Fate

He clearly does support murder

.

Do I really?

You believe that life begins at conception. The creation of a zygote.
Why?
I've provided you evidence that zygotes are regularly spontaneously aborted. Is it your contention that these spontaneous abortions equal murder?

Beyond that, your SCOTUS has ruled on abortion. Women have a choice to choose to abort a pregnancy before 24 weeks. That means that abortion isn't murder.
And a cursory check shows that a woman can't be charged with infaticide if she aborts a pregnancy after the 24 weeks either. (I haven't checked all states)

So, as usual all you are doing is responding as you normally do. Facts are irrelevant to you. Science is irrelevant to you. Its about what you feel is right.

But I do have feelings about unwanted pregnancy that you don't seem to consider.
I find it impossible to judge a woman who chooses to abort an unwanted pregnancy. I certainly wouldn't call her a murderer and label her with a crime.
Nor can I possibly find fault with an organization that helps prevent the deaths of thousands of women a year. And that's what legalizing abortion did. It made access to decent health care for women in this unenviable position possible. And Planned Parenthood made it possible for people of limited means.
Besides the fact that very little of PP services involve abortion, isn't the provision of safe abortion access to poor women a compassionate service? Prior to legalization, poor women, and especially minorities died or were severely harmed in illegal abortions far beyond the rate of white affluent women.

ABORTION WAS criminalized throughout the U.S. between the late 1800s and 1973. But during that time, millions of women sought and obtained abortions anyway.
Of these, tens upon tens of thousands died from illegal abortions or complications arising from them. One 1932 study estimated that illegal abortions or complications from them were the cause of death for 15,000 women each year. Current, more conservative, estimates of the death toll still stand at between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths per year.

Some of these deaths were the result of the abortions themselves, but many more were from infection and hemorrhaging afterward. Because of the fear of being punished and socially ostracized, many women--and their doctors--kept their real condition a secret

Making abortion illegal won't end abortions.
But making abortion illegal did kill, thousands. We know the consequences.
Does that make someone who supports the ending of legal abortions complicit in murder?

sources on illegal abortions:
http://socialistworker.org/2005-2/562/5 ... tion.shtml
http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/healt ... -abortion/
https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html

One of the effects of legalizing abortion.Virtually ending late term abortion. Can we agree that that is a good outcome?

Legalization of abortion allows women to obtain timely abortions, thereby reducing the risk of complications. In 1970, one in four abortions in the United States took place at or after 13 weeks gestation. In 2009, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost 92 percent of abortions were performed within the first trimester (64 percent were performed at under eight weeks gestation). Few abortions (7 percent) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.3 percent) were performed greater than 21 weeks gestation

.

And can we agree that providing health information and contraception (one of PPs many services) reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies and therefore limits the number of abortions?
How can you be against this outcome? Opposing the funding of PP suggests that you are...

danivon wrote:I understand it is an emotive subject, but can we please try to dial it down?

Yes, it is an emotional subject. When someone shrugs over the matter, it is infuriating.

And, he's at it again.

Let me be clear to all of you: "spontaneous abortion" is in no way related to elective abortion. That rickyp keeps trying to draw the comparison is a reflection upon him, not me. If I overreact to it, it's because it is like comparing an accidental death to a calculated murder.

Now, you all may not consider it murder. I understand the law of the land permits killing an unborn child.

However, comparing something that occurs with no intent to do anything to an intentional act that does end a human life is inaccurate at best, and, in my opinion, depraved.

rickyp wrote:Nor can I possibly find fault with an organization that helps prevent the deaths of thousands of women a year.

You have no source for that. On the other hand, I have already shown that it kills more than 150,000 females a year.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I understand it is an emotive subject, but can we please try to dial it down?

Yes, it is an emotional subject. When someone shrugs over the matter, it is infuriating.

And, he's at it again.

