Quote :

"Only about 3% of Planned Parent services are abortion"

But how much of PP's revenue comes from abortion services?

12/19/2013 10:19:38 AM

It wouldn't matter if its 100%, you still can't conclude the statement that he made.
(And he knows that, because he is an Ivy League master logician)

From the link on the previous page, 25% of their revenue is from services. Also from the link, 3% of their services are abortion.

(I don't see a breakout any further than that, but if you made the assumption that there was some easy, constant service/dollar ratio it would mean that about 0.8% of their revenue comes from abortion services. This is obviously a poor assumption, but the conclusion that you can make is that its some small percent of 25% of their revenue)

[Edited on December 19, 2013 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

12/19/2013 10:54:14 AM

They're about $400 each, for anyone who feels like crunching numbers.

Not a bad price considering all the scrambling and severing going on

12/19/2013 11:00:36 AM

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022438460_geneticverdictxml.html

If only they had known this thing was defective, they could have killed it. Now they have to live with this burden of a retard son for the rest of his godawful life. if only they could have killed this little sob sooner. ugh! (but i bet they love their son!)

12/24/2013 12:40:43 AM

what a horrible thing to say!

that child is a miraculous gift from God. One that shows that man is created exactly in his own perfect image.

oh wait

12/24/2013 1:00:56 AM

^point?

[Edited on December 24, 2013 at 1:03 AM. Reason : are you implying that we reinstate Hitler's eugenics program?]

12/24/2013 1:03:20 AM

nice strawman, but no?

12/24/2013 1:06:21 AM

oh, i thought maybe your joke implied that we should advocate the killing of disabled children

[Edited on December 24, 2013 at 1:14 AM. Reason : ha! accuses me of the strawman after his entire post was one]

12/24/2013 1:08:58 AM

a disabled child is not the same thing as a fetus that has the *potential* to become a disabled child. just like a warm creamy load of sperm and an unfertilized egg aren't the same thing as a disabled child (even though when you combine them together and allow them to grow inside the mommy's tummy for ~9 months it can happen! it's the miracle of life!).

you are a very very stupid person. i sincerely hope your parents are paying for your studies, because you have zero critical thinking skills.

12/24/2013 1:19:59 AM

and round and round we go. (just pointing out ^ has nothing at all to do with whatever it was you were trying to say about the miraculous gift in god's image or whatever)

and a 6 month old isn't the same thing as a 9 month old as a 284 month old. good job.

[Edited on December 24, 2013 at 1:35 AM. Reason : (if you guys ever have a good reason on where to draw the line, i'd be glad to hear it)]

12/24/2013 1:34:42 AM

I see that ohmy has ignored my post entirely because he couldn't respond to it

[Edited on December 24, 2013 at 9:00 AM. Reason : /n]

12/24/2013 9:00:11 AM

probably scouring sources to copy/pasta. give him a min

12/24/2013 12:14:47 PM

Quote :

"if you guys ever have a good reason on where to draw the line, i'd be glad to hear it"

Birth is the only line that makes sense. At that point there is no question that it's a person, and no bodily rights override its own.

12/27/2013 3:16:00 PM

Conception is when it's unique genetic make-up is formed. That make much more sense.

12/27/2013 3:39:07 PM

Then no abortions for rape or incest

But what is magical about unique genetic material?



[Edited on December 27, 2013 at 3:46 PM. Reason : unique]

12/27/2013 3:44:20 PM

^^^yeah so much changes in a full term baby from one side of the vaginal wall to the other.

holy shit even most of the hardcore pro-choice people I know would be horrified at performing a full term abortion. Either you're trolling, autistic, or a Schizoid

[Edited on December 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

12/27/2013 3:44:34 PM

many pro-choice people are horrified at any abortion

12/27/2013 3:45:33 PM

I am not in favor of full term abortion per se, I'm just less in favor of the state telling a person what they can do with their own body. Anything less is restricting the bodily autonomy of the woman who yet again is being ignored in this conversation.

12/27/2013 4:20:30 PM

Can someone remain intellectually honest while maintaining that life begins at conception, any and all abortions are murders, contraception is okay, and in vitro fertilization is okay/a good thing?

12/27/2013 4:40:31 PM

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=7883827

PROGRESS

[Edited on December 30, 2013 at 3:22 PM. Reason : ]

12/30/2013 3:13:31 PM

I see that ohmy has ignored my post entirely because he couldn't respond to it

12/30/2013 3:36:57 PM

haha yea, sorry, it was sloppy on my part. you were right. i was wrong. it's still an insane amount, but 92% was definitely misleading.

