Jump to content

Menu

crisis pregnancy centers as portrayed on Full Frontal


SparklyUnicorn
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think it's funny that people think that pro-life folks are also going to somehow be the same crowd advocating for adultery and killing dissenters and hanging them in the town square. I mean, really? It's almost comical what people think the anti-abortion message actually is. To the point that they think the Handmaid's Tale is an accurate, logical conclusion to saving innocent human lives. That book in particular made me realize how much the pro-choice crowd does not actually understand the anti choice position at all. Not even a little bit. If they think forced adultery with a caste of childbearers is even remotely something pro-life people would advocate for.

 

I can help you understand this better.   Go back and read what MercyA said in response to this statement:

"It is wrong to mistreat people, especially those who are already vulnerable".

Her reply was "you are absolutely right. It is wrong to mistreat (and kill) any innocent human being, most especially those who are vulnerable, weak, and helpless, and that is why no nuanced discussion is needed. Killing innocents is always wrong, and I'm not ashamed to say it."

 

Her reply just one example of many in this thread that completely erased any reference to the pregnant woman.  Really not a single ethical concern at all about them being lied to or mistreated. Not even a token 'it's too bad'. Once pregnant, women become mere vessels. Which is the core conceit of The Handmaid's Tale. 

 

 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can help you understand this better.   Go back and read what MercyA said in response to this statement:

"It is wrong to mistreat people, especially those who are already vulnerable".

Her reply was "you are absolutely right. It is wrong to mistreat (and kill) any innocent human being, most especially those who are vulnerable, weak, and helpless, and that is why no nuanced discussion is needed. Killing innocents is always wrong, and I'm not ashamed to say it."

 

Her reply just one example of many in this thread that completely erased any reference to the pregnant woman.  Really not a single ethical concern at all about them being lied to or mistreated. Not even a token 'it's too bad'. Once pregnant, women become mere vessels. Which is the core conceit of The Handmaid's Tale. 

 

Poppy, I have never said, nor do I believe, that lying to or "mistreating" women are appropriate responses in any situation. I was speaking to the extreme irony of someone stating that it's wrong to mistreat vulnerable women, when those women are planning not only to mistreat but to kill living human beings much more vulnerable then themselves. 

 

All human life has great value. It is natural, at times, to be more concerned about those who are in imminent danger of death than those who are not.

Edited by MercyA
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's funny that people think that pro-life folks are also going to somehow be the same crowd advocating for adultery and killing dissenters and hanging them in the town square. I mean, really? It's almost comical what people think the anti-abortion message actually is. To the point that they think the Handmaid's Tale is an accurate, logical conclusion to saving innocent human lives. That book in particular made me realize how much the pro-choice crowd does not actually understand the anti choice position at all. Not even a little bit. If they think forced adultery with a caste of childbearers is even remotely something pro-life people would advocate for.

 

lol ever take a closer look at the theology of some segments of the anti-choice crowd?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poppy, I have never said, nor do I believe, that lying to or "mistreating" women are appropriate responses in any situation. I was speaking to the extreme irony of someone stating that it's wrong to mistreat vulnerable women, when those women are planning not only to mistreat but to kill living human beings much more vulnerable then themselves.

 

All human life has great value. It is natural, at times, to be more concerned about those who are in imminent danger of death than those who are not.

I don't think any one can conclude just how vulnerable a woman is in a pregnancy besides that woman.

 

My mother, at age 20, gave birth to a son conceived out of gang rape. That was her choice to make and one I admire. However, I believe fervently that just because my mom was able to make that choice does not mean that all women of 19 would be able to make that same decision or should be stripped of any of their available options in the wake of that degree of trauma----> as such I consider the desire to make abortion illegal to be naive and condescending at best and honestly, at times just plain cruelty. The life of the mother is not less valuable because she is pregnant.

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can help you understand this better.   Go back and read what MercyA said in response to this statement:

"It is wrong to mistreat people, especially those who are already vulnerable".

Her reply was "you are absolutely right. It is wrong to mistreat (and kill) any innocent human being, most especially those who are vulnerable, weak, and helpless, and that is why no nuanced discussion is needed. Killing innocents is always wrong, and I'm not ashamed to say it."

 

Her reply just one example of many in this thread that completely erased any reference to the pregnant woman.  Really not a single ethical concern at all about them being lied to or mistreated. Not even a token 'it's too bad'. Once pregnant, women become mere vessels. Which is the core conceit of The Handmaid's Tale. 

 

Yes. . . I didn't reply to Mercy because she said she didn't have time to participate in a discussion and because I didn't want to monopolize the thread.  But yes. . . I saw what she did.  "Vulnerable people" clearly referenced to pregnant women seeking abortions.  I do agree that we also shouldn't mistreat children, but that wasn't what I was talking about.  I was saying why I am against attacking women who are seeking an abortion.  I could see where a woman might be dissuaded from getting an abortion that day by "at all costs" style treatment.  But I question whether she went somewhere else to get her abortion.

 

Also as a previous poster said . . . "where are these children now?"  Alive.  Wonderful.  Life isn't the end all be all of ethics, even pro-life ethics.  A child should be more than alive, it should thrive.  The difficulty in hard choices is always in acting in situation where both options are bad.  The decision isn't always abortion or picturesque adoption, abortion or happy baby being raised by happy parents.  These choices are easier (not easy, easier).  But for a pro-life person: abortion or abused crack baby, abortion or dead mother, abortion or extreme unrelenting poverty & neglect.  These choices are heart breakingly difficult.  I don't know what the equivalent is for a pro-choice person.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's funny that people think that pro-life folks are also going to somehow be the same crowd advocating for adultery and killing dissenters and hanging them in the town square. I mean, really? It's almost comical what people think the anti-abortion message actually is. To the point that they think the Handmaid's Tale is an accurate, logical conclusion to saving innocent human lives. That book in particular made me realize how much the pro-choice crowd does not actually understand the anti choice position at all. Not even a little bit. If they think forced adultery with a caste of childbearers is even remotely something pro-life people would advocate for.

