crisis pregnancy centers as portrayed on Full Frontal

[Pam in CT]

re language of "innocence" redux, lol...

 

I was thinking of the "innocent" thing in teh bath last night.  I think sometimes when people say this they mean "vulnerable".  As in looking out for those who cannot advocate for themselves.

 

 

Here, it's a good deal more complex than that.  There is for example a lot more social empathy for addicts who got there "innocently" as a slide from prescribed painkillers originally under doctor's orders, than for addicts who got there "guiltily," starting with illegal drugs from the get-go.    

 

Many aspects of American social debate can be reduced to divergent judgments about who's innocent and who's guilty, of what.  Not that it's helpful, but we dearly love to do it. 

[SKL]

[re pro-choice and pro-life]

 

They're both focusing on what the group believes is the core of the issue, I figure - for pro-lifers, it's that there is an innocent life at stake.  For pro-choicers, it's that there is a choice (which they believe to not be a moral or immoral choice, just a choice) at stake.  I give both groups the benefit of their own self-definition most of the time, as incorrect as I may think it is.

 

Exactly.

 

The argument that you can't believe in a fetus's right to life without also believing in a mass murderer's right to life is just a distraction.

 

When one wants to exit the substantive discussion, the correct action is to exit.  Not to try to make it about something else which you know is completely unrelated.

 

[SKL]

I am too, but to be honest pro-choice and pro-life make sense to me as the perspectives of their relative believers - *I* know they're talking about the choice to have an abortion, and I also know pro-lifers are talking about the specific life of an unborn child, so I am not particularly confused by them as labels, nor do I think they're misnomers (from the perspectives of people who hold those beliefs).

 

At any rate all of that is side issue nonsense, imo.

 

This is the quote I meant to quote just above.  :)  I like it better.

 

[poppy]

Exactly.

 

The argument that you can't believe in a fetus's right to life without also believing in a mass murderer's right to life is just a distraction.

 

When one wants to exit the substantive discussion, the correct action is to exit. Not to try to make it about something else which you know is completely unrelated.

 

It's not different to me.

 

You think there is a 'right to life' , then that right should be protected broadly, not just for some.

 

Currently there isn't a legal right to life. If someone murders, the crime is the act of murder--- not of depriving the victims right to life.

[Murphy101]

I'm not going to get into all of this ...

 

But I did want to address some possible confusion on RCC stance wrt to maternal vs fetal medical need.

 

The RCC does not require a women to deny herself needed medical care bc she is pregnant.

 

So let's say I had cancer. A tumor needed removed or I needed chemo. And I was pregnant. There is nothing in RCC teaching that says I could not do that. Because the purpose of the treatment is not to kill or harm my baby. It might do that! But it is not why the procedure is being done. So if I do it and lose the baby, that sucks, but I'm not committing a sin. And also, there's nothing wrong with a mother deciding to NOT accept that treatment bc she wants to give her baby better odds of survival. Either options are within RCC values and teachings.

 

Or I developed HELLP. Same thing. If the mother cannot carry the baby to viability, then she can't. Tho that is rare. It has nothing to do with valuing the baby more to try to do so. If medical intervention, and there are some measures they can take to safely buy a little bit more time, but if those interventions don't help her, then they don't and she is going to deliver anyways. No one is going to think she immoral bc she couldn't carry longer. It really wasn't a choice unless someone things she chose to have HELLP, which is silly.

 

The general rule of subsidiary is that we cannot have babies if we don't take care of mothers. So all this talk of babies having more value than mothers makes no sense at all from a RCC perspective. It generally is not possible.

[SKL]

I don't understand why so much effort is expended on arguing about the extreme ends of each controversy, when we all know that most people fall in between.

 

If we are asked to choose between calling ourselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice," we are going to choose the one that best covers our position.  "Pro life" usually means I would rather not see babies aborted if it could be reasonably helped.  Most pro-life people have exceptions.  Almost all would put the mother's physical life/health ahead of the baby's (assuming the mom herself chose that, or did not have capacity to choose).  Most would be neutral on abortion when the baby isn't going to be viable after birth.  Many if not most would make exceptions for rape, incest against a child, or very young teens / pre-teens finding themselves pregnant some other way.  Anyway, those are all relatively rare situations compared to the number of abortions to which none of those apply.

