Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

robdonn

There is a small error in the video:

They say that PP's 2014 report claims that 3% of funding goes towards abortion services, but this is wrong (or at least isn't in the report).

What it should say is that 3% of the services provided were abortion services.

Delirium

https://twitter.com/MarthaPlimpton/status/649125660166909952

MrPudding

Delirium wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MarthaPlimpton/status/649125660166909952

But is the issue not that if one was living the christian life then most of those services would not be required? And in addition, many of the people that have problems with abortion would also have a problem with a number of those additional services. Isn't that right hinault?

MrO

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Delirium wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MarthaPlimpton/status/649125660166909952

Yeah but like, it's better that people die, become seriously ill or infertile from cervical cancer, prostate cancer, STIs and diabetes than foetal tissue is used for life saving medical research rather than being incinerated. Because you know, PRO LIFE!

Delirium

Very hard not to see dishonest intentions when you compare the graph used versus what the correct graph looks like.

During this morning's Planned Parenthood hearings, Rep. Jason Chaffetz displayed a chart that seemingly showed a huge increase in the number of abortions they've performed. Actually, though, the number has increased only about 2 percent per year since 2006. How did this happen? Well, it turns out that Americans United for Life, which made the chart, decided to ignore the y-axis. But I'm sure it was an honest mistake, probably due to poor math skills from a lifetime spent in the liberal public education system. So as a public service, I've replotted the data using conventional "numbers" and "slopes." You're welcome.

Source

Overheal

History repeating itself: "pro-life" activists have committed arson against a PP clinic in California.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fire-at-california-planned-parenthood-determined-to-be-arson/

Because being rational and following due process is uncouth.

c_man

Overheal wrote: »

History repeating itself: "pro-life" activists have committed arson against a PP clinic in California.

Well of course you don't actually know that... But it did lead me to get wiki-lost reading up on the topic of anti-abortion violence Tbh I was surprised, I'd gotten the impression there was much, much more. Constantly brought up in debates etc.

MrPudding

c_man wrote: »

Well of course you don't actually know that... But it did lead me to get wiki-lost reading up on the topic of anti-abortion violence Tbh I was surprised, I'd gotten the impression there was much, much more. Constantly brought up in debates etc.

How much does there need to be before it is valid to bring it up?

MrP

c_man

MrPudding wrote: »

How much does there need to be before it is valid to bring it up?

MrP

Well you can bring it up whenever, but certainly seems to get disproportionate commentary. Somewhat understandable given the nature of abortion debates I suppose. I mean to take a recent news story, more people have been killed taking selfies this year than abortion murders since 1990!

MrPudding

c_man wrote: »

Well you can bring it up whenever, but certainly seems to get disproportionate commentary. Somewhat understandable given the nature of abortion debates I suppose. I mean to take a recent news story, more people have been killed taking selfies this year than abortion murders since 1990!

I think the apparent and substantial contradiction between the claimed values, "pro-life" or at the very least "Christian values", and the actions of some of those claiming to posses and be upholding those values is worth highlighting. I am not sure I have ever done this before, but I think I might quote Bono here... "Killing for freedom is like having sexual intercourse* for virginity." Replace freedom with pro-life values and it works quite well.

MrP


* He used a single word for "having sexual intercourse" but apparently the delicate dispositions of the natives of this forum can't stand even a "facsimile" of a naughty word. I do hope the word sexual doesn't offend and send someone into conniptions.

c_man

MrPudding wrote: »

I think the apparent and substantial contradiction between the claimed values, "pro-life" or at the very least "Christian values", and the actions of some of those claiming to posses and be upholding those values is worth highlighting.

Hmm while it's an interesting topic for that reason, colour me suspicious as to its relation to constitutional matters here in Ireland (the amount of times I've heard/seen it brought up in recent 8th Amendment stuff here...). I suppose it's an easy point to score, like how a religious person might use the Sunday services done by some Atheists in the UK as ammo to say that it's a religion and use it again and again in online debates.


