Planned Parenthood

[HALL85]

Obama could have done a lot more. His focus on black culture has been specifically on police issues (Louis Gates, Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin) which he jumped the gun incorrectly each time in a divisive way or for entertainment purposes only. As busy as he supposedly is, he has time to appear with Glozell?

He was in a great position to change the dialogue on these important issues, but chose not to. In terms of his post presidency, my guess is that his narcissism will lead him to focus primarily on late night TV appearances.

 

[knowknow456]

I think black people consider police issues as important. I also think the national dialogue on police issues has certainly come into sharper focus in recent years. It is entirely possible President Obama was instrumental in helping to change the dialogue on this issue and that the comments you mentioned were not ultimately viewed by the public at large as incorrect, divisive or entertainment only statements. I still think the job of President is pretty difficult but as you have pointed out, he has certainly made the most of his words.

The Glozell interview was part of a series of interviews with three different YouTube “stars” to spread the word in the days following the State of the Union address in January. I suppose the President could have skipped these interviews and stuck with more mainstream media but to me it is doubtful that the time saved here would have resulted in any meaningful statements on matters related to black culture. I am not sure but I suspect this is somewhat tongue in cheek on your part. Overall, I think this sort of engagement of young people who don’t consume their news via traditional outlets like the Wall Street Journal or Fox News is very savvy. Depending on the source, Glozell has as many as 3 million YouTube followers. Some of those Glozell followers may one day wind up Democratic voters.

As far as a Post- Presidency agenda, Presidents are narcissistic almost by definition and Barack Obama is no different. A certain percentage of the population would still be quite content if he used his celebrity narcissism to increase the number of Democratic voters. I still suspect he will use it for bigger issues than that. After all, he is a narcissist.

 

[HALL85]

KK, will have to agree to disagree. Police issues? Zimmerman wasn't even a cop. Obama jumped the gun on Michael Brown. Have you seen the news? Willson was completely exonerated. If you want to inject yourself into an issue, at least be accurate and pick the right opportunity.

I get it. You are a supporter of his and find it hard to be critical. I see poverty getting worse, black on black crime getting worse, black teen unemployment getting worse, etc. those are all much bigger problems and I expect the leader of the country to be out in front of them. That's what leadership is. Obama has shit the bed IMO and that's not tongue-in-cheek.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Planned Parenthood provides contraceptives for those unable to afford them and abortions for those who have unwanted pregnancies. In their own way, they are attacking the problem head on.

Congrats on the most obtuse post in the thread.

Many rational, thinking people find "attacking" the problem through dismembering small humans to be unpalatable. And please, don't confuse PP with organizations that seek to solve problems. They are based in a malignant feminism, where prevention of pregnancy is a distant second to empowerment, where abortion is a badge of honor, an in-born right, and an act of defiance. If they were as interested in preventing the problem of unwanted pregnancy as their defenders state, wouldn't we see a drastic decline in the procedure?

In 2012, 46% of their $1bil in profit was a result of performing terminations.

Walmart provides $4 monthly contraceptives, via prescription. Supposedly, the ACA has increased access and affordability. The point is, many agree that federal tax dollars are better spent elsewhere. In my small town alone, there are a dozen alternatives.

 

[knowknow456]

85 - For the record, you picked police issue as the topic and included Trayvon Martin, not me. And yes, I have seen the news. In fact, there I was in my local WaWa and right on the newsstand Time magazine is exploring what it’s like to be a cop in America. It is unknowable where this new dialogue will lead and how much “credit” the President actually deserves. But clearly there is a change in the dialogue.

Obama is the President of the United States and he is black. He is not the President of Black America. He wasn’t elected to fix only black people problems. I see white poverty getting worse, white on white crime getting worse and white teen unemployment getting worse. So if you want to criticize the President for not doing a better job addressing those issues for all Americans, sign me up.

 

[knowknow456]

Donnie, I never said I agreed with PP, merely they are attacking the issue head on in what they perceive to be the best way. Conversely, I think you have articulated your position on how you would attack the problem quite eloquently. My perception is that this will be pretty head on as well.

So, when I hear we need to address this issue head on instead of the normal take-a-side dance, I am indeed obtuse. I don’t know how to attack the problem head on without taking a side.

 

[HALL85]

85 - For the record, you picked police issue as the topic and included Trayvon Martin, not me. And yes, I have seen the news. In fact, there I was in my local WaWa and right on the newsstand Time magazine is exploring what it’s like to be a cop in America. It is unknowable where this new dialogue will lead and how much “credit” the President actually deserves. But clearly there is a change in the dialogue.

Obama is the President of the United States and he is black. He is not the President of Black America. He wasn’t elected to fix only black people problems. I see white poverty getting worse, white on white crime getting worse and white teen unemployment getting worse. So if you want to criticize the President for not doing a better job addressing those issues for all Americans, sign me up.