 

Also, most pro-life people are not opposed to contraception, or many other reproductive choices that would not lead to an embryo/fetus being aborted.  Or the choice to have someone other than the biological mother raise the child.

 

So it would be nice if people could have a discussion about pro-life without continually yelling about that rare instance which isn't even an issue from a pro-life perspective.  Or apply terms such as "anti-choice" (or as suggested above, "anti-reproductive choice").

 

Pro-choice to me means being in favor of a woman's right to choose abortion for her own early-stage pregnancy.  Sometimes people calling themselves "pro choice" believe in forcing abortions, pushing abortions on certain people who are undecided / don't want one, late-term abortion, intentionally letting an unwanted viable newborn die immediately after birth, advocating against adoption, treating abortion the same as the Pill from a moral perspective, blaming childbirth for all sorts of women's problems, etc.  But I am not yelling about those people because I know they don't represent most people who are pro-choice.

Edited May 13, 2016 by SKL

[SKL]

Currently there isn't a legal right to life. If someone murders, the crime is the act of murder--- not of depriving the victims right to life.

 

I think you are wrong on this.  We don't usually call it "right to life," but it's in our founding documents and it's the basis for many of our laws.

 

Look at all that has to be gone through to get a heinous criminal executed.  Or to remove a feeding tube from a person who is considered brain dead but not physically dying.  There's always a legal fuss when a 911 call isn't properly responded to and a death results.  I'm sure people could think of many similar examples.

 

Even suicide used to be illegal.  Not sure, maybe it still is.

[JeanM]

I'm not going to get into all of this ...

 

But I did want to address some possible confusion on RCC stance wrt to maternal vs fetal medical need.

 

The RCC does not require a women to deny herself needed medical care bc she is pregnant.

 

So let's say I had cancer. A tumor needed removed or I needed chemo. And I was pregnant. There is nothing in RCC teaching that says I could not do that. Because the purpose of the treatment is not to kill or harm my baby. It might do that! But it is not why the procedure is being done. So if I do it and lose the baby, that sucks, but I'm not committing a sin. And also, there's nothing wrong with a mother deciding to NOT accept that treatment bc she wants to give her baby better odds of survival. Either options are within RCC values and teachings.

 

Or I developed HELLP. Same thing. If the mother cannot carry the baby to viability, then she can't. Tho that is rare. It has nothing to do with valuing the baby more to try to do so. If medical intervention, and there are some measures they can take to safely buy a little bit more time, but if those interventions don't help her, then they don't and she is going to deliver anyways. No one is going to think she immoral bc she couldn't carry longer. It really wasn't a choice unless someone things she chose to have HELLP, which is silly.

 

The general rule of subsidiary is that we cannot have babies if we don't take care of mothers. So all this talk of babies having more value than mothers makes no sense at all from a RCC perspective. It generally is not possible.

 

Thanks for the explanation. Just curious about how the bolded works, if you know. If the chemo/radiation/whatever treatment was definitely going to kill the fetus, would the RCC be ok with aborting the fetus first, or would you just do the treatment and whatever happens, happens.

 

[SKL]

I think the discussion of an anti-contraception or anti-sex education points of view should also be separated from the abortion discussion, because people who are pro-life (by the mainstream pro-life definition) are not generally anti-contraception or anti-sex education.

 

There are some who think humans should not make any attempt to plan their families, and people can say "that's why I am against abortion among other things," but if it goes down that path, then the discussion isn't really about abortion per se any more IMO.

 

And people are entitled to act on their own religious beliefs.  I don't understand attacking people for that, unless abuse is involved.

Edited May 13, 2016 by SKL

[JeanM]

I don't understand why so much effort is expended on arguing about the extreme ends of each controversy, when we all know that most people fall in between.

