crisis pregnancy centers as portrayed on Full Frontal

[Frances]

 

While I'd like to think that both sides would work for better sex education, increased access to low-cost long-term effective birth control, etc.... that doesn't seem to have happened. The only thing that seems to answer for it is that there are some (not necessarily all...but definitely a very vocal segment) who couple pro-life with abstinence only. I think that is a big problem because abstinence before marriage 1) is not a belief everybody shares and 2) abstinence-only has a horrifically high failure rate.

I absolutely agree. I'm squarely in the legal but rare camp and can't remotely comprehend those who oppose comprehensive sex education. If they want to stop their own children from attending such classes, fine. But to legislate and advocate for not giving young people as much quality education about their reproductive ability, responsibility, and choices seems completely misguided.

 

Likewise, easy, cheap (if not free) access to the most effective forms of birth control also seems so obviously part of the solution, and like sex education is backed by research showing decreases in unplanned pregnancies, that opposing it makes no sense to me.

[Carpe]

I'm the shocking one who said 20 weeks for "even dubious" reasons.

 

I actually had a much earlier date before my first miscarriage. Closer to 12, maybe 15 weeks tops. And then I had a 17 week miscarriage. I held that tiny thing in my hand and mourned the person they would never be. But that fetus was so much less developed than I expected, so small, so alien and combined with the

fact that doctors and nurses assured me over and over that while I had been in excruciating pain, my baby hadn't suffered at all because the brain is not adequately developed yet; I changed my mind.

 

20 week fetuses are not viable, and they are not adequately developed to feel pain. Plus the anatomy scan that discovers most issues happens just prior to that age.

 

As for dubious reasons, a woman I know had an abortion at 19 weeks for what she self-describes as financial reasons. Her baby was missing a leg (among other issues) and there was no way she could support him with her current employment and relationship status knowing his higher needs. But if she would have been financially independent, she would have chose differently. So to most people it was a disability and/or quality of life issue for the baby, in her opinion it was purely financial.

 

Not only to opinions vary, so does perspective. Just because I think someone's reasoning is ridiculous, doesn't mean it actually is. I, and other people, will almost never have all the information. The only person who has all the information is the pregnant woman.

[umsami]

 

And abortion only saves women's lives if you don't count the millions of baby girls killed (some simply for being girls!) in the process.

 

Legal abortion saves the lives of the women having the abortion.  In illegal abortions, you lose a baby and mother.  Women don't stop having abortions because they are illegal.  They try do-it-yourself methods.... they go to unscrupulous providers.... etc.  If they're lucky, they find somebody trying to give them the best medical care possible, but as that person is likely risking her/his medical license, they really can't.  If complications arise, they will have to manage them as best they can.... can't send her to a hospital.  Because it's illegal, abortions tend to be later....which increases risk for both as well.  Much easier to have an abortion at 8 weeks vs. 18 weeks.

 

https://www.guttmacher.org/about/gpr/2003/03/lessons-roe-will-past-be-prologue

 

'These women paid a steep price for illegal procedures. In 1962 alone, nearly 1,600 women were admitted to Harlem Hospital Center in New York City for incomplete abortions, which was one abortion-related hospital admission for every 42 deliveries at that hospital that year. In 1968, the University of Southern California Los Angeles County Medical Center, another large public facility serving primarily indigent patients, admitted 701 women with septic abortions, one admission for every 14 deliveries.

A clear racial disparity is evident in the data of mortality because of illegal abortion: In New York City in the early 1960s, one in four childbirth-related deaths among white women was due to abortion; in comparison, abortion accounted for one in two childbirth-related deaths among nonwhite and Puerto Rican women.'

 

Once again, I wish I had a magic wand and I could make all babies wanted.... all born in good circumstances.... all born without violence/rape/coercion.... all born at the best possible time for Mom and Dad.  But I don't.

[LucyStoner]

I'm sorry, but this is just not true. I remember reading an interview with the late abortionist George Tiller, and he said many of his late-term abortion patients were teenagers who had managed to hide their pregnancies from their parents for months.

The late abortionist George Tiller? You do mean the MURDERED Dr. George Tiller, right? Because someone killed him and the minute one either murders someone or condones such a murder, they unequivocally lose the right to call themselves prolife and be taken seriously in my book. A life is a life...except people who do things I don't like? I recall no such exemption to Thou shall not kill. I know you aren't doing that but when people discuss Dr. Tiller, they should admit that he was killed and that killing him was immoral.

 

Former staff members of abortion clinics have been known to lie. Some seek jobs just so they can later lie or churn out propaganda. And some of the sources of your information are not just biased, some are inflammatory and known to affliate with groups that condone targeting clinic staff and their families (including children) for harrassment, and in the process getting people killed. This is not a one sided cut and dry matter.