Let me be clear to all of you: "spontaneous abortion" is in no way related to elective abortion. That rickyp keeps trying to draw the comparison is a reflection upon him, not me. If I overreact to it, it's because it is like comparing an accidental death to a calculated murder.

What about miscarriages caused by negligence? This does happen (and not always on the part of the mother).

Now, you all may not consider it murder. I understand the law of the land permits killing an unborn child.

However, comparing something that occurs with no intent to do anything to an intentional act that does end a human life is inaccurate at best, and, in my opinion, depraved.

Opinion noted. Will you pull back on the "M" word? And maybe if you feel Ricky is baiting you, not letting him?

danivon wrote:What about miscarriages caused by negligence? This does happen (and not always on the part of the mother).

Is there intent?

But, in the meantime, are we going to engage in a few rounds of "whataboutery?" In other words, what is your intention?

Now, you all may not consider it murder. I understand the law of the land permits killing an unborn child.

However, comparing something that occurs with no intent to do anything to an intentional act that does end a human life is inaccurate at best, and, in my opinion, depraved.

Opinion noted. Will you pull back on the "M" word? And maybe if you feel Ricky is baiting you, not letting him?

It was not my subjective sense he was baiting me. He was. I refused to ignore it. I'm not backing off of anything until he stops being puerile and inflammatory.

Abortion is not a humorous subject. I have seen some women who boast about getting abortions. I daresay if the boasted of drowning kittens they would not be entertaining; they would be arrested.

Here's the thing: I don't support making abortion, generally, a criminal matter. However, after the first trimester, I think we leave any semblance of a murky moral area. And, in the case of the Colorado doctor, that is clearly murder--morally, if not legally.

fate

You have no source for that

i gave you 3 sources that illustrate the conditions that existed for the 80+ years where abortion was made largely illegal...
Do you dispute the fact that thousands of women died as result of accessing illegal abortions.

fate

Yes, it is an emotional subject. When someone shrugs over the matter, it is infuriating

.

Who's shrugging?
On the other hand, the compassion shown to women who find themselves pregnant and don't want to be, seems to be lacking.
I refuse to equate zygotes and undeveloped fetus with a woman. The woman is a living breathing person, who's either had a contraceptive fail or made an error in judgement. (Or been raped) The poorer this woman is, the greater the consequences of the unwanted pregnancy.
Planned Parenthood's major purpose is to help women, especially poor women, avoid finding themselves in the position of having to choose what to do with an unwanted pregnancy.
What most opponents of allowing women any choice fail to offer is an option that would ameliorate a poor woman's predicament . There's a lot of shrugging going on then.

rickyp wrote:What most opponents of allowing women any choice fail to offer is an option that would ameliorate a poor woman's predicament . There's a lot of shrugging going on then.

that is perhaps a generalisation, but I would like to see far more concern from those who oppose abortion about the actual policies that would reduce the numbers:

1) Encouraging (and even subsidising) contraception
2) Comprehensive sexual education in schools
3) Mandatory paid leave for maternity (and hey, why not paternity as well?)
4) Come to that, employment protection for mothers during pregancy and for a period after so that they can return to their old job if they want
5) Subsidised childcare for those on low incomes who are working
6) Support for welfare increases for those who qualify and have children
7) Much better support for children with disabilities (and their families)

The first two are of course about trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. The second two are about one of the biggest issues with having a kid - as soon as you do you need more money, not less as a result of losing your job. The second two are part of supporting the child post-birth as a society.

And yes, adoption is another option. Of course a lot of kids who need adopting are already out there, in social care, foster homes etc. So I'm not convinced it's a great idea to add to them without improving the whole system for kids in that situation. So I would add that as no.7, but I think all that does is find another way of dealing with unwanted children rather than either preventing the pregnancy in the first place or removing bread and butter reasons for abortions.

And yes, my list does mean more money from somewhere, and probably taxes of some sort.

rickyp wrote:fate

You have no source for that

i gave you 3 sources that illustrate the conditions that existed for the 80+ years where abortion was made largely illegal...
Do you dispute the fact that thousands of women died as result of accessing illegal abortions.