 

If we are asked to choose between calling ourselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice," we are going to choose the one that best covers our position.  "Pro life" usually means I would rather not see babies aborted if it could be reasonably helped.  Most pro-life people have exceptions.  Almost all would put the mother's physical life/health ahead of the baby's (assuming the mom herself chose that, or did not have capacity to choose).  Most would be neutral on abortion when the baby isn't going to be viable after birth.  Many if not most would make exceptions for rape, incest against a child, or very young teens / pre-teens finding themselves pregnant some other way.  Anyway, those are all relatively rare situations compared to the number of abortions to which none of those apply.

 

Also, most pro-life people are not opposed to contraception, or many other reproductive choices that would not lead to an embryo/fetus being aborted.  Or the choice to have someone other than the biological mother raise the child.

 

So it would be nice if people could have a discussion about pro-life without continually yelling about that rare instance which isn't even an issue from a pro-life perspective.  Or apply terms such as "anti-choice" (or as suggested above, "anti-reproductive choice").

 

Pro-choice to me means being in favor of a woman's right to choose abortion for her own early-stage pregnancy.  Sometimes people calling themselves "pro choice" believe in forcing abortions, pushing abortions on certain people who are undecided / don't want one, late-term abortion, intentionally letting an unwanted viable newborn die immediately after birth, advocating against adoption, treating abortion the same as the Pill from a moral perspective, blaming childbirth for all sorts of women's problems, etc.  But I am not yelling about those people because I know they don't represent most people who are pro-choice.

 

I'm curious about the bolded. I'm sure the Catholic church is against both contraception and abortion. I'm not sure about other positions. I had a friend in college who was not Catholic, but was opposed to both. It probably also depends on the type of contraception. Some are opposed to some forms of contraception, but not others.

 

[SKL]

I'm curious about the bolded. I'm sure the Catholic church is against both contraception and abortion. I'm not sure about other positions. I had a friend in college who was not Catholic, but was opposed to both. It probably also depends on the type of contraception. Some are opposed to some forms of contraception, but not others.

 

 

The Catholic church may have an official stand on it, but many if not most US Catholics practice contraception / believe in it.

 

Edited May 13, 2016 by SKL

[EmseB]

Over 70% of its business is contraception and std treatment. Is it not logical to assume that's not mostly non pregnant women? I know you can be pregnant and have - say - herpes. Or HIV . But I really don't think tons of pregnant women are going there secretly.

 

PP does not , as far as I know, provide ongoing obstetrics treatment and it does not have delivery or midwifery services. Women who get a positive pregnancy test are referred to an OB. Or abortion services. Planned Parenthood's statistics indicate that 3% of the services it provides are abortions.

I read that they themselves don't track if a client is pregnant or not, it was a fact check piece. I can't link now that I'm mobile. I was wondering how you came to the claim you made, when PP themselves doesn't track that info.

 

And, I'm sure you're aware that the 3% number is based on PP's own accounting, and an abortion is counted one-for-one the same as giving out a free condom in terms of what constitutes a "service". So that three percent would not, say, reflect actual resources, time, personnel, or cost. I'm surprised that even the most ardent supporter of PP would simply cite their 3% figure at face value at this point, unless they were deliberately being obtuse.

Edited May 13, 2016 by JodiSue

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I read that they themselves don't track if a client is pregnant or not, it was a fact check piece. I can't link now that I'm mobile. I was wondering how you came to the claim you made, when PP themselves doesn't track that info.

 

And, I'm sure you're aware that the 3% number is based on PP's own accounting, and an abortion is counted one-for-one the same as giving out a free condom in terms of what constitutes a "service". So that three percent would not, say, reflect actual resources, time, personnel, or cost. I'm surprised that even the most ardent supporter of PP would simply cite their 3% figure at face value at this point, unless they were deliberately being obtuse.

 

I am guessing the ones who would quibble over that accounting are the same ones who try and claim federal funds are used for abortions.

 

Edited May 13, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[EmseB]

But I expect they know what kinds of services they provide, I have never heard of any kind of clinic that has no way to track that. I suppose a pregnant women might come for STD testing and not tell them she was pregnant, but that would still be a non-pregnancy related medical service.

Right, but there are many ways to fudge this. If they break up an abortion into a bunch of smaller services, then many of those smaller items can be classified as non-pregnancy related. The ways in which this would change and obscure the statistics they themselves release is pretty obvious, and has been documented by former workers.

