortion as a primary means of birth control. Groups like PP play major roles in providing birth control and sex education. Despite all that, sometimes mistakes happen (or victimization) happens and the reality is that adopting out isn't straightforward.

 

[Denter]

I've never seen anyone support abortion as a primary means of birth control. Groups like PP play major roles in providing birth control and sex education. Despite all that, sometimes mistakes happen (or victimization) happens and the reality is that adopting out isn't straightforward.

Doesn't justify it, though.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Doesn't justify it, though.

To you. While I think failing to use birth control is irresponsible, a failing of birth control--to me--is not an unjustifiable reason for abortion.

 

[Denter]

To you. While I think failing to use birth control is irresponsible, a failing of birth control--to me--is not an unjustifiable reason for abortion.

So we're back to values?

 

[ripskater]

To you. While I think failing to use birth control is irresponsible, a failing of birth control--to me--is not an unjustifiable reason for abortion.

Well in 13:10, it's not the baby's fault that he got ripped to shreds by Planned Parenthood. Can you imagine what that might have felt like to have your limbs ripped off? That's not really fair to that baby. It does not seem justifiable to me.

[YT]egGUEvY7CEg[/YT]

 

[kahiljabroni]

I've never seen anyone support abortion as a primary means of birth control. Groups like PP play major roles in providing birth control and sex education. Despite all that, sometimes mistakes happen (or victimization) happens and the reality is that adopting out isn't straightforward.

Obviously they may not market abortion as such but the reality is it's used as a backup plan. Id love to see the data on how many return customers abortion clinics have. Ive personally overheard 3 women talking about so and so having several abortions. Birth control fails maybe 1 percent. Rape abortions less than that. The vast majority is just irresponsible people who dont understand or care about the seriousness of their choice.


And my gym teacher taught sex ed not pp. And we could have free birth control within pp. Pp is just disguised abortion clinics.

 

[The Diplomat]

I think we established that 12-15 weeks is the latest most of us "pro-choicers" are willing to go. But of course, some people think that life starts after intercourse, so there's that...

Also, 3% of Planned Parenthood's business involves abortion. The rest is mostly spread out between sexual education, women's health care, exams, STD testing, etc. But people are willing to cut funding to all of that because of a heavily edited video in which the employee specifically states over and over that they do not sell organs for profit.

 

[Denter]

I think we established that 12-15 weeks is the latest most of us "pro-choicers" are willing to go. But of course, some people think that life starts after intercourse, so there's that...

Also, 3% of Planned Parenthood's business involves abortion. The rest is mostly spread out between sexual education, women's health care, exams, STD testing, etc. But people are willing to cut funding to all of that because of a heavily edited video in which the employee specifically states over and over that they do not sell organs for profit.

That's a misleading statistic. From a right wing source, but accurate: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421981/planned-parenthood-dishonest-3-percent-figure

The 3 percent factoid is crafted to obscure the reality of Planned Parenthood

 

[ripskater]

I think we established that 12-15 weeks is the latest most of us "pro-choicers" are willing to go. But of course, some people think that life starts after intercourse, so there's that...

Also, 3% of Planned Parenthood's business involves abortion. The rest is mostly spread out between sexual education, women's health care, exams, STD testing, etc. But people are willing to cut funding to all of that because of a heavily edited video in which the employee specifically states over and over that they do not sell organs for profit.

3% of visits may be abortions, but 51% of their profit comes from abortions. Maybe more now that we are learning that they sell the body parts.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/05/planned-parenthood-51-of-its-income-comes-from-abortions/

 

[The Diplomat]

That's a misleading statistic. From a right wing source, but accurate: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421981/planned-parenthood-dishonest-3-percent-figure

Planned Parenthood