That does NOT support this claim:

Nor can I possibly find fault with an organization that helps prevent the deaths of thousands of women a year.

To support your claim, you would have to prove that Planned Parenthood "prevents the deaths of thousands of women a year." You can't.

Beyond that, even if it were true, you can't "possibly find fault" with them even if the worst accusations against them prove to be true? That's weak.

fate

Yes, it is an emotional subject. When someone shrugs over the matter, it is infuriating

.

Who's shrugging?

You.

On the other hand, the compassion shown to women who find themselves pregnant and don't want to be, seems to be lacking.

Very few women "find themselves pregnant." There is usually something that happens before then. Ask your Mom about it.

I refuse to equate zygotes and undeveloped fetus with a woman. The woman is a living breathing person, who's either had a contraceptive fail or made an error in judgement. (Or been raped) The poorer this woman is, the greater the consequences of the unwanted pregnancy.
Planned Parenthood's major purpose is to help women, especially poor women, avoid finding themselves in the position of having to choose what to do with an unwanted pregnancy.
What most opponents of allowing women any choice fail to offer is an option that would ameliorate a poor woman's predicament . There's a lot of shrugging going on then.

All stereotypes and nonsense. You can't prove any of this paragraph.

danivon wrote:1) Encouraging (and even subsidising) contraception

You scour supermarkets for the cheapest shampoo and the best deal on laundry detergent, so why shouldn’t you look for a bargain when filling your prescription? Call around and research your pill online to price your drug at the big pharmacies. Bonus: Walgreens, Walmart, CVS, and most of the others have prescription savings clubs. You can get a 90-day supply of the drug for $12 on some of the plans.http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/s ... -control-0

2) Comprehensive sexual education in schools

???? Whuh?

They're already doing everything but putting on live demonstrations for elementary school kids, what else can they do? Children in kindergarten are being taught about same-sex marriage. Tell me again there's not enough "sexual education" in school. They don't teach much else as far as I can tell--based on declining test scores.

3) Mandatory paid leave for maternity (and hey, why not paternity as well?)

I believe this is the case in most or all states. YMMV.

4) Come to that, employment protection for mothers during pregancy and for a period after so that they can return to their old job if they want
5) Subsidised childcare for those on low incomes who are working

Again, I think these exist already.

6) Support for welfare increases for those who qualify and have children

It's pretty substantive as it is. However, I think we should be willing to look at it if it's a need. As usual, I have personal experience--there are some abusive cases. I think social workers probably need more authority in some areas.

7) Much better support for children with disabilities (and their families)

Again, if it's a need, I'm willing to examine it. I think you'd find there are a lot of social services for kids with disabilities.

I happen to know a social worker quite well. I'll try to engage her on this subject.

And yes, my list does mean more money from somewhere, and probably taxes of some sort.

I don't know. I'd start by cutting off a lot of able-bodied young men (see Alexandra Pelosi's clip)

fate

2) Comprehensive sexual education in schools


???? Whuh?

They're already doing everything but putting on live demonstrations for elementary school kids, what else can they do? Children in kindergarten are being taught about same-sex marriage. Tell me again there's not enough "sexual education" in school. They don't teach much else as far as I can tell--based on declining test scores

In fact:

The National Conference of State Legislatures backs up two facts Oliver stated in his report: just 22 states and the District of Columbia require public schools teach sex education (20 of which mandate sex education and HIV education), and "19 states require that if provided, sex education must be medically, factually or technically accurate. State definitions of 'medically accurate' vary, from requiring that the department of health review curriculum for accuracy, to mandating that curriculum be based on information from 'published authorities upon which medical professionals rely.' "

watch this...
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rulesfor ... urate.html

fate

3) Mandatory paid leave for maternity (and hey, why not paternity as well?)