 

A lot of people would be a-ok if PP said, yeah, abortion is a huge part of our revenue, so what? But, since their federal funding and a large amount of public support depends on showing that abortions are a trivial part of what they do here in the states, it's a pretty obvious conflict of interest in reporting their own statistics.

 

Which, to get back to the OP is why abortion advocates also have to demonize CPCs and other organizations that don't provide abortions at all and aren't even clinics.

[poppy]

I don't understand why so much effort is expended on arguing about the extreme ends of each controversy, when we all know that most people fall in between.

 

If we are asked to choose between calling ourselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice," we are going to choose the one that best covers our position. "Pro life" usually means I would rather not see babies aborted if it could be reasonably helped. Most pro-life people have exceptions. Almost all would put the mother's physical life/health ahead of the baby's (assuming the mom herself chose that, or did not have capacity to choose). Most would be neutral on abortion when the baby isn't going to be viable after birth. Many if not most would make exceptions for rape, incest against a child, or very young teens / pre-teens finding themselves pregnant some other way. Anyway, those are all relatively rare situations compared to the number of abortions to which none of those apply.

 

Also, most pro-life people are not opposed to contraception, or many other reproductive choices that would not lead to an embryo/fetus being aborted. Or the choice to have someone other than the biological mother raise the child.

 

So it would be nice if people could have a discussion about pro-life without continually yelling about that rare instance which isn't even an issue from a pro-life perspective. Or apply terms such as "anti-choice" (or as suggested above, "anti-reproductive choice").

 

Pro-choice to me means being in favor of a woman's right to choose abortion for her own early-stage pregnancy. Sometimes people calling themselves "pro choice" believe in forcing abortions, pushing abortions on certain people who are undecided / don't want one, late-term abortion, intentionally letting an unwanted viable newborn die immediately after birth, advocating against adoption, treating abortion the same as the Pill from a moral perspective, blaming childbirth for all sorts of women's problems, etc. But I am not yelling about those people because I know they don't represent most people who are pro-choice.

There are a big variety of opinions and that's fine. All I care about efforts to change the law to make alllll the conversations in this thread moot. To take it from being something each individual can think through, to being illegal . To being a politicians decision. And I do think the extreme end of those who wish to forbid abortion as an option have a disproportionate amount of power in the conversation.

 

So that view gets discussed quite a bit, versus what 'most reasonable people think'. Right now we all currently all the right to make theses decisions for ourselves . I don't want to see that taken away.

Edited May 13, 2016 by poppy

[poppy]

Right, but there are many ways to fudge this. If they break up an abortion into a bunch of smaller services, then many of those smaller items can be classified as non-pregnancy related. The ways in which this would change and obscure the statistics they themselves release is pretty obvious, and has been documented by former workers.

 

A lot of people would be a-ok if PP said, yeah, abortion is a huge part of our revenue, so what? But, since their federal funding and a large amount of public support depends on showing that abortions are a trivial part of what they do here in the states, it's a pretty obvious conflict of interest in reporting their own statistics.

 

Which, to get back to the OP is why abortion advocates also have to demonize CPCs and other organizations that don't provide abortions at all and aren't even clinics.

I knew there was zero chance you would believe anything said about planned parenthood other than 'it is an abortion factory'.

 

But for others reading this thread I want to point out that planned parenthood is a woman's health service primarily focused on contraception, STD testing and treatment, and cancer screenings.

 

I went to planned parenthood throughout my college and grad school years. It was cheap and convenient. I got Pap smears. I got my monthly pills including generous free samples. I was on the pill not for birth control but to control other symptoms (basically I puked for 2 days with every people if I wasn't on the pill). I couldn't afford a regular doc, so it was very nice to have a local Planned Parenthood. They perform good services for women without a lot of money.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Right, but there are many ways to fudge this. If they break up an abortion into a bunch of smaller services, then many of those smaller items can be classified as non-pregnancy related. The ways in which this would change and obscure the statistics they themselves release is pretty obvious, and has been documented by former workers.