 

The only teens I have ever known to jot tell their parents they were pregnant? Those who feared rejection, being ostracized or even abused by parents who didn't want to hear it. Generally the ones most likely to react like that? Prolife parents. Maybe parents like that need to foster a more legitimately prolife environment where pregnancy won't be met with guilt and shame but sympathy and support. My church camp friends were the ones getting knocked up and having abortions in high school. My school friends in the city? Either didn't have sex or if they did, they used birth control. Many of the church friends rejected having birth control in their posession because they "weren't going to have sex" but then one thing led to another.

 

It's ironic that I was thought the floozy in church camp by many of the kids who were secretly sexually active because I didn't wear a bra (didn't have much to put into it if I had, lol), refused to swim with a tshirt over my swimming suit and was willing to talk about sexuality but I'm the one who has lived their supposed and much preached ideal.

[LucyStoner]

I believe they're different medical procedures entirely. If the woman can't have a vaginal delivery of the fetus, the doctor would have to perform a Caesarean section versus an abortion. I lost a tube each time with my last two of four c-sections due to an issue with scarring and adhesions. I nearly needed a hysterectomy after my 3rd c-section. In a situation that's already horrible--a woman facing a much-wanted pregnancy loss, these laws have very real repercussions on their lives and future childbearing abilities. A c-section is major surgery even when it goes perfectly. It's expensive. It requires greater recovery time. That shouldn't be foisted on women.

Ecellent point. The need for me to have a c-section is why I would need to have an abortion rather than wait for a full term delivery if pregnant with a non-viable baby who wouldn't live once born. After two c-sections on top of prior matters now makes me a poor canidate for a VBAC. Adding to my c-section count would further reduce my chances to have the third child we so desperately wish to have.

[Ausmumof3]

Counselling - in AU - is super neutral.

 

I agree that better social support is needed, but that will only reduce the number of abortions. In the end, unless you are good with forcing women to act as incubators against their will, there will always be some need for safe, legal abortion.

 

I haven't used 'bundle of cells' at all in my posts. Nor did anyone I saw at any clinic.

 

So-called post abortion syndrome doesn't exist.

Unless a scientific safe way of raising babies outside of the womb or transferring between wombs ever happens I guess.

[heartlikealion]

In a case where a woman had to have a stillborn baby removed, I think I'd call it a D&C, not an abortion. Maybe I'm off here.

 

In the case of extra fertilized embryos, well, yes I'd see if there was a way for them to not be discarded. Seems that every time a woman does IVF (okay, just the stories I hear in the media, I don't have stats) there are multiples involved and/or more than the couple expects, so I personally wouldn't take that risk to begin with if I wasn't ready to deal with the result of extra embryos. If doctors didn't discuss this possibility maybe it's not as popular as I think, but I do think it is something they should discuss beforehand so the couple has time to deliberate. If this was not a moral conundrum to my family, then it wouldn't matter to me. I didn't read the embryo adoption link yet so I don't know how involved that would be.

 

I don't really like discussions about when a person or thing can feel pain because I am a huge skeptic. My baby had laser frenectomies as an infant. We were assured that many babies don't feel a thing, only cry from being held down. We were assured that the topical treatment was very powerful and kicked in right away. The dentist said she'd tried it on herself before. Many people don't think babies even need to use pain reliever (infant Tylenol or Motrin depending on age) for it. I wish I hadn't listened. I will never know what dd felt but I just know she was in pain/discomfort. The only reason we did it again was because the dr fiddled with the area on the check up appointment saying she was trying to fix it but made it worse and we had little choice to work on her a second time or have it heal horribly. You can bet I gave her pain reliever immediately and made sure we waited a bit for it to kick in. I have heard that the fetus will move away when a dr tries to do an abortion. I just don't know what they know/feel/sense and my doubt is enough to give me pause.

[Carol in Cal.]

So, who is getting terminations post 20 weeks for the lolz ? Or because they are 'lazy' ? Or because doctors think its so much fun to do these procedures ? Or because they just couldn't decide ? Or because the liberal left has a baby killing agenda ?

 

This is pretty disgusting.  Your words, definitely not mine.  You really should stop projecting.

 

I simply don't believe - and the stats agree - that many women in the US are getting mid to late pregnancy terminations and for no good reason. The pages you linked are informational about the procedure. They don't indicate the reasons women are faced with the procedure. 