Actually the number of people I know who call themselves "pro-life" but are also pro-war, pro death penalty and pro economic policies that make children one of the most impoverished demographics is not unsubstantial. I only know a small number of consistently pro-life people. My mother was one- just as likely to attend an anti-death penalty vigil or anti-war rally as show up at a prolife rally. I believe based on what I have read on WTM that Mercy A is another one who is consistently pro(all)life and not just anti-abortion. Most however are not so consistent. I understand the pro-life and anti-choice opinions- I grew up with them. One can understand while also rejecting the position, for any number of reasons.

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poppy, I have never said, nor do I believe, that lying to or "mistreating" women are appropriate responses in any situation. I was speaking to the extreme irony of someone stating that it's wrong to mistreat vulnerable women, when those women are planning not only to mistreat but to kill living human beings much more vulnerable then themselves. 

 

All human life has great value. It is natural, at times, to be more concerned about those who are in imminent danger of death than those who are not.

 

Wow Mercy.  I understand full well what those women intend to do.  Very few of them are monsters who would suffocate a baby because it became inconvenient.  I assure you my compassion for pregnant women, does not blind me to the reality of abortion.  Let's face it abortion does kill fetuses.   But, but, but, here is where the nuance comes in.  The fetus's life has value, but so do women, so do babies who have been born, so do children.  We must be careful not to save the unborn at the expense of women & children.  

 

If we want to prevent abortion, we must work to prevent desperation.  To do otherwise is like trying to prevent suicide, without concerning oneself with depression.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 The life of the mother is not less valuable because she is pregnant.

 

I agree. However, I also believe a child's value is not lessened by the circumstances of her conception, or by her degree of dependence, or by her level of development. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the number of people I know who call themselves "pro-life" but are also pro-war, pro death penalty and pro economic policies that make children one of the most impoverished demographics is not unsubstantial. I only know a small number of consistently pro-life people. My mother was one- just as likely to attend an anti death penatly vigil oranti war rally as show up at a prolife rally. I believe based on what I have read on WTM that Mercy A is another one who is pro all life and not just anti abortion. Most however are not so consistent. I understand the pro-life and anti-choice opinions- I grew up with them. One can understand while also rejecting the position, for any number of reasons.

 

I take that as a very great compliment, Katie. Thank you. I'm very concerned with and frustrated by the inconsistencies I see in the views of some pro-lifers, and I think calling people out on those inconsistencies is entirely appropriate. 

 

I would loved to have met your mother. She sounds like an amazing woman.

Edited by MercyA
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. However, I also believe a child's value is not lessened by the circumstances of her conception, or by her degree of dependence, or by her level of development.

I can save only one. My one year old or my 5 week pregnancy. I think most people agree that in that theoretical instance, the 1 year old's life is clearly different than the 5 week embryo.

 

Also, having seen the complex issues of raising a child conceived in rape up close (this child is after all my brother and I grew up with him) I know a little of the considerable strain placed on both the mother and the child because someone in the family doesn't keep it a secret. That's some painful stuff. I'm glad my mother didn't end her own life. Bluntly,I sometimes wonder if my brother would have been better off adopted and indemnified from the knowledge. I think he might be a healthier and more functional adult though I do darkly consider the impact of genetics on his life. All we know about the not-father is that he was a jackass and there's a level of jackassery in this brother that exceeds anything he learned or got from my mother. He's not allowed around my kids and our only interactions are texts because I won't take his calls. That's not because I am biased against him (we were close as kids), it's because he's a dangerous person. It was my mother's decision to not have an abortion and she did the best she could after he was born. I wouldn't want to undo her choice but there is none denying his birth came at a great opportunity cost to my mother. There's a lot of grey in the whole kit and caboodle. I wish I could say my mother made a brave choice and it all worked out well. Yes she made all brave choice but life didn't work out all that well.

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take that as a very great compliment, Katie. Thank you. I'm very concerned with and frustrated by the inconsistencies I see in the views of some pro-lifers, and I think calling people out on those inconsistencies is entirely appropriate. 

 

I would loved to have met your mother. She sounds like an amazing woman.

I am pro-life, pro-gay marriage, pro-gay adoption, anti-divorce when someone has children, anti-war, pro-free birth control and even free vasectomies, etc. But a baby should not have to suffer because a mom changes her mind. And while I agree that plan B should be offered and easily available, as it is now, I do not think a baby should have to suffer because the mom says she was raped but never took plan B. I think all babies are important, gay, unborn, female, male, etc. 

 

IF a woman could die if she carries the pregnancy, then I think it should be her choice to chose her life. When a woman stays pregnant to save her baby, sometimes, the baby dies anyway. If her life is in danger, then I think it is reasonable to save her even if she loses the baby. But it should be her choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. . . I didn't reply to Mercy because she said she didn't have time to participate in a discussion and because I didn't want to monopolize the thread.  But yes. . . I saw what she did.  "Vulnerable people" clearly referenced to pregnant women seeking abortions.  I do agree that we also shouldn't mistreat children, but that wasn't what I was talking about.  I was saying why I am against attacking women who are seeking an abortion.  I could see where a woman might be dissuaded from getting an abortion that day by "at all costs" style treatment.  But I question whether she went somewhere else to get her abortion.