 

A lot of people would be a-ok if PP said, yeah, abortion is a huge part of our revenue, so what? But, since their federal funding and a large amount of public support depends on showing that abortions are a trivial part of what they do here in the states, it's a pretty obvious conflict of interest in reporting their own statistics.

 

Which, to get back to the OP is why abortion advocates also have to demonize CPCs and other organizations that don't provide abortions at all and aren't even clinics.

 

We know how many abortions PP performs in a given year.  We also know how many STD tests and other services they provide.  We also know they are not legally able to spend federal money on abortions.

 

And I just have to ask...who the heck else is going to report their statistics?

 

Regarding the bolded, so, some CPCs are demonized for being run by miserable, lying charlatans and for pretending to be clinics.

[LucyStoner]

Agreed. I'd also say though that the other extreme, no moral issues attached to abortion for any reason up to 20 weeks, are also dangerously out of touch with reality. There IS something tragic about killing an 18 week old fetus, and even when people think that is the best option I think it does no good to say there is nothing of consequence to it, and that it should be fine to do no matter what the reason as one person has said.

I would clarify that many people, including me, who support legal and safe abortion to 20 weeks often do have moral issues attached to it or consider it a tragic but sometimes valid choice.

 

It's not that I think aborting an 18 week fetus is peachy keen fine. I think it is sad and unfortunate on many levels. I would never be able to do it for anything short of clear medical necessity and I would certainly consider it a tragedy. This is why I am essentially politically pro-choice but personally pro-life.

 

What it boils down to for me is that I don't think I am in any position to tell a woman in crisis what merits making that decision, tragic though it may be. Life is full of tragedy and sometimes people make choices in very dire circumstances that they wouldn't make in more ideal circumstances. Until there are more ideal situations and supports and we live in a world where women aren't so commonly abused by their intimate partners (not holding my breath) I think there are times when there are no good options and one is struggling to try and choose the least tragic option. I've never been in that situation but I know enough people who have been between a rock and hard place in their second trimester to be unwilling to legislate their choices.

 

For me it is not that it is NOT tragic, it is that the decision is an individual one and due to the horrific options women can and do face it is one that I or any person or any legislative body could not make without causing other, perhaps larger tragedies.

 

One example (with the most horrific details omitted)- woman who is being battered realizes she can't leave her abusive drug dealing boyfriend but that adding a second child to the mix would make things far worse and make it so she couldn't leave for even longer. She is thinking of the best long term way out. She's thinking of the safety of herself and her older child. She gets an abortion past the first trimester because it took her that long to work up the courage to defy her boyfriend. Tragic? On so many levels. Tragic that she had an abortion, tragic that she was stuck in that stuation and tragic that when she sought help to get out, nobody could or would help her and be able to keep her safe. (Spend an afternoon calling around for DV shelter placement. It's a sobering experience and most people not living through it think there is more help available than there usually is.) But in her view it was the least tragic option she could make. This is not the only example I can offer but I don't personally know any one who has had a second trimester abortion for flip reasons.

 

The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester.

Edited May 13, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Carol in Cal.]

I would clarify that many people, including me, who support legal and safe abortion to 20 weeks often do have moral issues attached to it or consider it a tragic but sometimes valid choice.

 

It's not that I don't think aborting an 18 week fetus is peachy keen fine. I think it is sad and unfortunate on many levels. I would never be able to do it for anything short of clear medical necessity and I would certainly consider it a tragedy. This is why I am essentially politically pro-choice but personally pro-life.

 

What it boils down to for me is that I don't think I am in any position to tell a woman in crisis what merits making that decision, tragic though it may be. Life is full of tragedy and sometimes people make choices in very dire circumstances that they wouldn't make in more ideal circumsrances. Until there are more ideal situations and supports and we live in a world where women aren't so commonly abused by their intimate partners (not holding my breath) I think there are times when there are no good options and one is struggling to try and choose the least tragic option. I've never been in that situation but I know enough people who have been between a rock and hard place in their second trimester to be unwilling to legislate their choices.