I agree that Obama needs to govern and lead for the entire population, and he deserves no credit for whatever dialogue that has been created around policing, unless divisiveness deserves credit. As you've indicated, at the end of the day, he is the President of ALL of the people. All of those things that we both pointed to have gotten worse under his administration. As we've seen with SHU basketball...you are what your record says you are.

 

[Seton75]

I see Huckabee is being attacked for saying a 10 year old girl who is pregnant via rape should not have an abortion. To me, he is so clearly right if he honestly believes abortion is not acceptable; that is the only way to see that awful situation. I am amazed at so many who add in the knee jerk, except for rape, etc when they qualify their pro-life stance. As Belluno said above (at least he said something similar), this is all or nothing. Whether the woman is just nor ready to accept responsibility, whether she is a crack addict, or whether she is a 10 year old child who has been impregnated by rape, the fetus is still the same, even though the circumstances vary. When I have discussed abortion and asked if it is OK when rape etc are involved, I can remember only a few times, less than five, when the answer was "of course, abortion is OK under those circumstances".

I said above so many are full of s on this subject. Cause I believe if one of our 5 year old children was ill and was going to die or suffer greatly if the child did not have this wonder procedure developed through stem cell experimentation, our first reaction would not be to research the procedure to make sure fetal tissue was not used in the development, but it would be instead to sign the papers to allow the possible saving of this child's life.

 

[donnie_baseball]

I said above so many are full of s on this subject. Cause I believe if one of our 5 year old children was ill and was going to die or suffer greatly if the child did not have this wonder procedure developed through stem cell experimentation, our first reaction would not be to research the procedure to make sure fetal tissue was not used in the development, but it would be instead to sign the papers to allow the possible saving of this child's life.

We haven't seen much from stem cell experimentation -- yet. If something does come of it, and fetal tissue was used, the voices of those who objected in the first place often fall mute. It won't be long before we are creating fetuses in the Petri dish, and experimenting on those. Growing organs and limbs? On the way. We see atrocities, and the outrage, so strong at the outset, wanes, and "progress" begins anew.

You raise an interesting moral dilemma. As humans, aren't we above cannibalizing our own, for nutrition or science? There are other methods for studying stem cells, as I mentioned before. Even the staunchest animal rights people (like the nuts who want to break car windows) have taken advantage of pharmaceuticals developed through animal research.

 

[Section112]

You can't legislate morality but you can cut down on some of the human life being detroyed every day and in some cases in a very barbaric way (late term abortions). I'm amazed at the people who want to legalize late term abortions everywhere.

The rape discussion and the discussion of the mother's life will always be a part of the equation like it or not. Sometimes there is no right or wrong but we are left with two very difficult choices. To say never abort and lose the mother's life is the most difficult question perhaps that is faced so there has to be exceptions on occasion. There was a hospital administrator (also a practicing nun) in Arizona I believe who approved an abortion to save a mother's life. That mother had 4 or 5 kids already and all very young. It was a horrible set of circumstances but it happens and the decision was made based on the needs of the existing children. The nun was removed from her position at the hospital by the Bishop. Both the nun and Mom have to live with those decisions but they made the best decision in their minds that they could make at the time. Thankfully if they believe in God they can ask for forgiveness. I am staunchly against abortion but believe there has to be some exceptions in difficult cases. I also could not judge anyone who had an abortion though either - its between them and God. It is my hope that Planned Parenthood goes away with ObamaCare and that the number of abortions is reduced significantly with more education. I don't think it will ever be illegal but PP makes it too easy and some PP locations seem to promote it. Selling and using fetal tissue is a huge problem and it needs to be strictly controlled and that is clearly not happening by a very choosy DOJ on what they want to prosecute depending on the agenda of the politicians in office (which should never happen).

 

[Seton75]

So you think WE can decide which circumstances warrant an exception and which ones do not. I think that decision is above our pay grade, at least above mine. I think Huckabee is right. And I admire his honesty, cause you know people who think they are pro-life think he is being too rigid in his thinking.

 

[Section112]

Definitely higher than my pay grade too and I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions. I'm just stating that in this country those exceptions will always be part of the equation like it or not. I do admire Huckabee for his stand and honesty too.

 

[SPK145]

Obama is the President of the United States and he is black.

How come having one black parent and one white parent = black but having one hispanic parent and one white parent = white hispanic?

 

[knowknow456]

How come having one black parent and one white parent = black but having one hispanic parent and one white parent = white hispanic?

I am not sure of your question. Are you asking why Obama doesn't identify as white or why I don't identify him as white?

As far as Hispanic/white, thanks for my friend 400 I have already won several bar bets to the question - how many of the last 10 Mexican Presidents could pass for white? I don't even have to show them all ten links. They usually pay up after three or four.