Edit: fair cop

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Just reminding posters that swearing is expressly prohibited by the charter.

Thanks for your attention.

Overheal

Questions emerge as to why politicians can't seem to reconcile their pro-life views with their views on gun control

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trevor-noah-questions-republicans-comic-829740

Trevor Noah wrote:

"Human life only holds value until you take it out of the package, and then it’s worth nothing."

Overheal

Texas made the official motion to defund PP in the state, PP has 30 days to contest the rule (suspect they will, given there is no proof that they can't conduct the job Medicare stipulates). Louisiana also did the same but has been ordered by federal courts to continue funding PP.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/19/texas-medicaid-planned-parenthood/74215566/

The five-page letter sent to Texas clinics attempted to address the issue of access to other services.

“Your termination and that of all your affiliates will not affect access to care in this state because there are thousands of alternate providers in Texas, including federally qualified health centers, Medicaid-certified rural health clinics, and other health care providers across the state that participate in the Texas Women’s Health Program and Medicaid,” the letter said.

The letter alleged Planned Parenthood had engaged in fraud, including illegal billing practices, though it didn't offer any details. It also noted that since 2013 the GOP-controlled Texas Legislature has moved to deny as much funding to Planned Parenthood as possible. That included shutting the group out of the Texas Women’s Health Program, which provides care to poor Texas residents.

“Once again, politicians in Austin are showing how little they care about Texans' health care," Yvonne Gutierrez, executive director of Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, said in a statement. "Planned Parenthood will continue to fight for access to health care and information for all Texans.”

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood looked at the PR, the cost of the PR, versus the actual money they were being reimbursed (which is marginal); they decided it that while perfectly legal, it was not worth the political controversy and have announced they no longer accept any reimbursement whatsoever for fetal tissue donations:

http://time.com/4073656/planned-parenthood-fetal-tissue/

Because it isn’t about the money—it never was. While Planned Parenthood won’t provide specific figures for how much its giving up in fees, the group maintains it’s a small number. Officials would only say it accounted for one-tenth-of-a-percent of the annual budget at one of their facilities involved in fetal tissue donation.

...

Planned Parenthood’s Washington affiliate had never charged these fees since it began its donation program. It was about the research, and honoring the intentions of women willing to donate the fetal tissue in an effort to help scientists learn more about untreatable diseases and potentially help others. Ironically, Laguens says that since the well-publicized secret videos, more women are asking about fetal tissue donation and eager to participate, even at facilities where there are no programs set up.

Without the fees, anti-abortion activists are left to look for another way to target the group for its abortion services. And those attacks will come, as they have since the group opened its first facility in New York in 1916. But they won’t be built around the argument that Planned Parenthood takes money for body parts. Because they don’t any more.

Bottom of the day, its a win for everyone as we get less political diatribe and more actual fetal donations.

robp

Delirium wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MarthaPlimpton/status/649125660166909952

Ring fencing public funds away for their human killing side business hardly exonerates them. PP have no business existing in their current form and they will be closed down sooner or later.

Delirium

robp wrote: »

Ring fencing public funds away for their human killing side business hardly exonerates them. PP have no business existing in their current form and they will be closed down sooner or later.

Why did you quote my post when your response suggests you didn't read it?

robp

Delirium wrote: »

Why did you quote my post when your response suggests you didn't read it?

I am responding to Martha Plimpton's disingenuous rhetoric.

Delirium

robp wrote: »

I am responding to Martha Plimpton's disingenuous rhetoric.

But no federal money is used for abortion, so how can PP be ringfencing the money for abortion?

And considering that many politicians are trying defund PP on the incorrect understanding that money is used for abortion. I don't see how correcting the error is disingenuous.

robp

Delirium wrote: »

But no federal money is used for abortion, so how can PP be ringfencing the money for abortion?

And considering that many politicians are trying defund PP on the incorrect understanding that money is used for abortion. I don't see how correcting the error is disingenuous.

Clearly they ring fence public money for non-abortion work. Her comment was disingenuous because efforts are under-way to defund PP because they are a heinous organisation that tramples on human dignity, not because they consume public money. Huge difference don't you think?