The stats bear out that more abortions occur early than late, but they also bear out that there are hundreds of thousands of them every year in our country, a staggering number.  The pages I linked talk about the justifications for the procedures if you read carefully.  The fact is that because the health of the mother in the US is considered to include the mental health, it is functionally possible for anyone to say late in a pregnancy that she is very disturbed about the impending birth or the possibility of being responsible for a child, and be able to get an abortion even of a viable baby.  The question of whether that is common is a matter of opinion.  Suppose you just take the number 400,000 as the number of abortions annually in the US.  Suppose you then say, well, only 5% of those are late term.  That would be 20,000 viable babies.  To me that is a lot.  To others it might not be.  Statistics only tell the stories if you look at them as a whole.

[Carol in Cal.]

Where are ELECTIVE abortions in the 3rd trimester available? 20 weeks is not 3rd trimester...the third trimester starts at 27 weeks.

 

In Florida, apparently, if you're willing to say that you have a mental health issue with having the baby.

Did you read the details in that second website?  They are all about patient comfort, and specialize in one day procedures.  

 

Also just as it is a mistake to equate all prolife people with zealots who don't support abortion in ANY circumstance or criminals who gun down doctors and bomb clinics, it's a mistake to equate all pro choice people with the tiny handful of people who support abortion all 9 months with out any qualms. I've heard people make the argument that a 38 weeker is "just a lump of cells" and the mother has an absolute right to abortion at any point in the gestation up to labor. These people are not common nor do I take them seriously (how could I with a son who was born at 35 weeks gestation?) I will hazard a guess that most of the prochoice people on this thread probably think that position is looney tune bananas.

See, this is shifting, and that is one of the things I find so troubling.  You might be right about the posters in this thread, but that's by no means universal.  And that's a huge change from the 1970s.

[Carol in Cal.]

 This is what one of your links says about medical reasons for a third trimester termination: They all sound pretty tragic to me. 

 

 Medical and therapeutic indications for third trimester include pregnancies that are life threatening to the mother's life or health, a significant fetal abnormality, genetic defect, rape or incest.

Again, 'threatening to the mother's health' includes mental health.  For people who are well versed in this, it creates a loophole that is exploitable.

[Carol in Cal.]

The post 21 weeks figure is more like 1.3%.

 

Against the loss of potentially viable babies, you have to weigh things like loss of the mother ( in maternal ill health situations) and psychological and physical distress to the mother ( in many situations, including but not limited to rape and incest ). 

 

I understand pro life people don't weight those things, or weight them and find them wanting, but I contend they must be weighed. 

 

If people want to reduce the (tiny) percentage of elective second trimester terminations, don't restrict access to sex ed, contraception and first trimester abortion!

I favor sex ed and contraception (non-aborifacient).

 

And I favor prioritizing the life of the mother.  I don't fail to weight that.  Others who are against abortion in this thread have said the same thing.

 

OK, say it's 1.3%.  Say that's of 400,000.  That then would mean over 5000 viable babies.  That's a lot.  One is too many, and 5000 is a lot.

[heartlikealion]

Given pain reception takes place in the neocortex, which is not developed in a first trimester foetus, anything you've heard about this is likely to be pro life propaganda. 

 

I don't know at what trimester it was in reference to. So yes, that probably makes a difference. There are video clips on YouTube but I don't know if I can handle it. I hear myths which may or may not be repeated by medical professionals about whether or not newborns can feel certain pain and/or how effective pain relief measures are (circumcision in babies for example). I just have trust issues with matters like these even with scientific data.

[zoobie]

In a case where a woman had to have a stillborn baby removed, I think I'd call it a D&C, not an abortion. Maybe I'm off here.

 

In the case of extra fertilized embryos, well, yes I'd see if there was a way for them to not be discarded. Seems that every time a woman does IVF (okay, just the stories I hear in the media, I don't have stats) there are multiples involved and/or more than the couple expects, so I personally wouldn't take that risk to begin with if I wasn't ready to deal with the result of extra embryos. If doctors didn't discuss this possibility maybe it's not as popular as I think, but I do think it is something they should discuss beforehand so the couple has time to deliberate. If this was not a moral conundrum to my family, then it wouldn't matter to me. I didn't read the embryo adoption link yet so I don't know how involved that would be.

 

I don't really like discussions about when a person or thing can feel pain because I am a huge skeptic. My baby had laser frenectomies as an infant. We were assured that many babies don't feel a thing, only cry from being held down. We were assured that the topical treatment was very powerful and kicked in right away. The dentist said she'd tried it on herself before. Many people don't think babies even need to use pain reliever (infant Tylenol or Motrin depending on age) for it. I wish I hadn't listened. I will never know what dd felt but I just know she was in pain/discomfort. The only reason we did it again was because the dr fiddled with the area on the check up appointment saying she was trying to fix it but made it worse and we had little choice to work on her a second time or have it heal horribly. You can bet I gave her pain reliever immediately and made sure we waited a bit for it to kick in. I have heard that the fetus will move away when a dr tries to do an abortion. I just don't know what they know/feel/sense and my doubt is enough to give me pause.