12/30/2013 3:58:18 PM

I'm amazed that the percentage has dropped at all since we have the perfect storm of: making access to birth control more difficult, no education about birth control, and a terrible economy

and anytime I hear a catholic official complaining about it I can't help but roll my eyes, and will continue to until they stop fighting education and birth control

12/30/2013 4:02:01 PM

Lol at the archbishop quoted in the article:

Quote :

"There's candy bowls on people's desks with condoms"

12/30/2013 6:44:17 PM

these BASTARDS are saving the life of a fetus... those horrible people. how can they live with themselves???

http://www.care2.com/causes/pregnant-woman-kept-on-life-support-against-her-familys-wishes.html

12/30/2013 7:08:42 PM

that actually is really terrible, its awful what they are doing to her and her husband and family

12/30/2013 7:20:30 PM

I think it's commendable and a testament to medical science that they can possibly save the unborn child.

12/30/2013 7:56:54 PM

LOL yeah, fuck her clearly documented wishes. She's just a baby vessel.

12/30/2013 8:23:32 PM

k.

12/30/2013 8:26:59 PM

better for them both to die

12/30/2013 9:53:09 PM

I have a validly good question for pro-choice people:

Let's consider that a woman wants an elective abortion past the date of viability for a premature baby. Now let's say that some party (be it the state or a religious organization) comes in and says "if you're having this fetus removed, we want to care for it". This is medically possible, although it's not clear if it's recommendable.

Now your options look a lot more constrained. You could:

1. allow premature removal of the baby, giving the 3rd party custody
2. allow termination of the fetus, against the wishes of the 3rd party
3. force the baby to be carried to term, against the wishes of the mother

Every option has a really big problem. With #1, you risk (some would say unnecessarily) the complications associated with a premature Caesarean. These aren't just simple risks you can wave away either, many of them are long-term. If you choose this option, you have to look someone in the face and tell them they have Cerebral palsy because their mother didn't care enough to have a normal pregnancy.

If you go with #2, then this kind of closely borderlines on infanticide. It's similar to partial-birth abortions. You could have just dropped the fetus off with the volunteer caretakers with no effort on your part. But yet it should still be the mother's decision to terminate it? That's very difficult to sell. If the pro-lifers could narrow the discussion down to this, they would easily win in the public arena.

And if you choose #3, that is the pro-life position.

1/7/2014 3:11:02 PM

it's still the mother's choice, and #1 is bad for humanity for several reasons i don't feel like typing out. #3 is torture.

[Edited on January 7, 2014 at 3:29 PM. Reason : .]

1/7/2014 3:26:56 PM

Are we assuming the 3rd party will attempt to give the fetus a good life, or are they harvesting it for organs/stem cells/food?

1/7/2014 3:28:26 PM

#3 is only the position of pro-life people if the viability of the fetus wasn't an issue, and you established it as one in your proposal

#2 is the only answer that does not remove the right of a woman to make medical decision about her own body, its the moral choice. i think it would be fine if she was made aware that a 3rd party was willing to care for the now-viable child, and she would be doing a service to them if she gave them a child, but she is under no obligation to. Your #2 option would be no different than what we have now, I don't think people get abortions because they are unaware that adoption or forfeiting to the state is an option (but I could be wrong, perhaps there are people who know enough to know that an abortion is an option but not enough to know that they can give away the child. actually, no, that sounds like a giant stretch)

1/7/2014 3:30:20 PM

if at some point the abortion was more invasive to the mother than giving up the fetus, maybe one could make a utilitarian argument in support of that, but that would require being able to quantify mental pain felt by the mother and i don't see how an external party could ever accurately do that.

1/7/2014 3:37:43 PM

Ugh, I'm going to have to go with #1, and break with other pro-choice people.

You always have primary right of custody of your own kid, I don't think anyone should have the right to terminate a fetus or baby over another party that wants custody.

Quote :

"Are we assuming the 3rd party will attempt to give the fetus a good life, or are they harvesting it for organs/stem cells/food?"

A good upbringing, of course. Custody necessarily entails everything it takes to raise a kid. For premature babies, we're adding an extra step in, which might be handled institutionally because that's 100% hospital care. So maybe a religious group accepts the burden of medical care for the fetus until it can be brought home, and then they have a list of approved adoptive parents ready for when that finishes. It's not extremely hard to see how this could be arranged. I'm not sure about the will to do it, but that's what makes it a hypothetical. Even before it would ever be done, the legal framework for it would need to be established.