 

Also as a previous poster said . . . "where are these children now?"  Alive.  Wonderful.  Life isn't the end all be all of ethics, even pro-life ethics.  A child should be more than alive, it should thrive.  The difficulty in hard choices is always in acting in situation where both options are bad.  The decision isn't always abortion or picturesque adoption, abortion or happy baby being raised by happy parents.  These choices are easier (not easy, easier).  But for a pro-life person: abortion or abused crack baby, abortion or dead mother, abortion or extreme unrelenting poverty & neglect.  These choices are heart breakingly difficult.  I don't know what the equivalent is for a pro-choice person.  

 

The choices are the same. We just fall on the side of letting each woman make the choice herself and trying to help her as much as possible no matter her decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pro-life, pro-gay marriage, pro-gay adoption, anti-divorce when someone has children, anti-war, pro-free birth control and even free vasectomies, etc. But a baby should not have to suffer because a mom changes her mind. And while I agree that plan B should be offered and easily available, as it is now, I do not think a baby should have to suffer because the mom says she was raped but never took plan B. I think all babies are important, gay, unborn, female, male, etc.

 

IF a woman could die if she carries the pregnancy, then I think it should be her choice to chose her life. When a woman stays pregnant to save her baby, sometimes, the baby dies anyway. If her life is in danger, then I think it is reasonable to save her even if she loses the baby. But it should be her choice.

.

Plan B has only been available for a relatively short amount of time in the US even though it's existed for much longer...thanks to the lobbying of ostensibly pro-life groups. In 2003, I sought it 6 months post partum after my husband and I knew we'd had a birth control failure (condom) - several open pharmacies with it in stock would not dispense it because the pharmacist willing to dispense it was not on duty. Others didn't carry it. I had to take it much later than I could have and drive clear across town to Planned Parenthood to obtain it. Much of the active American prolife movement is also opposed to birth control.

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poppy, I have never said, nor do I believe, that lying to or "mistreating" women are appropriate responses in any situation. I was speaking to the extreme irony of someone stating that it's wrong to mistreat vulnerable women, when those women are planning not only to mistreat but to kill living human beings much more vulnerable then themselves. 

 

All human life has great value. It is natural, at times, to be more concerned about those who are in imminent danger of death than those who are not.

 

The conclusion I've drawn from this thread is that many people think there is absolutely nothing wrong with lying to vulnerable pregnant women. Women seeking help from a place with the word "crisis" in the title.

 

And I get that. Preventing murder trumps lying, morally, if you believe abortion is murder.

But let's just be really clear about what's going on here.  Here are accusations made in link in the original post:

 

A crisis pregnancy center is a fake abortion clinic. They spread these lies, hoping to frighten women and to persuade them not to go ahead with obtaining the abortion that they want. They create the illusion that they're an abortion clinic by adopting names that are similar to abortion clinics. Adopting the same logos and fonts. They try to have women come in to have a free pregnancy test or a free ultrasound, and then their goal is to detain them.

 

They locate next to an abortion clinic, sometimes in the same building. They con women into thinking they provide the full range of reproductive health care services, when they absolutely do not.

 

Most of these fake clinics do not have licensed medical staff. Women are often given false ultrasound results to make it seem like they're much further on in their pregnancies than they really are.

 

They want women to believe that there are long-term negative consequences, like they won't be able to have children, like they will suffer from post-abortion stress syndrome, or that they would have an increased risk of breast cancer. They make them wait hours for the results of a pregnancy test, which are pretty instantaneous in order to make them listen to sermons and hear their propaganda and false medical information.

 

There are more than twice as many fake clinics as there are legitimate abortion providers in the United States.

 

So just circling back to the beginning to make it clear...... these clinics do routinely lie to and mistreat pregnant women as part of their very reason for being.   Supporting these clinics does mean supporting those behaviors.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conclusion I've drawn from this thread is that many people think there is absolutely nothing wrong with lying to vulnerable pregnant women. Women seeking help from a place with the word "crisis" in the title.

 

And I get that. Preventing murder trumps lying, morally, if you believe abortion is murder.

But let's just be really clear about what's going on here.  Here are accusations made in link in the original post:

 

A crisis pregnancy center is a fake abortion clinic. They spread these lies, hoping to frighten women and to persuade them not to go ahead with obtaining the abortion that they want. They create the illusion that they're an abortion clinic by adopting names that are similar to abortion clinics. Adopting the same logos and fonts. They try to have women come in to have a free pregnancy test or a free ultrasound, and then their goal is to detain them.

 

They locate next to an abortion clinic, sometimes in the same building. They con women into thinking they provide the full range of reproductive health care services, when they absolutely do not.

 

Most of these fake clinics do not have licensed medical staff. Women are often given false ultrasound results to make it seem like they're much further on in their pregnancies than they really are.

 

They want women to believe that there are long-term negative consequences, like they won't be able to have children, like they will suffer from post-abortion stress syndrome, or that they would have an increased risk of breast cancer. They make them wait hours for the results of a pregnancy test, which are pretty instantaneous in order to make them listen to sermons and hear their propaganda and false medical information.

 

There are more than twice as many fake clinics as there are legitimate abortion providers in the United States.

 

So just circling back to the beginning to make it clear...... these clinics do routinely lie to and mistreat pregnant women as part of their very reason for being.   Supporting these clinics does mean supporting those behaviors.

 

 

 

That very biased description is not credible.  Who says they are "fake abortion clinics?"  Do they advertise that they provide abortions?  (Maybe some of them do, but not in the numbers implied above.)  Why shouldn't they locate in a place where their target audience is likely to see them?  Why should a pro-life counseling service need to have licensed medical staff?  What do they mean "farther along in their pregnancy" - does that mean they are presenting the developing human as a developing human instead of a blob?

 

It is true that abortions can cause short-term and long-term negative consequences.  The woman who cleans my house is having a lot of trouble and needing medical procedures because an abortion left her unable to bear children, and she is angry that she was not informed of this possibility.  I know women who regret having abortions decades later.  Seems if you are interested in honesty, you'd want full disclosure.  There are risks.  Some people even die having an abortion.  Some "aborted" kids end up alive but minus an arm or otherwise severely injured.  This is truth.  What purpose is served by censoring it?  How is a woman's decision more informed/free if she has less information?