 

For me it is not that it is NOT tragic, it is that the decision was an individual one and due to the horrofic options women can and do face it is one that I or any person or any legislative body could not make without causing other, perhaps larger tragedies.

 

One example (with the most horrific details omitted)- woman who is being battered realizes she can't leave her abusive drug dealing boyfriend but that adding a second child to the mix would make things far worse and make it so she couldn't leave for even longer. She gets an abortion past the first trimester because it took her that long to work up the courage to defy her boyfriend. Tragic? On so many levels. But in her view it was the least tragic option she could make. This is not the only example I can offer but I don't personally know my one who has had a second trimester abortion for flip reasons.

 

The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester.

For a long time (decades) I had more or less the same position except 1st trimester only.

 

But I have to say, the degradation in public thought that I've documented earlier in this thread, exceeding even the most alarmist (and decried) slippery slope projections of the 1970's has really given me pause.  Additionally, the sheer numbers are very sobering.  About 1 in 5 pregnancies in the US are aborted.  That's a staggering number, and not at all what people had in mind when abortion was legalized.  

Edited May 13, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

I have never visited a Planned Parenthood at all, so I don't know the answer to this. Does PP offer services to pregnant women in obtaining financial resources, collecting maternity or baby clothes, and finding housing for prospective moms?

Yes, in my area, they would help you locate the resources you needed. They would help you get you set up with DHS so you could get WIC, SNAP, Medicaid, housing.

 

PP was the only affordable women's healthcare option when I was younger. PAP smears, and the rest of gynecological issues, birth control.

 

They helped me through my first miscarriage, and helped me find an obgyn when I was pregnant with my oldest.

 

The clinic here doesn't even offer abortions, they refer you (and help you get there if needed) to another clinic that does.

[ktgrok]

@Lucy Stoner/Katie, I think you and I agree. I was referring to someone else in this thread you said they had zero qualms about it up to 20 weeks even for any reason. 

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

For a long time (decades) I had more or less the same position except 1st trimester only.

 

But I have to say, the degradation in public thought that I've documented earlier in this thread, exceeding even the most alarmist (and decried) slippery slope projections of the 1970's has really given me pause. Additionally, the sheer numbers are very sobering. About 1 in 5 pregnancies in the US are aborted. That's a staggering number, and not at all what people had in mind when abortion was legalized.

 

Where are you getting those numbers? I've read, repeatedly that the numbers are significantly down overall?

 

Also numbers are lower than the U.S. In countries where it's fully legal but they provide excellent support for mothers and children well beyond birth.

 

I'll try to come back later and link sources, I'm out the door soon. Unless someone beats me to it.

[Spryte]

 

But for others reading this thread I want to point out that planned parenthood is a woman's health service primarily focused on contraception, STD testing and treatment, and cancer screenings.

 

I went to planned parenthood throughout my college and grad school years. It was cheap and convenient. I got Pap smears. I got my monthly pills including generous free samples. I was on the pill not for birth control but to control other symptoms (basically I puked for 2 days with every people if I wasn't on the pill). I couldn't afford a regular doc, so it was very nice to have a local Planned Parenthood. They perform good services for women without a lot of money.

Yes. Without PP, I'd have had no annuals through college and grad school days. I was a regular there till I was 25 or 26, and had health insurance. That's where I went for Pap smears and for the unbelievably painful cramping that came with my increasingly hard to manage periods. They were the first to diagnose my edometriosis. And I got treatment - kind and caring - for it. They tried a ton of options, and referred me to a specialist. They talked to me about having a baby as an option which helps some people's endo, too, so I hardly see that as encouraging people not to give birth. They simply laid out all the options. Ultimately, despite being heavily encouraged to give birth by my next GYN, I had a hysterectomy at 27. I was not ready to have a baby, and doing so would have been selfish. I am still grateful to the GYN who saw me at PP. Or maybe she was a nurse practitioner, I have no idea now. Whoever she was, she was a huge help.

[LucyStoner]

For a long time (decades) I had more or less the same position except 1st trimester only.

 

But I have to say, the degradation in public thought that I've documented earlier in this thread, exceeding even the most alarmist (and decried) slippery slope projections of the 1970's has really given me pause. Additionally, the sheer numbers are very sobering. About 1 in 5 pregnancies in the US are aborted. That's a staggering number, and not at all what people had in mind when abortion was legalized.