 

[SPK145]

I am not sure of your question. Are you asking why Obama doesn't identify as white or why I don't identify him as white?

More of a rhetorical question for the lamestream media.

 

[cernjSHU]

How come having one black parent and one white parent = black but having one hispanic parent and one white parent = white hispanic?

Because of how Latin culture glorifies white skin. Since the colonization of most of this hemisphere by the Spaniards, being European and white meant power and privilege to govern and to own land. The Spanish set up a long hierarchy of a class system based upon ethnicity and race. The top of the ladder is white and Spanish. Mixing of the white blood lowers your standing in colonial Latin America. While this happened a long time ago, this has been ingrained in the Latin American culture.

Hispanic is not a race. It is actually a misnomer. Original meaning is from the Iberian peninsula meaning Spanish and Portuguese. Americans have changed the meaning. It is a culture. You can find a person who looks African in one of these Latin American countries and he will usually never say he is African. He will say he is Latin. A little white blood makes you higher up in Latin America. Culturally, in the US, a little black blood leaves you lower. It all goes to how different the Spaniards and the English colonized. The English brought their women and families over to the new world. Mixing with the native Americans and slaves was looked down at. The Spaniards did not bring their women or families and mixed and married in with the natives and with the slaves. My simplification of this difficult and probably not politically correct subject.

 

[HALL85]

cern, thanks for the history lesson...interesting, but the media doesn't take any of that into account when they are using labels which I believe that is the point that Steve was trying to make.

 

[Old_alum]

Abortions are a truly sad "choice". Almost all would agree that murder is bad. Almost all would agree that tiny infants should be protected most of all. Yet this great country allows millions of abortions every year. Planned Parenthood makes a fortune performing these "sad choices", often with traumatic effect on the woman. BTW, recent news reports indicate "some" Planned Parenthood "stores" have found the QC in their "parts" business to be maximized by harvesting these parts after that "lump of tissue" is born.

Beyond that the US government subsidizes Planned Parenthood! why?

IMHO abortion is ALWAYS the "sadder" choice. The alternative to abortion is not having a social anchor, with another mouth to feed for 18 years. The alternative is putting the baby up for adoption by one of the millions of desperate couples wanting children but unable to conceive.

Any of the litany of "exceptions" to a ban on abortions is --- like ALL of life for the growingly ubiquitous modernists and "relativists" --- always a rationalization.

Lets take baby steps --- pardon the pun.

What is the board's opinion?

Is a fetus "living"?

If it is "living", is it not human? (To my knowledge Science has always said fetuses are both alive and human).

Let's then posit that unanimous scientific position that a fetus is alive and human.

Is it alright to kill a new born baby?

If not, then is it alright to kill a "fetus" in the mother's birth canal?

If not, then at exactly which point is it alright to kill the fetus?

Is it alright before the fetus naturally develops arms and legs --- those lugubrious new market commodities?

How about before it can feel pain with its nervous system?

Or before its heart is formed?

How can anyone still pretend that a fetus is just another "lump of tissue" --- a "lump" which would not in the normal course of minimally fair treatment blossom inexorably into a being all recognize as fully human?

If one cannot answer ALL of these questions with 100% confidence, is it "good" to err on the side of caution (not to kill a possible "human") or on the side of "comfort"?

Is if off-limits for legislatures to "regulate" the treatment of the human life that are fetuses because a fetus is "inside the body" of the mother ---- "mother" is the only appropriate word if it is a living human at any point ? If so, why?

Virtually every poll shows that humans believe that "abortion" is a "bad" or "undesirable" thing.

Obama, himself, has declared it to be so.

Well, then shouldn't it be discouraged by society? By our government? How is federal subsidization a "discouragement"?

IMHO abortion should be a crime, a felony, but I would be okay if it were to carry a statutory punishment of a few days if not weeks in a limited-security facility ( a hospital) in which education was done.

Shouldn't such educational, alternative counseling be required to be made available whenever and wherever Federal money is also made available for the "bad" choices?

Please remember the advice from Watergate and "follow the money".

For Planned Parenthood the count of abortion patients might not represent even a plurality of its total client count. But a "business" is driven by the amount of its revenues not by the count of its customers. There is little doubt that revenues in PP's abortion "business" --- including patient fees, Medicaid, government grants as well as the "sale" of the "human PARTS" harvested from the supposedly nondescript "lumps of tissues" --- represents almost ALL of the tens- if not hundreds-of-millions of dollars "harvested" for this disgusting practice.

How do you answer those questions?

 

[Merge]

How do you answer those questions?

Well there were a lot of them.

First I will address the idea that putting the child up for adoption will satisfy the needs of a couple who can not conceive. That is unfortunately not what is happening at all. We have millions of parents wanting a baby yet over a hundred thousand children in foster care many who will age out of the system without ever being adopted. Add in another million babies every year... What do you honestly expect to happen to them?