 

And in general we don't know where their "facts" end and the hyperbole begins.  Hours for the results of a pregnancy test (when they are probably there because they already peed on a stick)?  Hard to believe.  Maybe they stayed for "hours" [if true] because they really weren't sure and wanted to talk about it.

 

FTR I'm not an abortion activist one way or the other.  I see both sides trying to silence each other instead of letting women make their own informed decision.  Neither side is justified in trying to hide or censor true information that might affect a woman's free choice.

Edited by SKL
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop spreading lies and misinformation. 

 

Legal abortions are safer than giving birth, and are one of the safest surgical procedures a woman can undergo; most women who have a first trimester abortion feel relief and do not go on to have emotional or mental health problems; safe, legal abortions do not routinely result in problems with fertility. 

 

Abortion myths debunked.

 

It is not a lie (nor a myth) that there are risks.  The physical problems may not "routinely" happen, but they happen.  Nobody has explained why women should not be informed of this so they can make an informed decision for themselves.

 

ETA your link indicates that 75% of women said the benefits of their abortion outweighed the harm.  Does that mean 25% felt the harm outweighed the benefits?  If so, 25% is not an insignificant number.

Edited by SKL
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She listed the name of the show. It's Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, formerly of the Daily Show. It's a news satire show.

 

The whole point is that states look the other way and allow these charlatan clinics because it's a loaded religious cum political issue. They never would exist if any other medical condition were involved.

 

I am not so sure that it would be easy to shut unlicensed places down. With good legal advice, you can walk a fine line, just on the side of legal even if barely. As long as nobody actually presents themselves as medically trained, they can talk all day long.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's a life on the same level as a child who has been born and life is so sacred, why then do 1/5-1/4 of lives get taken by miscarriage?

 

I would not have an abortion. At times I thought I might but I was wrong. I could not do it.

 

I have two children. I've had *many* more pregnancies, none of which ended on abortion. I miscarried almost every year (and sometimes 2x a year) from age 24-32 and after a three year break, miscarried again at 35. Nothing, not one thing, can compellingly prove to me that I have more than 2 children or that my nearly 13 year old son and 7 year old son are not more validly considered life than all the pregnancies I have, as a young and healthy woman, lost.

 

Politically I remain prochoice because I get to decide for exactly one body: my own. I have no way of knowing if it is in the best interest of a woman or a family to have a child or of determining what I would do if pregnant and knew the baby couldn't live past birth.

 

Standing with you.

I've lost two pregnancies, one that nearly killed me in the process.  I mourned for the loss of an intended future with one, and was merely glad to have survived the other.  They did have huge impacts, but I've never considered them additional children.

 

I've also considered abortion, before and after.  Once while waiting to confirm whether or not my pregnancy would even survive to typical viability, and my midwife was horrified when I told her my thoughts in between sobs. It forced me to look into alternate providers, and I learned just how difficult it is to get an abortion in my area, which terrified me even more than the choice I was facing, itself.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that it's not a life until it can live on its own. 

 

 

Huh.  My 18 year old still cant' live on his own.  He has special needs.  Does he not have life?

 

I think you mean can't live outside of the mother's womb, but even then, when does that become a life that can live on "its own?"  Is it at 22 weeks and 0 days?  Is it at 30 weeks and 1 day?  Is it not a human until that certain moment?

 

 

Edited by DawnM
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no problem with pregnancy crisis centres who only support continuing with a pregnancy if they are open and transparent about that, if they do not use manipulative or coercive practices to convince women to continue with a pregnancy and if they freely refer women who do not want to continue with a pregnancy to other service providers.

 

In other words, if the women and her needs are at the centre of the service provision. Unfortunately, many centres do not have the women at the core of their mission; rather, they have protection of the foetus at the core. That's OK, if you are 100% upfront about that, and if that matches the needs of the woman you are counselling. Often that level of transparency is missing. 

 

I have zero problem with services which only offer counselling for continued pregnancy, so long as they freely refer women for whom this model does not fit on to suitable providers, and so long as their counselling is ethical and non-coercive. 

 

I've worked at/been counselled at truly ethical providers who support each woman according to her needs. That means some women continue with their pregnancies and keep their baby, some women continue and adopt out and some women terminate. All women no matter their choice are treated with the same respect and support. All women deserve this level of care.

 

I don't even think you need to refer them to other places. I mean, is it really their job to give the person directions to say, Planned Parenthood? I don't think so. If the woman point blank asks, "is there a PP around here?" you should answer honestly, but I don't think it's necessary to start rattling off other places just because they realize there are in the wrong place for them. If I owned a vegan restaurant and someone realized they wanted meat, fine. But I'm not going to pull out a list of steakhouses for them.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conclusion I've drawn from this thread is that many people think there is absolutely nothing wrong with lying to vulnerable pregnant women. Women seeking help from a place with the word "crisis" in the title.

 

And I get that. Preventing murder trumps lying, morally, if you believe abortion is murder.

But let's just be really clear about what's going on here. Here are accusations made in link in the original post:

 

A crisis pregnancy center is a fake abortion clinic. They spread these lies, hoping to frighten women and to persuade them not to go ahead with obtaining the abortion that they want. They create the illusion that they're an abortion clinic by adopting names that are similar to abortion clinics. Adopting the same logos and fonts. They try to have women come in to have a free pregnancy test or a free ultrasound, and then their goal is to detain them.

 

They locate next to an abortion clinic, sometimes in the same building. They con women into thinking they provide the full range of reproductive health care services, when they absolutely do not.