I personally find it counter-intuitive that we have plenty of adoptive parents out there. It's an expensive and thankless task. But apparently, people who want to give away a baby don't have a hard time doing so. From anecdotal evidence, I don't think adopted kids have a harder life than the rest of us really. It's the foster system you've got to stay away from. Old school orphanages were also apparently hell-holes that left their residents with all kinds of emotional issues. Anyway, I think our adoption system has a pretty good grasp on the necessary qualifications, and there seem to be sufficient loving households.

1/7/2014 4:48:02 PM

Quote :

"Ugh, I'm going to have to go with #1, and break with other pro-choice people. You always have primary right of custody of your own kid, I don't think anyone should have the right to terminate a fetus or baby over another party that wants custody."

1) its not a kid, its a fetus
2) how do you suddenly trump the mothers sovereignty over her own body?

Quote :

"I personally find it counter-intuitive that we have plenty of adoptive parents out there."

then you'll be pleased to learn that we have a huge shortage (not that it matters in regards to abortion)

[Edited on January 7, 2014 at 4:51 PM. Reason : .]

1/7/2014 4:50:46 PM

Just because it's in her body doesn't make it a part of her body. If removing it in-tact is much more medically complicated, well then the hypothetical just isn't as good of a hypothetical anymore.

My thinking on adoptive parents was mostly anecdotal. I don't even know how one would actually assess the supply/demand of adoption.

1/7/2014 5:05:14 PM

are you saying the mother should be forced to go through #1?

or that she is morally obligated to because someone else wants the fetus?

1/7/2014 5:08:55 PM

Quote :

"Just because it's in her body doesn't make it a part of her body."

it is literally a part of her body, her body is literally attached to it and independently supporting it. its literally a part of her body.

1/7/2014 5:21:18 PM

you are literally being dishonest with yourself dtownral. it is a distinct organism being supported via a placenta/umbilical cord by the mother.

1/7/2014 5:36:44 PM

that's not exclusive of it literally being a part of her body

[Edited on January 7, 2014 at 5:41 PM. Reason : you just described what i said]

1/7/2014 5:40:36 PM

supported by, not a part of.

[Edited on January 7, 2014 at 5:43 PM. Reason : distinct genetics, organs, systems.]

1/7/2014 5:42:28 PM

its inside of her, attached to her, made up of things from her, wholly and completely supported by her, etc...

to me that means it is part of her, if you disagree it doesn't change anything. its a semantics argument. what i described is what it is, that's the relationship and interconnection.

let's create a new term for what i described: supportopotomusapart. Every time you read "supportopotomusapart", mentally insert the description above.

A woman has sovereignty over things that are supportopotomusapart to her body by their nature of being supportopotomusapart. It having distinct genetics doesn't matter.


[Edited on January 7, 2014 at 5:48 PM. Reason : dyslexia]

1/7/2014 5:45:44 PM

Honestly, that's a really bad argument. By that logic, partial-birth abortions would be ok. They are not ok. Infanticide isn't ok.

If the support she's giving it can be substituted by someone else, and if someone else is volunteering to offer that, then the sovereignty doesn't give her the right to do as she wants with it. For the simple fact that someone else wants to save it and that requires no effort on her part.

(aside from the cases where a non-killing c-section would be much more invasive, you know what I mean)

1/7/2014 6:04:52 PM

so you are asking about a magical case where the fetus can be magically transplanted out of her body without any impact to her physically or mentally? yeah, in that case a utilitarian argument could easily made to support #1

Quote :

"Infanticide isn't ok"

you keep saying this like anyone is proposing this. is it because it "borders infanticide"? The US borders Mexico, are you a Mexican? Stop with the histrionics, you are making a blatant appeal to emotion.


[Edited on January 7, 2014 at 6:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/7/2014 6:06:59 PM

Quote :

"By that logic, partial-birth abortions would be ok. They are not ok"

Why are they not okay?

1/7/2014 6:20:42 PM

because somebody wants that baby!

[Edited on January 7, 2014 at 6:22 PM. Reason : i was ignoring that circular logic fallacy for the moment]

1/7/2014 6:21:20 PM

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/6/crouse-a-growing-tilt-against-abortion/?utm_source=feedly

1/7/2014 9:41:49 PM

Hahaha, that opinion piece is hilarious

1/7/2014 10:49:38 PM