We have demand and we have supply, yet still kids will never be adopted. Pretty clear that the reason is these are not the kids that people want.

Assume there are a million parents willing to adopt a child who would otherwise have been aborted... What about next year and the year after? and honestly with where abortions are occurring, even if we did convince a woman to give the child up for adoption instead of having an abortion, would they care about prenatal care? Would they care about drinking, smoking, doing drugs etc?

We just can't view this issue as the opposite being that these children will be healthy, adopted by loving families and will live a great life. It is just not going to happen.

Taking care of these children would be a massive undertaking by publicly funded programs (which maybe you would be ok with)

Regarding funding to planned parenthood.

Planned parenthood is a service provider. They do provide services such as STD tests, pregnancy prevention, education and cancer screenings which may be partially funded by federal grant awards. Any federal money they receive can not be used for abortion related services. They also receive federal funding by way of Medicaid where the federal government reimburses states for services provided for medicaid patients.

By removing federal funding from planned parenthood, what you are ultimately going to accomplish would be no medicaid reimbursements - State would be on the hook for serviced provided and no grant awards for things like pregnancy prevention which may increase the number of unplanned pregnancies and ultimately abortion.

I do believe a fetus is a life and I do want to significantly decrease the number of abortions occurring but I want to do it through education first, trying to change the culture of abortion being used as birth control.

 

[Seton75]

Nm

 

[knowknow456]

Regarding funding to planned parenthood.

Planned parenthood is a service provider. They do provide services such as STD tests, pregnancy prevention, education and cancer screenings which may be partially funded by federal grant awards. Any federal money they receive can not be used for abortion related services. They also receive federal funding by way of Medicaid where the federal government reimburses states for services provided for medicaid patients.

By removing federal funding from planned parenthood, what you are ultimately going to accomplish would be no medicaid reimbursements - State would be on the hook for serviced provided and no grant awards for things like pregnancy prevention which may increase the number of unplanned pregnancies and ultimately abortion.

.

Merge - Christie has cut NJ funding of PP. Can you explain how that fits into the economic model you described above?

 

[Merge]

Merge - Christie has cut NJ funding of PP. Can you explain how that fits into the economic model you described above?

Not really. The debate is about federal funding.
So what happens to women's health in NJ if federal funds are removed from planned parenthood?

Christie's state budget cut was party in reliance on the federal government paying for some of these services.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Well there were a lot of them.

We just can't view this issue as the opposite being that these children will be healthy, adopted by loving families and will live a great life. It is just not going to happen.

You are making a dangerous (and intellectually dishonest) assumption here. First, if you assume that abortion is made illegal again, you can't assume there will be 1mil unwanted kids, as a result. THAT's just not going to happen. If it wasn't an option, isn't it safe to assume that some people might take more care? There are many cases of successful adoption (though the process needs overhaul -- too many barriers for those who truly want to adopt, but don't have the money to fly to China or Russia and pay for a child). The infant mortality rate is around 0.6%. There are myriad reasons to believe that an end to legal abortion doesn't equal 1 million additional starving waifs, living in crack houses, per year.

I understand your societal concerns, but what of the millions of illegal immigrants and their children? How are they sustained? How many people are in favor of open immigration and abortion "rights?" So many contradictions. You, yourself, fought a valiant fight here, defending the ACA; I still haven't heard why that hasn't sufficiently improved access and affordability, and why stand alone "womens' centers" like PP are necessary?

 

[knowknow456]

PP receives direct federal funding. In addition, a state can also provide funding directly to PP. Christie cut the NJ funding from the budget. Why would any state contribute if they could let the Feds carry the load?

Separately, suppose federal funding of PP was to cease but that NJ happened to be a state that truly supported PP. That funding from NJ would have to carry the load?

 

[Merge]

You are making a dangerous (and intellectually dishonest) assumption here. First, if you assume that abortion is made illegal again, you can't assume there will be 1mil unwanted kids, as a result.

Probably true although it is hard to estimate a number there. The point I was making is that we already have a demand with supply... and kids go un-adopted. An increased supply only increases that number.

Even put the number at 200,000 every year which I still think would be extremely low... how many would actually be adopted? How many years before we fill demand entirely?

Intellectually - that is the point. The exact number isn't really relevant since anything would be a guess.

I understand your societal concerns, but what of the millions of illegal immigrants and their children? How are they sustained?

I agree. There is a point where taking care of illegal immigrants and their children is unsustainable.

I still haven't heard why that hasn't sufficiently improved access and affordability, and why stand alone "womens' centers" like PP are necessary?

They are a service provider like any other service provider. They are primarily a woman's health clinic that provides services which various federally funded programs want to encourage. We also have children;s health clinics, men's health clinics etc... I just don't see why we need to stop the flow of federal dollars for legitimate health services because they also perform abortions.