I believe this is the case in most or all states. YMM

Not true.

Current United States maternity leave policy is directed by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) which includes a provision mandating 12 weeks of unpaid leave annually for mothers of newborn or newly adopted childre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity ... ted_States

rickyp wrote:fate

2) Comprehensive sexual education in schools


???? Whuh?

They're already doing everything but putting on live demonstrations for elementary school kids, what else can they do? Children in kindergarten are being taught about same-sex marriage. Tell me again there's not enough "sexual education" in school. They don't teach much else as far as I can tell--based on declining test scores

In fact:

The National Conference of State Legislatures backs up two facts Oliver stated in his report: just 22 states and the District of Columbia require public schools teach sex education (20 of which mandate sex education and HIV education), and "19 states require that if provided, sex education must be medically, factually or technically accurate. State definitions of 'medically accurate' vary, from requiring that the department of health review curriculum for accuracy, to mandating that curriculum be based on information from 'published authorities upon which medical professionals rely.' "

watch this...
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rulesfor ... urate.html

Good post! You know it's serious when it includes a John Oliver video.

Thanks for sharing.

Facts on sex education in US:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/sta ... hools.aspx

Facts on access to contraception:

http://www.nirhealth.org/sections/publi ... tfinal.pdf


Facts on family leave:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and- ... -laws.aspx

State and federal laws against pregnancy discrimination:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-an ... nt-workers

A bit of a dated study on child-care subsidies:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/fi ... bstudy.pdf

And of course the biggest thing is a woman not having the money to support the child. This is an impossible conflict to resolve. If you give woman money for having children you're providing an incentive for a poor woman to have children. But otherwise a poor woman is making a rational choice to have an abortion when they cannot support the child.

As Owen points out there are many things that could otherwise be done to relieve the economic pressures that are the biggest factor in abortions. The above links show that Owen's proposals are not being adequately addressed and of course conservatives are not interested in dealing with that. Women without the resources are just supposed to figure it out...somehow.

How about some evidence rather than hyperbole, DF?

And, in other Planned Parenthood news (which also impugns Politi-Fact):

Fox Business reporter Sandra Smith recently said on air "Almost 95 percent of all (Planned Parenthood) pregnancy services were abortions." On Tuesday, PunditFact, a division of PolitiFact, rated it false.

PolitiFact concedes the source of this statistic is Planned Parenthood's own annual report. If you take the number of services listed in the report, exclude the ones that don't apply to women who aren't pregnant, you do indeed get a figure that showing that over 94 percent of pregnant women who go to Planned Parenthood get an abortion.

After validating the source of the stat, PolitiFact then says, "For several reasons, that’s a misleading way to analyze the data." That's an odd statement because PolitiFact then goes on to provide one concrete reason for why the statistic is inaccurate. And it's a very dubious rationale:

Not all of Planned Parenthood approximately 700 clinics offer prenatal services because prenatal care is not Planned Parenthood's focus. As a result, many pregnant women are referred to outside obstetricians or other health providers for prenatal care.

How many? It's impossible to know.

Planned Parenthood does not record how many pregnant patients are referred to outside health care providers, said Catherine Lozada, a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman.

If referrals were included, the 95 percent figure would likely change, though we can't say by how much — and neither can Smith nor the [pro-life] Susan B. Anthony List.

To what extent is a referral a service? Let's say a woman walks into a beauty parlor and needs a manicure, but is told they don't do manicures at this establishment and is told to go to another place down the road. Does the first establishment get credit for helping provide a service they don't provide? Now it's more complicated in the medical world, as sometimes you need a referral from one doctor to see another doctor or specialist. However, saying referrals to other doctors is a service Planned Parenthood provides -- let alone one they conveniently don't keep track of so that they can't be pinned down on when asked how many abortions provide relative to other services provided to pregnant women -- is quite a stretch. Especially when you consider that Planned Parenthood clearly tries to obfuscate how many abortions they perform.