I think the larger tragedy is that pregnant women find a need for an abortion that often. Most of the girls I knew in high school who had abortions were from church camp and it was often because they couldn't tell their pro-life parents they were pregnant. More than a few times it was the "pro-life" parent taking them for the abortion either because their opinions didn't apply to their daughters or they were mortified their friends and family old find out.

 

My thoughts on this do not represent a decline in society. They reflect not having lived life with rose colored glasses. This is a tragic world and people have highly inequitable positions from which they must make their choices.

 

Abortion became legal in all states because the court ruled it was a legal right for women to make- they did not nor could not legally cap the number of women allowed to make that choice each year. There were many abortions prior, some legal, many not.

Edited May 13, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Carol in Cal.]

This is data from 2012, so pretty recent, collected by the CDC.

210 abortions per 1000 live births.  (data excludes miscarriages)  So maybe 1 in 6 would be more accurate than 1 in 5--it's still a staggering proportion that was not anticipated in the 1970s.  This is a decrease in rate of 14% compared with 2003.  Not all reporting areas included chemical (as opposed to surgical) abortions in their abortion rate statistics.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6410a1.htm?s_cid=ss6410a1_e

 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[Pam in CT]

re range of services provided by PP:

...
But for others reading this thread I want to point out that planned parenthood is a woman's health service primarily focused on contraception, STD testing and treatment, and cancer screenings.

I went to planned parenthood throughout my college and grad school years. It was cheap and convenient. I got Pap smears. I got my monthly pills including generous free samples. I was on the pill not for birth control but to control other symptoms (basically I puked for 2 days with every people if I wasn't on the pill). I couldn't afford a regular doc, so it was very nice to have a local Planned Parenthood. They perform good services for women without a lot of money.

 

 

I also went to PP throughout my college and grad school years (and those in between).  It was cheap and convenient, and my insurance situation in those was sketchy at best and in any event women's reproductive services were rarely covered by insurance even when you had it.  I got Pap smears.  I got my monthly pills (and, later, other forms of contraception) which in my case I DID use for birth control.  I learned there how to do breast exams.

 

 

[LucyStoner]

Yes. Without PP, I'd have had no annuals through college and grad school days. I was a regular there till I was 25 or 26, and had health insurance. That's where I went for Pap smears and for the unbelievably painful cramping that came with my increasingly hard to manage periods. They were the first to diagnose my edometriosis. And I got treatment - kind and caring - for it. They tried a ton of options, and referred me to a specialist. They talked to me about having a baby as an option which helps some people's endo, too, so I hardly see that as encouraging people not to give birth. They simply laid out all the options. Ultimately, despite being heavily encouraged to give birth by my next GYN, I had a hysterectomy at 27. I was not ready to have a baby, and doing so would have been selfish. I am still grateful to the GYN who saw me at PP. Or maybe she was a nurse practitioner, I have no idea now. Whoever she was, she was a huge help.

A nice side effect of wholly unplanned pregnancy at 22 was bye bye endo. But I wasn't going to intentionally get pregnant at that age as a stab in the dark possible cure.

[Tanaqui]

The Catholic church may have an official stand on it, but many if not most US Catholics practice contraception / believe in it.

 

In fact, the percentage of American Catholics who say birth control is morally okay is 89%.

 

I think the larger tragedy is that pregnant women find a need for an abortion that often. Most of the girls I knew in high school who had abortions were from church camp and it was often because they couldn't tell their pro-life parents they were pregnant. More than a few times it was the "pro-life" parent taking them for the abortion either because their opinions didn't apply to their daughters or they were mortified their friends and family old find out.

 

The Only Moral Abortion is MY Abortion. Sigh.

 

And, I'm sure you're aware that the 3% number is based on PP's own accounting, and an abortion is counted one-for-one the same as giving out a free condom in terms of what constitutes a "service". So that three percent would not, say, reflect actual resources, time, personnel, or cost. I'm surprised that even the most ardent supporter of PP would simply cite their 3% figure at face value at this point, unless they were deliberately being obtuse.