 

[Merge]

PP receives direct federal funding. In addition, a state can also provide funding directly to PP. Christie cut the NJ funding from the budget. Why would any state contribute if they could let the Feds carry the load?

That was Christie's point and I agree with him.

Separately, suppose federal funding of PP was to cease but that NJ happened to be a state that truly supported PP. That funding from NJ would have to carry the load

Right... and Planned parenthood in NJ still does receive federal funding via Medicaid.
Should congress vote to block that, NJ would be on the hook for that money.

 

[Old_alum]

First, Merge, thanks for yet another thoughtful and respectful post on an inflammatory topic.

{ed: next 2 posts are out of responder's order but in line with order of questions}

I do believe a fetus is a life ...

Does this then not make reducing abortions to be of the utmost importance ?

...I do want to significantly decrease the number of abortions occurring but ....

QED

...I do want to significantly decrease the number of abortions occurring but I want to do it through education first, trying to change the culture of abortion being used as birth control.

I am a MAJOR proponent of education on ALL levels, but please explain why there should be any conflict here? Why is the minimizing of the number of abortions through a change in the law not at least equal in importance to education? There is no direct cost to the legal change, so it cannot be budgetary.

{Start of Merge's response}

First I will address the idea that putting the child up for adoption will satisfy the needs of a couple who can not conceive. That is unfortunately not what is happening at all. We have millions of parents wanting a baby yet over a hundred thousand children in foster care many who will age out of the system without ever being adopted. Add in another million babies every year... What do you honestly expect to happen to them? .

We have demand and we have supply, yet still kids will never be adopted. Pretty clear that the reason is these are not the kids that people want.

First, Donnie has already highlighted the probability of what economists might call "elasticity of demand" for abortions, albeit in the "supply" of babies. If the legal "price" of having an adoption goes from zero to a felony criminal record, should we not logically expect a decline in volume?

Second, IMHO the "demand" for "white, newborns" is at the highest end of the scale and the demand for "teenage children of color with health and societal issues" is at the lowest end of the demand curve.

So we have six criteria:
2. Age
3. Color
4. Health
5. Cost
6. Societal issues.
1. Morality

2. Age: Since the foregoing of an abortion creates a newborn this is a very desirable attribute. The stories of depressed childless parents are legion.

3. Color: currently (as Donnie already pointed out) there is a huge number of white Americans going overseas to adopt children of color. I do not know the statistics, but I strongly suspect there are very few infants-of-color in the US orphan-system.

4. Health: Logically and realistically this is always an issue in our ever more selfish society. In an ideal world we would not need this discussion (see Madison on angels & laws).

There is a "budgetary" issue for this criteria, though. What does it cost to treat an ill child?

To those kids there is little question that they would rather be ill than to be euthanized. What about to American taxpayers? Do we euthanize any foundlings not placed in homes now? Why not? Above you have agreed that "a fetus is a life" (I presume a human life), so how is killing one any different than killing a child?

5. Cost: I understand that the going cost for most infant adoptions today can breech $100,000. Economics says as the supply goes up the price goes down, and more childless-couples could find the family they want. Perhaps the price should include an excise tax to defray the cost of any unadopted infants.

6. Societal: If one believes a newborn has any real chance of being societally dangerous, then it is that person who needs an education.

1. Morality: Can cost, comfort, pride, lifestyle, paperwork or anything else --- singly or in combination --- trump killing a living human being?

Assume there are a million parents willing to adopt a child who would otherwise have been aborted... What about next year and the year after? and honestly with where abortions are occurring, even if we did convince a woman to give the child up for adoption instead of having an abortion, would they care about prenatal care? Would they care about drinking, smoking, doing drugs etc?

We just can't view this issue as the opposite being that these children will be healthy, adopted by loving families and will live a great life. It is just not going to happen.

Taking care of these children would be a massive undertaking by publicly funded programs (which maybe you would be ok with)

All valid questions. All are trumped by morality. Why not kill the unwanted kids today?

What kind of society do we have? What kind do we want?

See above.

Regarding funding to planned parenthood.

Planned parenthood is a service provider. They do provide services such as STD tests, pregnancy prevention, education and cancer screenings which may be partially funded by federal grant awards. Any federal money they receive can not be used for abortion related services. They also receive federal funding by way of Medicaid where the federal government reimburses states for services provided for medicaid patients.

By removing federal funding from planned parenthood, what you are ultimately going to accomplish would be no medicaid reimbursements - State would be on the hook for serviced provided and no grant awards for things like pregnancy prevention which may increase the number of unplanned pregnancies and ultimately abortion.

First, lets call a spade a spade. Based on REVENUE how do you see the service mix of Planned Parenthood?