D&C is an abortion. It's illegal after so many weeks in most states, which limits the woman's options no matter whether the fetus is alive or not. Or, like that horrible case in Ireland for one example, when the fetus was decomposing and causing septicemia in the woman yet the hospital still said there was a heartbeat so they let the woman die.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I know you get your links and data from anti-abortion websites, who dispute the figure. Not meant as a personal attack, just a reasonable deduction.

 

I am waiting to see alternative health clinics from local health departments.  There is certainly no law saying other clinics to service poor women can't be constructed.  Competition for their business would be most welcome.

 

Exactly. PP is often one of the only providers for access to birth control and health care for poor women in many places. I can testify that I went there 20  some years ago since my regular gynecologist was booked over 6 months out for regular gynecological appointments. PP was quickly available for a gynecological exam, pap smear, breast exam and BC for me.

 

No one is stopping cities from setting up free clinics for birth control and gynecology services for women in these cities. Certainly PP is not stopping them.

 

Lastly, if you favor exceptions for abortion, then you should not be against PP since they are often the only providers available to women. Also, if you are against abortion, then you should be in favor of birth control and PP's main purpose is birth control. Birth control is the only way to effectively reduce abortions.

[ktgrok]

Considering 90% of abortions are before 13 weeks, and that relatively few abortions are truly late term, by definition he would be.

 

Either way, given how many abortions are done each year, 10% is still a very high number of babies/fetuses being aborted beyond that. I've seen my babies on ultrasound at 18 weeks. They are not a bundle of cells, or "products of conception", they are babies. Are some abortions needed at that point for the safety of all involved, or to prevent even greater suffering? Sure. But it's still incredibly upsetting, and it seems that some are happening for reasons much less grave. 

 

(to be clear, I'm in the safe, rare, and legal camp. At least in our current society. Once we have an ideal society where women are fully supported in pregnancy and parenting, including universal healthcare, free or inexepensive daycare, paid maternity leave, easy access to food, rapes are all prosecuted fairly, abuse is no longer prevalent, etc, then I'll worry about the legalities of it. Until then, the best way to reduce abortion is to address those factors. I'll deal with the exceptions after that....no point in focusing on them now.)

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I favor sex ed and contraception (non-aborifacient).

 

And I favor prioritizing the life of the mother.  I don't fail to weight that.  Others who are against abortion in this thread have said the same thing.

 

OK, say it's 1.3%.  Say that's of 400,000.  That then would mean over 5000 viable babies.  That's a lot.  One is too many, and 5000 is a lot.

So what is on your list of birth control that cause abortions? The pill? The Plan B emergency contraception? The IUD? Should we outlaw them?

 

 

The anti-birth control stance by many pro-life people defeats their purposes IMHO. Many deny that pro-life folks are against birth control, yet we have seen in our country many efforts to hinder access to birth control. For example, pharmacists are allowed to their own conscience as a reason not to fill prescriptions for birth control. Then there were fights about allowing Plan B to be sold over-the counter at drug stores. Then there were fights about allowing teens access to birth control without parental knowledge. Then there were fights to mandate free birth control with Obamacare such as the Hobby Lobby fight to not cover birth control. Then there are fights to get rid of PP who is often the only provider available to poor women. Then there are fights against sex ed.

 

So yeah, I am thinking many pro-life folks are against birth control. 

[Susan Wise Bauer]

If your post got deleted, please rethink your tone. Thank you.

[Murphy101]

On the side subject of fetus being given funerals...

 

This came through my news feed this morning and I thought it timely.

 

Ancient egyption coffin found to have a fetus in it.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/11/ancient-egyptian-coffin-found-to-hold-youngest-known-mummified-foetus

[poppy]

So what is on your list of birth control that cause abortions? The pill? The Plan B emergency contraception? The IUD? Should we outlaw them?

 

 

The anti-birth control stance by many pro-life people defeats their purposes IMHO. Many deny that pro-life folks are against birth control, yet we have seen in our country many efforts to hinder access to birth control. For example, pharmacists are allowed to their own conscience as a reason not to fill prescriptions for birth control. Then there were fights about allowing Plan B to be sold over-the counter at drug stores. Then there were fights about allowing teens access to birth control without parental knowledge. Then there were fights to mandate free birth control with Obamacare such as the Hobby Lobby fight to not cover birth control. Then there are fights to get rid of PP who is often the only provider available to poor women. Then there are fights against sex ed.