 

Most of these fake clinics do not have licensed medical staff. Women are often given false ultrasound results to make it seem like they're much further on in their pregnancies than they really are.

 

They want women to believe that there are long-term negative consequences, like they won't be able to have children, like they will suffer from post-abortion stress syndrome, or that they would have an increased risk of breast cancer. They make them wait hours for the results of a pregnancy test, which are pretty instantaneous in order to make them listen to sermons and hear their propaganda and false medical information.

 

There are more than twice as many fake clinics as there are legitimate abortion providers in the United States.

 

So just circling back to the beginning to make it clear...... these clinics do routinely lie to and mistreat pregnant women as part of their very reason for being. Supporting these clinics does mean supporting those behaviors

Have you ever actually been to a cpc? This description of what they are and how they operate is, again, an example of being completely unfamiliar with the goals and how they operate.

 

I mean, a fake abortion clinic? Most I know would horse laugh about that, because they'd be the first to say they don't and wouldn't ever provide abortions. If someone came in and asked for a pap or breast exam, they'd be told they aren't done there. Do most have clinic in the name, even?

 

If you truly thought someone was going to go out and end the life of someone else or commit suicide, you'd probably work to keep them talking to you as long as you could. I'm guessing. And to what end? To save a life. It's that simple, really. Is it emotional manipulation to try to talk them out of it? To offer help if they don't go through with it? If the woman doesn't want to be there, she is not being held hostage, and no one is going to be or should be unkind. It is not unclear what the objective is in all of this, despite the author's laughably uniformed grudge writing.

 

And to what personal gain do people think these "lies" are being told? I mean, is it like a Mr. Burns rubbing his hands together? Some kind of secret soylent green operation? What? She decided to have her baby, yes, the evil plan is all coming together...???

Edited by JodiSue
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop spreading lies and misinformation.

 

Legal abortions are safer than giving birth, and are one of the safest surgical procedures a woman can undergo; most women who have a first trimester abortion feel relief and do not go on to have emotional or mental health problems; safe, legal abortions do not routinely result in problems with fertility.

That's great and all, I will tell my friend who was left unable to have kids after her safe, legal procedure to stop with her lies and misinformation. I'll just tell her it doesn't happen routinely and it was safer than childbirth anyway, so she should thank her lucky stars.

 

Talk about dismissive.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the services and healthcare and daycare and paid leave don't really solve the issue of being legally tied to an abuser for the rest of your life. DV batterers get shared custody all the time, often for the sole purpose of hurting the mother. In some places the abusers consent is required for an adoption. Some even get full custody. Heck, courts have awarded visitation or joint custody to convicted rapists. There is no way to make giving birth the best option for all women.

This is wrong. Just wrong no matter what your views on abortion are. An attorney friend has shared horror stories like these. How do we go about changing this?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think part of the back and forth here is that there are legit helpful pregnancy centers, that do good things, and there are the places that are fake abortion clinics. I've known of both in my area. 

 

The good places are up front about what they do and don't do. They have classes for childbirth, parenting, etc. They provide prenatal care. They help women get hooked up with WIC, foodstamps, the county health department, etc. They also have a "store" where you can buy things using points earned by reading parenting books, going to prenatal appointments, attending parenting classes, etc. I'm not sure how I feel about that part, honestly, but I have a friend that thought it was great and used her points to get a car seat. 

 

then there are the fake abortion clinics. There is one near where I get my nails done. I know it has the word "Choices" in the name, and provides "abortion counseling". Worse are the places I've heard of that move in when an abortion clinic moves out, keeping a similar name, etc. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That very biased description is not credible.  Who says they are "fake abortion clinics?"  Do they advertise that they provide abortions?  (Maybe some of them do, but not in the numbers implied above.)  Why shouldn't they locate in a place where their target audience is likely to see them?  Why should a pro-life counseling service need to have licensed medical staff?  What do they mean "farther along in their pregnancy" - does that mean they are presenting the developing human as a developing human instead of a blob?

 

It is true that abortions can cause short-term and long-term negative consequences.  The woman who cleans my house is having a lot of trouble and needing medical procedures because an abortion left her unable to bear children, and she is angry that she was not informed of this possibility.  I know women who regret having abortions decades later.  Seems if you are interested in honesty, you'd want full disclosure.  There are risks.  Some people even die having an abortion.  Some "aborted" kids end up alive but minus an arm or otherwise severely injured.  This is truth.  What purpose is served by censoring it?  How is a woman's decision more informed/free if she has less information?

 

And in general we don't know where their "facts" end and the hyperbole begins.  Hours for the results of a pregnancy test (when they are probably there because they already peed on a stick)?  Hard to believe.  Maybe they stayed for "hours" [if true] because they really weren't sure and wanted to talk about it.

 

FTR I'm not an abortion activist one way or the other.  I see both sides trying to silence each other instead of letting women make their own informed decision.  Neither side is justified in trying to hide or censor true information that might affect a woman's free choice.

 

On the very first page of this thread you said "Everybody knows there are many pregnancy crisis centers that don't do abortions but recommend alternatives."  I think you are completely wrong on that count.   These places do not choose transparent names.  They deceive deliberately.  There is one near me called "Center for Pregnancy Choices".   I am 100% certain more women, especially young pregnant women,  know that the word "choice"  is frequently used in connection to the legal right to an abortion.

 

Abortion can cause health problems or death.  Pregnancy can cause health problems or death. More women die from pregnancy complications than abortions (according to everywhere other than anti-abortion advocates). Do you think the "Center for Pregnancy Choices" makes that clear, in the spirit of full disclosure? 

 

As for you not believing anyone has ever waited hours for a pregnancy test for reasons other than "being unsure" and wanting advice: watch the TV show this thread is about.Or google it. Here is a second undercover report  and another article.