Based on my experience, the cost of a pap-smear is deminimus relative to the cost of. a surgical procedure.

As Donnie asked, doesn't ACA deal with your non-abortion list? More importantly why does Planned Parenthood get special treatment relative to all of the other "service providers"? Does your wife or sister's OB/GYN get funded in the Federal --- or state ---- budgets? Please do not adopt the Patriot excuse that doing wrong is okay if others might be doing wrong, too.

Others have already listed the low-cost contraceptive alternatives. So the issue is why is Planned Parenthood so different as to justify getting yours and my tax-dollars?

 

[Old_alum]

I just don't see why we need to stop the flow of federal dollars for legitimate health services because they also perform abortions.

Earlier you said you wanted to decrease the number of abortions, albeit by education first.

What about second?

Why not put in a proviso in government health grants that "service providers" who provide abortions are excluded from all health grants?

 

[cernjSHU]

I respect the pro life opinions but do you know what the reality is if abortion is made once again illegal? Do you really want doctors and women prosecuted and put to jail for abortions? Arent our law enforcement agencies not overworked as it is? Abortions would not stop, just that it would go underground making it less safe. You would also have more unwanted children to feed, educate and clothe? The conservatives on this issue always like to cut funding for things like food stamps and wik which I find hypocritical. In essence, the middle class and rich will get their abortions done,it will only be the poor that don't.


Also, Anyone serious about ending abortion should also have a program of giving out birth control for free for anyone over the age of 13 without parental consent.

 

[Old_alum]

I respect the pro life opinions but do you know what the reality is if abortion is made once again illegal? Do you really want doctors and women prosecuted and put to jail for abortions? Arent our law enforcement agencies not overworked as it is? Abortions would not stop, just that it would go underground making it less safe. You would also have more unwanted children to feed, educate and clothe? The conservatives on this issue always like to cut funding for things like food stamps and wik which I find hypocritical. In essence, the middle class and rich will get their abortions done,it will only be the poor that don't.


Also, Anyone serious about ending abortion should also have a program of giving out birth control for free for anyone over the age of 13 without parental consent.

If you were to read my post I said that while I suggest that abortion be made a felony with a statutory stay in a minimum-security institution (i.e. a hospital) for days if not weeks so as to get an education, but still with a criminal record, that is simply my preferred choice. I would ultimately settle to see first offenses treated like traffic violations, with the record reduced to a misdemeanor and the perpetrator virtually automatically let off with a "warning".

And yes, if a woman and/or a doctor takes a human life then I do want it on their record. Heck, the NOW might view that as a red badge of courage.

If abortions were to "go underground" would they be more safe for the baby?

Say, cernj, I would really appreciate it if you were to answer my string of questions above. Is a fetus living? Is it human? Is it OK to kill infants? It is ok to kill an infant in the birth canal? etc.

Also, Anyone serious about ending abortion should also have a program of giving out birth control for free for anyone over the age of 13 without parental consent.

I shall abstain from commenting on the logic and focus on the result.

Edited:
I must guess that this prescription is based on an assumption that no child who is aborted could have any value to any other human being, let alone society, and therefore must never be permitted life. Is that close?

On what basis do you argue that these children would not be adopted and loved? As I discussed with Merge, would you prefer to kill the kids rather than to pay welfare to any who need it? Why is the "killing" any different?
You require that these be provided to 14 year olds without their parents consent. WOW!! Please explain why this proviso is required?.

 

[Old_alum]

....The conservatives on this issue always like to cut funding for things like food stamps and wik which I find hypocritical. In essence, the middle class and rich will get their abortions done,it will only be the poor that don't.

I am even more confused by this. How would having money make anyone exempt from prosecution for a crime?

 

[donnie_baseball]

Sorry, cern, that was a ridiculous post, and if you read the whole thread, it's easy to see that had neither the content, nor the reasoning, to merit any consideration. If anything, it does the pro-abortion side a disservice.

You're worried about law enforcement agencies? Really? LOL!

Worried about doctors going to jail? Maybe they should let Kermit Gosnell out of prison.

 

[cernjSHU]

If you were to read my post I said that while I suggest that abortion be made a felony with a statutory stay in a minimum-security institution (i.e. a hospital) for days if not weeks so as to get an education, but still with a criminal record, that is simply my preferred choice. I would ultimately settle to see first offenses treated like traffic violations, with the record reduced to a misdemeanor and the perpetrator virtually automatically let off with a "warning".

And yes, if a woman and/or a doctor takes a human life then I do want it on their record. Heck, the NOW might view that as a red badge of courage.

If abortions were to "go underground" would they be more safe for the baby?

Say, cernj, I would really appreciate it if you were to answer my string of questions above. Is a fetus living? Is it human? Is it OK to kill infants? It is ok to kill an infant in the birth canal? etc.