 

So yeah, I am thinking many pro-life folks are against birth control. 

 

The pill is considered aborifacients by some people, like Hobby Lobby, because it  may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. 

 

So yes, that poster appears to be in favor of banning (or at least blocking education about) both abortion and the birth control pill.

[poppy]

I don't know at what trimester it was in reference to. So yes, that probably makes a difference. There are video clips on YouTube but I don't know if I can handle it. I hear myths which may or may not be repeated by medical professionals about whether or not newborns can feel certain pain and/or how effective pain relief measures are (circumcision in babies for example). I just have trust issues with matters like these even with scientific data.

 

It's really hard.

One reason I am so disgusted by the sham crisis pregnancy clinics (the conversation that started this thread) is that there is a lot of evidence that some of them routinely lie to their patients.  Showing ultrasounds of later-term pregnancies, for example, or exaggerating the dangers of an abortion procedure.  Women need to trust they are being given the truth from their care providers.

[MercyA]

The late abortionist George Tiller? You do mean the MURDERED Dr. George Tiller, right? Because someone killed him and the minute one either murders someone or condones such a murder, they unequivocally lose the right to call themselves prolife and be taken seriously in my book. A life is a life...except people who do things I don't like? I recall no such exemption to Thou shall not kill. I know you aren't doing that but when people discuss Dr. Tiller, they should admit that he was killed and that killing him was immoral.

 

Former staff members of abortion clinics have been known to lie. Some seek jobs just so they can later lie or churn out propaganda. And some of the sources of your information are not just biased, some are inflammatory and known to affliate with groups that condone targeting clinic staff and their families (including children) for harrassment, and in the process getting people killed. This is not a one sided cut and dry matter.

 

The only teens I have ever known to jot tell their parents they were pregnant? Those who feared rejection, being ostracized or even abused by parents who didn't want to hear it. Generally the ones most likely to react like that? Prolife parents. Maybe parents like that need to foster a more legitimately prolife environment where pregnancy won't be met with guilt and shame but sympathy and support. My church camp friends were the ones getting knocked up and having abortions in high school. My school friends in the city? Either didn't have sex or if they did, they used birth control. Many of the church friends rejected having birth control in their posession because they "weren't going to have sex" but then one thing led to another.

 

It's ironic that I was thought the floozy in church camp by many of the kids who were secretly sexually active because I didn't wear a bra (didn't have much to put into it if I had, lol), refused to swim with a tshirt over my swimming suit and was willing to talk about sexuality but I'm the one who has lived their supposed and much preached ideal.

 

I thought that George Tiller's murder was common knowledge (at least among the people posting in this thread), and it wasn't the topic of my post. Murder is always wrong. I didn't think I would have to spell that out after my other comments here.

 

I'm sure both pro-choice and pro-life people lie at times. Lying is always wrong. I don't have any reason to believe that Tiller's former employee was lying, however, since his actual spokesperson also said that at least 75% of his late-term abortions were performed on teenagers who had hidden their pregnancies.

 

I've been careful in this thread to quote information mostly from the Guttmacher Institute (pro-choice), the CDC, and, in one case, a newspaper article. I didn't see anyone questioning my pro-choice or neutral sources, but the minute I included a quote from a pro-life article, several people immediately jumped all over it. I find that inconsistent at best. I included the quote from the pro-life site because I couldn't initially find the source for one of my other statements. I edited my post when I found it later.

 

I abhor hypocrisy and am just as critical of the "pro-life" people who describe as you are. I remember what you've shared, in other threads, about your relationship with your husband, and I admire you for it.

Edited May 14, 2016 by MercyA

[Tanaqui]

OK, say it's 1.3%.  Say that's of 400,000.  That then would mean over 5000 viable babies.  That's a lot.  One is too many, and 5000 is a lot.

 

A fetus at 21 weeks is not exactly "viable", but why quibble? Those aborted at the point of viability generally aren't actually viable either - they have some condition that's incompatible with life.

[heartlikealion]

D&C is an abortion. It's illegal after so many weeks in most states, which limits the woman's options no matter whether the fetus is alive or not. Or, like that horrible case in Ireland for one example, when the fetus was decomposing and causing septicemia in the woman yet the hospital still said there was a heartbeat so they let the woman die.

 

I think there's some gray area on the matter. Sometimes it will be defined as the same thing, sometimes not. I don't think of it as the same because you aren't aborting (to me this means terminating) anything if you've already miscarried or have a stillborn. I know people that have had to have a D&C and I wouldn't use the terms interchangeably.

 

[heartlikealion]

It helps sort the wheat from the chaff if you read up on how the foetal brain develops. 