  There are lots more alone those lines, if you care to look.  What really bugs me is that these fake abortion clinics are taxpayer funded.

Edited by poppy
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever actually been to a cpc? This description of what they are and how they operate is, again, an example of being completely unfamiliar with the goals and how they operate.

 

I mean, a fake abortion clinic? Most I know would horse laugh about that, because they'd be the first to say they don't and wouldn't ever provide abortions. If someone came in and asked for a pap or breast exam, they'd be told they aren't done there. Do most have clinic in the name, even?

 

If you truly thought someone was going to go out and end the life of someone else or commit suicide, you'd probably work to keep them talking to you as long as you could. I'm guessing. And to what end? To save a life. It's that simple, really. Is it emotional manipulation to try to talk them out of it? To offer help if they don't go through with it? If the woman doesn't want to be there, she is not being held hostage, and no one is going to be or should be unkind. It is not unclear what the objective is in all of this, despite the author's laughably uniformed grudge writing.

 

And to what personal gain do people think these "lies" are being told? I mean, is it like a Mr. Burns rubbing his hands together? Some kind of secret soylent green operation? What? She decided to have her baby, yes, the evil plan is all coming together...???

Here is a look inside a crisis pregnancy center convention. 

"Over the course of the three days of the conference, I chatted with a few dozen pregnancy center workers. Multiple women told me it was their job to protect women from abortion as "an adult tells a child not to touch a hot stove." Another oft-repeated catchphrase was, "Save the mother, save the baby," shorthand for many pregnancy center workers' belief that the most effective way to prevent abortion is to convert women."

 

So that is the purpose of the lies.  It's not evil. It's well intentioned. 

I'm sure it's been great for women who knew what they were getting into.

It is also clear that it is condescending or sometimes traumatizing for women who don't.

You think it's worth it... fine.

My point is, these places sure don't mention religion or their agenda in their names and advertising. 

They deliberately deceive vulnerable women.

Just want to be really crystal clear about that. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is wrong. Just wrong no matter what your views on abortion are. An attorney friend has shared horror stories like these. How do we go about changing this?

I don't know. The law needs to recognize that DV affects the whole family. The rights of the child have to take precedence over the rights of an abusive parent.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't agree that the word "choice" is only allowed to be used by abortion clinics.  If you think women are not smart enough to know "choice" might not mean abortion, push for better education of the English language.

 

One might wonder why the same people who are upset by the word "choice" in the name of a CPC don't mind the irony of "parenthood" in the name of a provider of abortion services or referrals.  There are people who go to "planned parenthood" thinking they will receive support for having a baby, but whether that happens varies a lot from clinic to clinic.  And if someone came to me and told me pp suggested abortion to them, I would say, well of course they did.  Hello?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debating when life begins - something people of good will and intelligence have disagreed on for thousands of years - is just a distraction from  a woman's right to be free of coercive and deceptive behaviours in the service of someone else's moral agenda. 

 

Life begins at conception ? The woman still deserves honesty and transparency.

Life begins at birth ? Same.

 

My personal opinion is that personhood is a spectrum, with the foetus gradually becoming more and more of a person, such that at birth a baby has full personhood. But that's got nothing to do with whether we should lie to and manipulate pregnant women.

 

Does anyone - here I mean - really support lieing to pregnant women?  Obviously some people jutify it to themselves, but I think that is not that common.  Unless you mean any regulation at all is coercive?

 

I'm not sure how the question of when life begins can be a distraction.  How can we even begin to talk about legal rights, much less personhood, without talking about those questions?  We never (or we should never) decide how to recognize intrinsic rights based on how they would affect some other person or group.  What rights properly belong to women, or cows, has nothing at all to do with how that might affect men or farmers.  Balancing conflicting rights comes after we come to some sort of conclusion about what is intrinsic.

 

It isn't like it is impossible to begin to address.  We can insist on scientific information being honestly presented (none of this an embryo isn't alive business.)  We can insist on internal consistence, which means recognizing that many arguments will have implications beyond questions of rights of the unborn - there are many intersections with rights of the disabled, the dying, and so on.  (If you need to be able to support your life-processes without help from another to be a person, for example, that goes well beyond what we say about a fetus.) 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't agree that the word "choice" is only allowed to be used by abortion clinics.  If you think women are not smart enough to know "choice" might not mean abortion, push for better education of the English language.

 

One might wonder why the same people who are upset by the word "choice" in the name of a CPC don't mind the irony of "parenthood" in the name of a provider of abortion services or referrals.  There are people who go to "planned parenthood" thinking they will receive support for having a baby, but whether that happens varies a lot from clinic to clinic.  And if someone came to me and told me pp suggested abortion to them, I would say, well of course they did.  Hello?

 

"Choice might not mean abortion" is exactly the response I'd expect from a crisis pregnancy center with the word 'choice' in the title.  You have choices,  I will lay them out from you and help you think them through. That would make sense.  Objectivity. Not advocacy.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use 'anti-choice' because it's an accurate descriptor. People who are anti-abortion often ( but not always) wish to deny a pregnant woman access to terminations. They don't wish her to have a choice. Hence, they are anti-choice. Not using their preferred descriptor - pro-life - is a deliberate rejection of the way that term obscures the anti-choice agenda.

 

It's not used out of hate. I don't hate any posters in this thread who are passionately anti-choice - I do loathe their rhetoric and their defence of deception, but I don't hate them. (And I have reason to, having been spat on by their kind, and called a 'baby-murderer' here on these forums. But I don't.) 

 

 

This is bizarre logic.  I'm against spousal abuse, exploitation of workers, drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, and I host of other things that limit what people should do.  In many of those cases I think there should be legal restrictions on them.