I shall abstain from commenting on the logic and focus on the result.

I must guess that this prescription is based on an assumption that no child who is aborted could have any value to any other human being, let alone society, and therefore must never be permitted life. Is that close?

If such children are so useless then they MUST be prevented! Is that the gist?

To provide the required prevention all Americans must not only provide contraceptives to any and all, but must do so free. I presume the reason for this is the risk of all those valueless humans populating the earth?

But to me the pièce de résistance is the requirement that these be provided to 14 year olds without their parents consent. WOW!! Please explain why this proviso is required?.

The criminal justice system should not be burdened by the criminalization of abortions.

A fetus is a little older than two months old. Are you fine with abortions 9 weeks and under? Certainly not a fetus at that point?

However, it really depends on the age of the fetus. I have seen still born fetus at 3.5 months. And yes it has some recognizable human form but it actually looks like a tiny alien about the size of your finger. No, it is not human and is not viable to live on its own at that age. There comes an age where the fetus is viable but I don't have the education to answer that question. My guess is around 22 weeks. But it could be sooner or it could be later. I just don't know.

What is wrong with birth control? Pro-Life people have this odd duality that if you are pro-life you are also anti-birth control? Why? If a couple is not prepared to have children, why shouldn't they take precautions to prevent a pregnancy? Preventing unwanted pregnancies should be encouraged.

People forget that at one time in this country it was common for 14 year old girls to marry. Yet, now they want make believe that 14 year old are not interested or want sex. Sorry to break it to you, but they do. And those that want to engage in it, aren't going to be telling their parents. They want to hide it from them because their parents will freak out. Therefore, since they are going to have sex anyway, they might as well be protected from unwanted pregnancy. So why should there be any need for parental consent. they don't need parental consent for sex, but they need it for birth control? Come on. Let's live in the world we live in and not the world that doesn't.

 

[cernjSHU]

I am even more confused by this. How would having money make anyone exempt from prosecution for a crime?

Sorry, cern, that was a ridiculous post, and if you read the whole thread, it's easy to see that had neither the content, nor the reasoning, to merit any consideration. If anything, it does the pro-abortion side a disservice.

You're worried about law enforcement agencies? Really? LOL!

Worried about doctors going to jail? Maybe they should let Kermit Gosnell out of prison.

Do not conflate doctors who perform abortions and doctors who kill a child after being born.

 

[donnie_baseball]

The criminal justice system should not be burdened by the criminalization of abortions.

A fetus is a little older than two months old. Are you fine with abortions 9 weeks and under? Certainly not a fetus at that point?

However, it really depends on the age of the fetus. I have seen still born fetus at 3.5 months. And yes it has some recognizable human form but it actually looks like a tiny alien about the size of your finger. No, it is not human and is not viable to live on its own at that age. There comes an age where the fetus is viable but I don't have the education to answer that question. My guess is around 22 weeks. But it could be sooner or it could be later. I just don't know.

No, it is not viable, but yes, it is human, with a full set of HUMAN chromosomes, a beating heart, and a developing nervous system. What it LOOKED like to you -- and I'm guessing you're no embryologist -- is immaterial. With the enhancement of NICU's, preemies have been sustained earlier and earlier. 22 weeks is a little early, but 24 weeks is not unheard of now. If it's not 'human,' what the hell is it? (Can't wait for this response)

What is wrong with birth control? Pro-Life people have this odd duality that if you are pro-life you are also anti-birth control? Why? If a couple is not prepared to have children, why shouldn't they take precautions to prevent a pregnancy? Preventing unwanted pregnancies should be encouraged.

You make a good point here. I think this is, regrettably, something that Catholics are going to have to concede, if they want to see an end to abortion-on-demand. It's one thing to ask of your flock, another to expect of them, and the rest of the non-Catholic world. As far as non-Catholic pro-lifers go, I'm not sure what their stance is on birth control.

People forget that at one time in this country it was common for 14 year old girls to marry. Yet, now they want make believe that 14 year old are not interested or want sex. Sorry to break it to you, but they do. And those that want to engage in it, aren't going to be telling their parents. They want to hide it from them because their parents will freak out. Therefore, since they are going to have sex anyway, they might as well be protected from unwanted pregnancy. So why should there be any need for parental consent. they don't need parental consent for sex, but they need it for birth control? Come on. Let's live in the world we live in and not the world that doesn't.

Ok, let's. 14 year-old girls don't get married in this country like they did in 1750. As far as consent, try enabling a teenager to do anything without parental consent; what prescription medication CAN be gotten without mom and dad's knowledge, agreement, and payment, at that age? Oh, but birth control should be an exception, because we should be complicit in kids hiding things from their parents. Makes sense.