 

I believe you. I'm just saying that I don't always believe science to be on the mark. One day this is held true, years later they say oh well actually such n such is true as we have investigated further. Most doctors would have women believe that taking certain drugs during labor won't reach the baby and I've read contrary.

 

It's really hard.

One reason I am so disgusted by the sham crisis pregnancy clinics (the conversation that started this thread) is that there is a lot of evidence that some of them routinely lie to their patients.  Showing ultrasounds of later-term pregnancies, for example, or exaggerating the dangers of an abortion procedure.  Women need to trust they are being given the truth from their care providers.

 

I don't agree with misinformation. If they are upfront about the time frame before they show the footage, that's one thing.

[zoobie]

I think there's some gray area on the matter. Sometimes it will be defined as the same thing, sometimes not. I don't think of it as the same because you aren't aborting (to me this means terminating) anything if you've already miscarried or have a stillborn. I know people that have had to have a D&C and I wouldn't use the terms interchangeably.

 

It's the medical procedure's name. Whether you or I think of it differently doesn't matter. It would be illegal to have a D&C after X weeks (depends on state law), and the woman either has to travel to another state or country or go through delivery, vaginal or caesarean, of the fetus. No matter if the D&C would be best medically for the woman.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I thought that George Tiller's murder was common knowledge (at least among the people posting in this thread), and it wasn't the topic of my post. Murder is always wrong. I didn't think I would have to spell that out after my other comments here.

 

I'm sure both pro-choice and pro-life people lie at times. Lying is always wrong. I don't have any reason to believe that Tiller's former employee was lying, however, since his actual spokesperson also said that at least 75% of his late-term abortions were performed on teenagers who had hidden their pregnancies.

 

I've been careful in this thread to quote information mostly from the Guttmacher Institute (pro-choice), the CDC, and, in one case, a newspaper article. I didn't see anyone questioning my pro-choice or neutral sources, but the minute I included a quote from a pro-life article, several people immediately jumped all over it. I find that inconsistent at best. I included the quote from the pro-life site because I couldn't initially find the source for one of my other statements. I edited my post when I found it later.

 

I abhor hypocrisy and am just as critical of the "pro-life" people who describe as you are. I remember what you've shared, in other threads, about your relationship with your husband, and I admire you for it.

 

I don't have any reason to believe she is telling the truth, and much of what she says seems highly suspect.

[heartlikealion]

It's the medical procedure's name. Whether you or I think of it differently doesn't matter. It would be illegal to have a D&C after X weeks (depends on state law), and the woman either has to travel to another state or country or go through delivery, vaginal or caesarean, of the fetus. No matter if the D&C would be best medically for the woman.

 

Oh ok. I wasn't trying to argue that. That is unfortunate. I was just saying I didn't agree with using the term abortion in certain cases.

[TranquilMind]

I don't think so  But, the vast majority of PP patients are not pregnant. Its focus is almost entirely on STD treatment, contraception and cancer screenings.

 

double post, sorry

Edited May 14, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

I don't think so  But, the vast majority of PP patients are not pregnant. Its focus is almost entirely on STD treatment, contraception and cancer screenings.

 

That isn't true.  PP claims this because it makes every single little thing it does a separate service.  For example, woman sets appointment for abortion. She gets a multitude of "services" all billed separately, such as appointment time blocked off, blood tests, tests for STD's, any other ancilliary tests deemed wise, birth control consultation,  pregnancy test, sedation, other drugs, food or drink after if necessary, doctor charge, room charge, the abortion itself.  Of course, when categorized that way, abortion is a small percentage of the services rendered. 

 

The whole point of PP is abortion, and to a secondary degree, birth control.    Lies, damned lies, and statistics. 

 

 

http://liveactionnews.org/heres-why-planned-parenthoods-3-abortion-claim-is-misleading/

 

[Tanaqui]

Tranquilmind, somebody else posted that same article (or a highly similar one making the same claim) upthread. Even they weren't able to get a number larger than 15% for abortion and abortion-related services combined. That's still a minority.

[heartlikealion]

Tranquilmind, somebody else posted that same article (or a highly similar one making the same claim) upthread. Even they weren't able to get a number larger than 15% for abortion and abortion-related services combined. That's still a minority.

 

Is it because not all their offices offer abortion? I wonder what the stats are if we only looked at the clinics that offered all the services? I'm not saying it would be 95%, just curious where it would fall.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Is it because not all their offices offer abortion? I wonder what the stats are if we only looked at the clinics that offered all the services? I'm not saying it would be 95%, just curious where it would fall.

 

 

Probably higher at those clinics because others would be referring them there for services.  I have no idea what you believe that statistic would prove.