The Randy Riverbeast

robp wrote: »

Clearly they ring fence public money for non-abortion work. Her comment was disingenuous because efforts are under-way to defund PP because they are a heinous organisation that tramples on human dignity, not because they consume public money. Huge difference don't you think?

If they didnt consume public money then there would be nothing to defund.

The politicians are free to provide medical care to people with low income any way they want, unfortunately the same politicians are also against that regardless of where the money goes. They're all for the unborn, until it might cost them money.

robp

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

If they didnt consume public money then there would be nothing to defund.

The politicians are free to provide medical care to people with low income any way they want, unfortunately the same politicians are also against that regardless of where the money goes. They're all for the unborn, until it might cost them money.

How can you say PP receive no public funds? Clearly they do.

ucseae1

Delirium wrote: »

But no federal money is used for abortion, so how can PP be ringfencing the money for abortion?

And considering that many politicians are trying defund PP on the incorrect understanding that money is used for abortion. I don't see how correcting the error is disingenuous.

You obviously are not aware of the exemptions to the Hyde Amendment .

Overheal

ucseae1 wrote: »

You obviously are not aware of the exemptions to the Hyde Amendment .

"Opponents of the amendment, such as the National Abortion Federation and the American Civil Liberties Union, assert that it unfairly targets low-income women,[11] because the amendment effectively ended the provision of abortions for low-income women across the United States through Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for low-income Americans.[12]
Because of difficulties raising money to pay for their abortions, poor women who depend on Medicaid tend to have them later in pregnancy, which causes destruction of a further-developed fetus, increases in cost, and higher rates of complications from the procedure.[13]"

Congratulations: the effect of trying to ban something that will happen anyway.

robp

Overheal wrote: »

"


Congratulations: the effect of trying to ban something that will happen anyway.

That is exactly what critics and naysayers said to halt the abolition movement. Banning slavery did not end slavery but it was still the right thing to do.

Like the anti-abolitionists one rarely hears a pro abortion argument that doesn't dehumanise the vulnerable or doesn't express total defeatism.

Delirium

robp wrote: »

Clearly they ring fence public money for non-abortion work. Her comment was disingenuous because efforts are under-way to defund PP because they are a heinous organisation that tramples on human dignity, not because they consume public money. Huge difference don't you think?

And forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes doesn't?

robp

Delirium wrote: »

And forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes doesn't?

Its far less than what people who beget children and don't give them up for adoption have to do.

Kev W

robp wrote: »

Its far less than what people who beget children and don't give them up for adoption have to do.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Women who give birth to and keep their babies have to do more than whom?

Women who have abortions? Is anyone arguing that they don't?

What does it have to to with the trampling of human dignity by forcing women to carry to term?

Perhaps it's me, I really can't tell what you're getting at.

Delirium

robp wrote: »

Its far less than what people who beget children and don't give them up for adoption have to do.

So all women who give birth and don't give the child up for adoption are "trampling on human dignity"?

robp

Kev W wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Women who give birth to and keep their babies have to do more than whom?

Women who have abortions? Is anyone arguing that they don't?

What does it have to to with the trampling of human dignity by forcing women to carry to term?

Perhaps it's me, I really can't tell what you're getting at.

Carrying a baby in utero is a massive and utterly life changing event. Its a huge deal, but asking a women to do it is no more unreasonable than asking parents to lovingly raise a kid. 9 months is a lot less than 19 or so years.

Kev W

robp wrote: »

Carrying a baby in utero is a massive and utterly life changing event. Its a huge deal, but asking a women to do it is no more unreasonable than asking parents to lovingly raise a kid. 9 months is a lot less than 19 or so years.

Right, I get you now.

Of course there's a huge difference, since we're not talking about refusing the right to give children up for adoption if they want to. That right exists and nobody seems to be trying to take it away.

We're also not talking about "asking" women to carry a fetus to term. We're talking about forcing them to.

The comparison really doesn't hold up.