 

[cernjSHU]

No, it is not viable, but yes, it is human, with a full set of HUMAN chromosomes, a beating heart, and a developing nervous system. What it LOOKED like to you -- and I'm guessing you're no embryologist -- is immaterial. With the enhancement of NICU's, preemies have been sustained earlier and earlier. 22 weeks is a little early, but 24 weeks is not unheard of now. If it's not 'human,' what the hell is it? (Can't wait for this response)
[/QUOTE="

Hmm, what could be a good word. Perhaps prehuman or humanoid. It has characteristics of a human but hasn't developed fully.

Abortion is an issue of morality. You have your stance and I respect that. But, that doesn't mean it should be the law of the land. Whenever laws are used to govern morality, those laws are doomed to fail.

 

[Merge]

I am a MAJOR proponent of education on ALL levels, but please explain why there should be any conflict here? Why is the minimizing of the number of abortions through a change in the law not at least equal in importance to education? There is no direct cost to the legal change, so it cannot be budgetary.

Not budgetary at all. It is about what is doable. After seeing the issue debated during each election cycle and argued passionately by both sides, I don't really see a change in law to make it illegal realistic and even if it were I am not sure what the impact would be. We know people would still have abortions illegally. Would we be testing every woman who had a miscarriage for intentionally ending a pregnancy?

I think it would get very complicated and potentially very ugly.

Second, IMHO the "demand" for "white, newborns" is at the highest end of the scale and the demand for "teenage children of color with health and societal issues" is at the lowest end of the demand curve.

Absolutely agreed. but lets assume a number of 20% for arguments sake. I have no idea how valid the number is. Could be much more or much less... just go with me for a moment. Assume 20% of annual abortions ended up being children put up for adoption. So 200,000 children per year. Clearly there would come a point where supply overwhelmingly exceeds demand. I will get to morality in a moment but I think if we are looking at what the opposite of abortion looks like... We should acknowledge that it will be too many children in a increasingly poorly run system and not that these children will go to a loving family.

Morality: Can cost, comfort, pride, lifestyle, paperwork or anything else --- singly or in combination --- trump killing a living human being?

I would say no.

If we were to offer $100,000 plus free healthcare for life to every potential person who would have an abortion this year to keep the baby, How many of them would still have an abortion? I understand that is a ridiculous idea... but it would probably work in reducing the number of abortions. I read a survey that over 70% of women having an abortion did so because they couldn't afford the child.
Is it our job to pay for those children? No
Would paying them to keep the baby work in significantly reducing the abortion rate? Probably.

 

[Merge]

Why not put in a proviso in government health grants that "service providers" who provide abortions are excluded from all health grants?

I just don't see why we need to make the distinction.

The department of health and human services decided that they will issue a grant to help with early cancer detection. Planned parenthood decides to apply for grant funding for these services. The fact that they perform abortions does not impact my judgement of the validity of the early cancer detection program.

I am morally against war and the killing of innocent civilians.
Can I object my tax dollars going to Lockheed because they develop the weapons that kill thousands of innocent people?

 

[Old_alum]

I just don't see why we need to make the distinction.

The department of health and human services decided that they will issue a grant to help with early cancer detection. Planned parenthood decides to apply for grant funding for these services. The fact that they perform abortions does not impact my judgement of the validity of the early cancer detection program.

I am morally against war and the killing of innocent civilians.
Can I object my tax dollars going to Lockheed because they develop the weapons that kill thousands of innocent people?

No one "needs" to do anything --- even if it is unlawful not to.

This question to you --- one of several ---- was asking how you (personally, not the government, but Merge) can combine your stated personal view that you want abortions to decrease with the view that the government should subsidize the nation's largest abortion store-chain? Is it your opinion that money is not fungible?

If you oppose abortion, why not add disincentive to the big-box abortion store chain?

 

[Merge]

was asking how you (personally, not the government, but Merge) can combine your stated personal view that you want abortions to decrease with the view that the government should subsidize the nation's largest abortion store-chain? Is it your opinion that money is not fungible?

As someone who has audited federal and state grants at hospitals, I a have confidence that there are proper controls in place to prevent planned parenthood from using federal funding for abortion related activities especially due to the size of planned parenthood and the significance of the grants.

I would not agree that removing the funding from planed parenthood would result in a decrease in the amount of women who want an abortion at all.

An analogy of that thought process... if my goal was to eliminate people from eating fast food and I try to accomplish that by removing hamburgers from McDonald's. People still want fast food, people will still get fast food, competition has decreased so the price probably goes up so they will pay more... and the reason they were probably getting fast food in the first place was because of finances... So what have I accomplished? I made it more difficult and expensive for them but have not impacted their decision.

I just don't see PP as this company actively seeking to end pregnancies. My ex went there for birth control. There were a lot of education materials for STD's cancer screening, family planning, prenatal care and free condoms. They really did not appear to be pushing abortion from what I saw.