[Tanaqui]

Is it because not all their offices offer abortion? I wonder what the stats are if we only looked at the clinics that offered all the services? I'm not saying it would be 95%, just curious where it would fall.

It would probably be way above average for PP overall, because that's where you'd go for an abortion while the clinic down the block that doesn't offer abortion is nearby and convenient for other services.

[heartlikealion]

Probably higher at those clinics because others would be referring them there for services.  I have no idea what you believe that statistic would prove.

 

It would probably be way above average for PP overall, because that's where you'd go for an abortion while the clinic down the block that doesn't offer abortion is nearby and convenient for other services.

 

I'm talking about areas where there is little to no option for services outside of the PP clinic. So, everyone is going there for STD testing, mammograms, condoms, etc. But no one is getting an abortion there. When they tally up their services it doesn't reflect the women that walked in looking for an abortion. I get that no abortion = nothing to reflect. But I'm just wondering. Like if you owned five gyms and only one had a swimming pool. You might say swimming was only used by 20% of your clients. But only 20% of your clients lived by the pool. Now you look at just the one gym with the pool and say well actually the pool was used by a greater portion than 20%.

Edited May 14, 2016 by heartlikealion

[Tanaqui]

I'm not really sure what you're saying. Are you saying that people who don't live near anyplace where they can get an abortion are less likely to get an abortion? That's true, but many of them simply eat the cost and travel further away.

[heartlikealion]

I'm not really sure what you're saying. Are you saying that people who don't live near anyplace where they can get an abortion are less likely to get an abortion? That's true, but many of them simply eat the cost and travel further away.

 

I know, I'm not making sense! Let me start over. I guess what I'm saying is with the gym example... if I looked at only my gyms that had the pool, I could make a statistic like, "75% of our clients use the pool." But if I look at all my gyms I'd have to say, "20% of our clients use the pool." Although the same physical number of people use the pool no matter which stat I cite, one makes it look like a lot of people and one makes it look like a small figure. So if PP only gave the stats of the clinics that offer abortion, I'm sure the figure would appear bigger than their current 3% figure. And I am curious how significantly bigger it would sound.

 

You could do the same with McDonald's around the world. Only some McDonald's offer ___ item so if you do stats on how many ___ are sold, it would look higher if you only included the chains that sell ___ item.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I know, I'm not making sense! Let me start over. I guess what I'm saying is with the gym example... if I looked at only my gyms that had the pool, I could make a statistic like, "75% of our clients use the pool." But if I look at all my gyms I'd have to say, "20% of our clients use the pool." Although the same physical number of people use the pool no matter which stat I cite, one makes it look like a lot of people and one makes it look like a small figure. So if PP only gave the stats of the clinics that offer abortion, I'm sure the figure would appear bigger than their current 3% figure. And I am curious how significantly bigger it would sound.

 

You could do the same with McDonald's around the world. Only some McDonald's offer ___ item so if you do stats on how many ___ are sold, it would look higher if you only included the chains that sell ___ item.

 

I still don't see your point. 

 

In the gym example, both are true.  And in the case of PP, those who can't receive a service at one clinic will go to another.

[heartlikealion]

I still don't see your point. 

 

In the gym example, both are true.  And in the case of PP, those who can't receive a service at one clinic will go to another.

 

Yes, both are true. But one figure gives one impression and one gives another. When I used to see memes on facebook with the PP charts shared, it was always to push one angle or another. "Look! They don't do many abortions at all! Why does everyone hate on PP? They are helping people with STD screenings and other things much more!" vs "Look how many abortions they do a year!"

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes, both are true. But one figure gives one impression and one gives another. When I used to see memes on facebook with the PP charts shared, it was always to push one angle or another. "Look! They don't do many abortions at all! Why does everyone hate on PP? They are helping people with STD screenings and other things much more!" vs "Look how many abortions they do a year!"

 

 

But they are doing much more than abortions.  And you continue to ignore that those who can't access abortions in one area will seek them elsewhere. 

[Caroline]

But they are doing much more than abortions. And you continue to ignore that those who can't access abortions in one area will seek them elsewhere.

Agreeing and adding that some women who cannot access abortions in one area will simply try to do it herself.

[heartlikealion]

But they are doing much more than abortions.  And you continue to ignore that those who can't access abortions in one area will seek them elsewhere. 

 

I didn't mean to ignore that. I was just saying that had no bearing on the PP stats unless the place where they seek them happens to be another PP clinic. In the state of Louisiana, their clinic does not do abortions. I think they have to go out of state to get one and I don't know how far they have to travel.