 

That doesn't mean I am anti-choice.  I don't want to legally deny employers the choice of underpaying their employees because I am against choice.  I don't want to deny pet owners the option of leaving their dogs underfed and chained on a short leash in the elements because I am against choice.  I don't want to deny my next door neighbor the convenience of dumping his sewage in his yard because I am against choice.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think dishonesty and manipulation of preganant people-in-crisis is cruel, unethical and sinful.

 

I'd like to explore a bit more about what (other than actual lies) constitutes a manipulative it coercive practice at a CPC: vs what a CPC with pro-life intentions can ethically offer (and how).

 

As a Canadian (with public healthcare) we don't really have a lot of little clinics for various health services. I'm sure abortion availability and access varies, but it would always be at a recognizable venue: one tied to the recognizable healthcare network. Therefore I don't think that any of our CPCs could be mistaken/disguised as a location to obtain a walk-in abortion appointment.

 

What else is at issue? How can I hold our local CPCs to the highest professional standards?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense.  At that point, they can be taken care of by others.  Good grief.  

 

"Free game after they are born"?  No one here - or anywhere else outside of theoretical "devil's advocate" discussions in college ethics classes - is advocating anything of the sort.  

 

You know though that these are serious questions among ethicists for a reason - there are logical outcomes of accepting certain types of arguments.  It might be that most people find the idea of taking those arguments seriously emotionally disgusting.  But that is a tenuous place to be - it can and does change.  Historically infanticide has been pretty common, in some societies it has been legally recognized as a viable choice.  People do not necessarily feel that way about it, it can feel acceptable.

 

There are a lot of active discussions now in western societies about a host of rights and ideas around autonomy, death, disability, and human worth.  Infanticide is not, at the moment, an active one.  If someone requires care that society does not want to give, can they be declared surplus, or selectively removed?  If we have population pressures, or the parents do not want to care for them, can we remove disabled infants who were not identified before birth?  Why not if we could do it the day before?

 

To imagine that sort of question could not become a real one because the people discussing it now are professional philosophers - I don't get that at all.  Typically ideas in philosophy take about 50 years to become really part of public discussion, and 100 to become accepted as obvious (if that is what happens.)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can't even agree on when life begins anymore. Some say conception and some say implantation (I hear this is what people behind the pill will say to get around the idea that the pill could cause an abortion). I don't really expect them to agree on much in pregnancy I guess.

 

ETA: when I said "people behind the pill" I meant business side. Not consumers. Though I do think consumers are often misinformed about how the pill may work. I say may because I think there are lots of possibilities on what can go on inside the body. 

Edited by heartlikealion
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if having to help the kid stay alive is the logic for being free to terminate, then that would mean they are free game after they are born, especially if they're colicky or pukey or take a long time to potty train.

 

The logic for defining life that way doesn't work, is what I'm saying.

 

Clearly saying that pregnancy is more work than YOU think means I am supportive of infanticide and killing slow potty trainers.

 

Excuse me, I think my son wet the bed. Before I wash his bedding, I have to go kill him.

 

Come.off.of.it.

 

A child who is viable outside the womb has more legal rights than an embryo. Your claim that an embryo and fetus don't require anything but to be left alone is flatly incorrect.

 

I know you seem to love playing devil's advocate like some 19 year old in a college dormitory lounge at 2am scarfing down greasy pizza and on your fourth Corona but seriously, no one else here is that ridiculous.

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't want to open this thread. At this point it's predictable what the general consensus is on this forum. And my views will not win me any popularity contests.

 

I just want to say that my abortion through the Planned Parenthood system confirms the criticism about them. I felt completely coerced and was not presented with keeping the baby as a valid option. I was living in a time and place where abortion was pushed much harder than anything else. I didn't know there was such a thing as a crisis pregnancy center.

 

Personally I feel it's a stretch to say it's manipulation to try and get a woman to keep her pregnancy and not abort.

 

Pregnancy changes a woman's life forever, no matter which way it turns out. Abortion more often results in pain and regret than having a child unplanned but I'm sure many will disagree. That's my observation and we probably shouldn't even get started on Margaret Sanger (PP founder) and how her vision was to get rid of the poor and colored of society.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't want to open this thread. At this point it's predictable what the general consensus is on this forum. And my views will not win me any popularity contests.

 

I just want to say that my abortion through the Planned Parenthood system confirms the criticism about them. I felt completely coerced and was not presented with keeping the baby as a valid option. I was living in a time and place where abortion was pushed much harder than anything else. I didn't know there was such a thing as a crisis pregnancy center.

 

Personally I feel it's a stretch to say it's manipulation to try and get a woman to keep her pregnancy and not abort.

 

Pregnancy changes a woman's life forever, no matter which way it turns out. Abortion more often results in pain and regret than having a child unplanned but I'm sure many will disagree. That's my observation and we probably shouldn't even get started on Margaret Sanger (PP founder) and how her vision was to get rid of the poor and colored of society.

 

Thank you for bravely sharing your experience... :grouphug:

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not objective to deny that a baby in the womb is alive, and is human.

 

Wow. It happened again. We were talking about pregnant women and how they should be treated.  And then a poster replies with a comment that completely erases the woman from the conversation. Pretty amazing to see it happen over and over again.

 

You are pregnant. You have these options available to you. Simple and objective.

 

Talking about it from the embryo's perspective is not part of the equation. The embryo is not the patient.  The woman is. Persuading a woman to avoid an abortion or to HAVE an abortion, short of medical necessity or the express wish of the patient, is  inappropriate.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't want to open this thread. At this point it's predictable what the general consensus is on this forum. And my views will not win me any popularity contests.

 

I just want to say that my abortion through the Planned Parenthood system confirms the criticism about them. I felt completely coerced and was not presented with keeping the baby as a valid option. I was living in a time and place where abortion was pushed much harder than anything else. I didn't know there was such a thing as a crisis pregnancy center.