 

Editing: I'm unclear on LA now after looking it up online but I remember people living there commenting on it on facebook. On the website it is kind of foggy whether they offer it or not using wording like "eventually" in regards to their clinic. Either way, it sounds like it's offered at some other places in the state currently so I didn't mean to misspeak.

Edited May 14, 2016 by heartlikealion

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I didn't mean to ignore that. I was just saying that had no bearing on the PP stats unless the place where they seek them happens to be another PP clinic. In the state of Louisiana, their clinic does not do abortions. I think they have to go out of state to get one and I don't know how far they have to travel.

 

 

Then we are back to the point where I cannot figure out what point you are making.

 

[heartlikealion]

Then we are back to the point where I cannot figure out what point you are making.

 

 

All I was trying to say is I'd like to see the figures of Planned Parenthood clinics that offer abortion and how the pie chart looks with regards to abortion if you remove the clinics that do not offer abortion from the chart. You'd also be removing the other services from the other clinics as well. Just wondering how skewed the pie chart would be in the opposite direction.

 

I'm not arguing that women might go to other places to have an abortion. I'm not arguing that women are in danger if they try to perform one themselves. I'm not even sure how I feel about pro-life/pro-choice as far as legal options go these days.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

All I was trying to say is I'd like to see the figures of Planned Parenthood clinics that offer abortion and how the pie chart looks with regards to abortion if you remove the clinics that do not offer abortion from the chart. You'd also be removing the other services from the other clinics as well. Just wondering how skewed the pie chart would be in the opposite direction.

 

I'm not arguing that women might go to other places to have an abortion. I'm not arguing that women are in danger if they try to perform one themselves. I'm not even sure how I feel about pro-life/pro-choice as far as legal options go these days.

 

 

Of course the pie chart will look different.

[Ausmumof3]

A fetus at 21 weeks is not exactly "viable", but why quibble? Those aborted at the point of viability generally aren't actually viable either - they have some condition that's incompatible with life.

Fwiw I looked up stats in my state and in one year of 100 abortions after 24 weeks, 50 were due to foetal issues and 50 were due to mothers mental health issues. Compared to the total number of live births it's small but 50 is not an insignificant number of healthy viable foetuses.

[Ausmumof3]

Also not all foetuses aborted for issues are non viable. In one story it was a malformed hand that prompted parents to choose to abort a late term foetus.

[Murphy101]

Also not all foetuses aborted for issues are non viable. In one story it was a malformed hand that prompted parents to choose to abort a late term foetus.

Lots and lots of suspected Down syndrome babies are aborted for example.

[Carol in Cal.]

Lots and lots of suspected Down syndrome babies are aborted for example.

Almost all of them in the US, for instance.

This has become so common that now most Downs babies are born to mothers who are fairly young, because they tend not to get amnio tests.

 

When I was pregnant and told my OB that I didn't plan to have amnio (I was 39), she frowned and asked gently, "Do you WANT a retarded baby?"  I told her just as gently that I didn't think that was the point.  

 

Choice, my foot.

 

I have friends who thought they were required to have amnio, didn't realized that they even could decline.  Sigh.

[Valley Girl]

Almost all of them in the US, for instance.

This has become so common that now most Downs babies are born to mothers who are fairly young, because they tend not to get amnio tests.

 

When I was pregnant and told my OB that I didn't plan to have amnio (I was 39), she frowned and asked gently, "Do you WANT a retarded baby?"  I told her just as gently that I didn't think that was the point.  

 

Choice, my foot.

 

I have friends who thought they were required to have amnio, didn't realized that they even could decline.  Sigh.

 

Mine (I was also over 35) told me that if he could force me to have an amnio, he would. We opted for less invasive screening as a first course and probably would have gone ahead with an amnio if the first test revealed a problem, but only so we could be prepared for special needs. I realize that's slightly off-topic, but, yeah, even 15+ years ago, I felt pressured to not risk having a Downs baby.

 

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Almost all of them in the US, for instance.

This has become so common that now most Downs babies are born to mothers who are fairly young, because they tend not to get amnio tests.

 

When I was pregnant and told my OB that I didn't plan to have amnio (I was 39), she frowned and asked gently, "Do you WANT a retarded baby?"  I told her just as gently that I didn't think that was the point.  

 

Choice, my foot.

 

I have friends who thought they were required to have amnio, didn't realized that they even could decline.  Sigh.

When I was pregnant with my kid at 40, I did not feel pressured at all. The doctor laid out the risks for Downs due to my age. I had the blood work done which was inconclusive from what I recall and decided an amnio was not worth the tiny risk of miscarriage since I felt this was my only shot at having a baby. No problems. You know some docs are just jerks but in my experience as a nurse many are nice.