 

Personally I feel it's a stretch to say it's manipulation to try and get a woman to keep her pregnancy and not abort.

 

Pregnancy changes a woman's life forever, no matter which way it turns out. Abortion more often results in pain and regret than having a child unplanned but I'm sure many will disagree. That's my observation and we probably shouldn't even get started on Margaret Sanger (PP founder) and how her vision was to get rid of the poor and colored of society.

 

Thank you for sharing. I don't think I've ever heard from anyone first hand (even if it's online) about their experience with choices there. I didn't want to make assumptions about how PP employees presented options (and this may vary from location to location or employee to employee).

 

As for the word "choice" debated up thread. Well, to me, choice does imply "keep or not keep" the baby and that could mean a few things I guess. Give birth and put up for adoption, give birth and raise/have family help, or abort. So maybe the places with the word choice that don't offer abortions are pushing a choice between the first two?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think dishonesty and manipulation of preganant people-in-crisis is cruel, unethical and sinful.

 

I'd like to explore a bit more about what (other than actual lies) constitutes a manipulative it coercive practice at a CPC: vs what a CPC with pro-life intentions can ethically offer (and how).

 

As a Canadian (with public healthcare) we don't really have a lot of little clinics for various health services. I'm sure abortion availability and access varies, but it would always be at a recognizable venue: one tied to the recognizable healthcare network. Therefore I don't think that any of our CPCs could be mistaken/disguised as a location to obtain a walk-in abortion appointment.

 

What else is at issue? How can I hold our local CPCs to the highest professional standards?

 

I think this is probably the case - counceling services here seem to be fairly clear about their sponsorship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to a crisis pregnancy center when I was pregnant with my second child.  I needed documentation that I was pregnant to apply for medicaid and that was the closest place to me that did free pregnancy tests.  The lady there was thrilled to have someone show up that was planning to keep her child, but of course, she still had to counsel us for around an hour before revealing the results of the tests.  And then, when I asked for documentation so I could apply for medicaid, she refused to release it to me, saying there was a 24 hour waiting period because they didn't want anyone using the documentation to procure an abortion without having time to think about it....I am still baffled by the logic...did she not realize that PP stocks their own pregnancy tests?  They certainly don't need documentation from some prolife clinic before they can perform an abortion.  So definitely don't have the highest opinion of these clinics.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't want to open this thread. At this point it's predictable what the general consensus is on this forum. And my views will not win me any popularity contests.

 

I just want to say that my abortion through the Planned Parenthood system confirms the criticism about them. I felt completely coerced and was not presented with keeping the baby as a valid option. I was living in a time and place where abortion was pushed much harder than anything else. I didn't know there was such a thing as a crisis pregnancy center.

 

Personally I feel it's a stretch to say it's manipulation to try and get a woman to keep her pregnancy and not abort.

 

Pregnancy changes a woman's life forever, no matter which way it turns out. Abortion more often results in pain and regret than having a child unplanned but I'm sure many will disagree. That's my observation and we probably shouldn't even get started on Margaret Sanger (PP founder) and how her vision was to get rid of the poor and colored of society.

Your experience confirms your experience. It does not mean that everyone universally has had that experience. As an older teen, I went to PP thinking I needed birth control. I left with a referral for a rape counselor because the clinician correctly suspected I had been abused at a much younger age and knowing I didn't need birth control because I wasn't ready or interested in having sex. As a 22 year old newlywed I went to there thinking an abortion was my only option since I was so young. I left with the knowledge that it was my choice and that parenting was an option (child turns 13 next month). At 23 I went for emergency contraception because I knew that I could not have kids 15 months apart. They were the only ones willing to dispense it on a holiday weekend. I don't doubt your experiences. Don't tell me your experience though is the only experience anyone has ever had there. I know dozens of women who have had abortions or other care there and had a positive and non-coercive experience. Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not ridiculous at all. If your goal is to support a woman no matter what she chooses, language matters. Avoiding emotive language is one way of being non-coercive. 

 

If your goal is to convince a woman not to have a termination of pregnancy, no matter what, using emotive language (like referring to a first trimester foetus as a baby) is one way of coercing her to continue with the pregnancy. 

 

"Your baby is 7 weeks old!" is appropriate language in some situations. In a crisis situation, "The ultrasound indicates you are 7 weeks pregnant " is a response that doesn't foreclose on a woman's reaction, context or choice. It allows her space to indicate how she sees her situation and for a counsellor to follow her cues. 

 

Honestly, counsellors need to behave ethically towards their clients, and choice of language is part of that. The woman is the client, not the foetus or baby, and so pregnancy crisis counsellors are ethically obligated to consider how they speak to the woman in their care as a primary issue.

 

If they are not prepared to do that, they shouldn't be advertising themselves as pregnancy crisis counsellors, but as pro-birth advocates.  

 

So, as long as you don't call it a baby, it's not a baby?

 

Now that is ridiculous. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. It happened again. We were talking about pregnant women and how they should be treated.  And then a poster replies with a comment that completely erases the woman from the conversation. Pretty amazing to see it happen over and over again.

 

You are pregnant. You have these options available to you. Simple and objective.

 

Talking about it from the embryo's perspective is not part of the equation. The embryo is not the patient.  The woman is. Persuading a woman to avoid an abortion or to HAVE an abortion, short of medical necessity or the express wish of the patient, is  inappropriate.

 

If everyone agreed that an embryo was just a thing, there would be no ethical debate at all, it would be like having a tumor removed  .Logically speaking, if an embryo is not just a thing, then it is absolutely part of the equation.

 

That is the substance of the current debate about abortion, all you have done is assume your own position. 

 

I doubt the poster thinks the woman isn't also a factor, the context of her statement didn't really require pointing it out though. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...