 

Do you have other numbers? Or is your claim basically "I don't like them, so they must be lying"?

 

I think you are wrong on this.  We don't usually call it "right to life," but it's in our founding documents and it's the basis for many of our laws.

 

There may be an implied "right to life", but it's far from certain that the founders and others of their generation considered that to apply to fetuses, and it's definitely certain that they didn't think life - or personhood - began at conception. 

 

[heartlikealion]

The Catholic church is against contraception in most cases. I could see them saying it's okay say, with a couple where one person is HIV positive (using condoms). As a Catholic that has struggled with NFP (Natural Family Planning) in the past, I have received mixed advice from priests. Like, one told me to have my non-Catholic husband go ahead and get a reversible vasectomy for short-term. One held up my NFP chart and scoffed and said he didn't blame my husband for being frustrated. I am now trying again with a very experienced teacher to do my charting. I met with her this week for the first time and am feeling much better about charting. I've also been rereading my Billings Ovulation book. There are actually several forms of NFP, but the Billings Method is the one I seem affiliated with Catholic teachers often. I realize a lot of Catholics use contraception. One of my ob/gyns went to my church and used contraception and openly discussed all my options when I inquired. I'd say a great number of Catholics don't know about NFP and therefore feel like they have no choice. Current methods of NFP were not even discussed at my Engaged Encounter. Someone made references to the dated Rhythm Method they used when they were first married. Eek. There was a fairly young couple in my NFP class and they said they learned about the class during their Engaged Encounter which I thought was wonderful. Unlike me, who learned much later.

[heartlikealion]

That 3% figure was challenged in the past. I may be able to find an article on it... but yes, I think it was misleading because of things such as the condom/service example cited above.

[Carol in Cal.]

The Washington Post says this about the PP 3% figure:  

 

"The 3 percent figure that Planned Parenthood uses is misleading, comparing abortion services to every other service that it provides. The organization treats each service — pregnancy test, STD test, abortion, birth control — equally. Yet there are obvious difference between a surgical (or even medical) abortion, and offering a urine (or even blood) pregnancy test. These services are not all comparable in how much they cost or how extensive the service or procedure is."

 

Source:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-parenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/

[Carol in Cal.]

A Planned Parenthood supporter estimates their annual revenue from abortions at around 15%.

 

"Out of all of the services it provides—pap smears, STD testing, birth control services, and abortion—Planned Parenthood receives an estimated 15% of its revenue from abortion."

 

Source:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/10/no-abortion-is-not-86-of-planned-parenthoods-revenue.html

 

This is far higher than the 3% figure often thrown about. The 3% figure is often implied to be indicative that abortion is an insignificant portion of PP's work; however, it is arrived at by counting every service that PP provides as if they are equal.  One pundit compared that with counting the number of cups of water supplied to racers in a marathon, and then arguing that the marathon organizers are primarily in the drinking water delivery business, which is quite an apt comparison.

[Murphy101]

Thanks for the explanation. Just curious about how the bolded works, if you know. If the chemo/radiation/whatever treatment was definitely going to kill the fetus, would the RCC be ok with aborting the fetus first, or would you just do the treatment and whatever happens, happens.

 

Usually they would strongly urged to just get the cancer dealt with and leave the life of the fetus to God. In a few cases, it might be more a question of can she reasonably wait to do the procedure to give the child best odds. Let's say she had uterine cancer. Obviously you can't maintain a pregnancy if you remove your uterus. The majority of the time, there really is not some hard moral choice being made here.

 

It's the same reasoning as dental care or X-rays while pregnant, just obviously on a bigger scale.

 

There's nothing about the RCC that says I can't have X-rays or dental work done while pregnant. Even though it has been proven to be harmful in some situations. BUT most would agree that a decent woman would not purposely subject her unborn baby to it unless she really needed too. So I might put off or take special treatments measure to avoid or reduce baby damage, but I'm not going to be wrecked with sinful guilt over getting an infected abcessed tooth properly treated or not get my fractured rib X-rays. (Just as examples.) Because to NOT do those things is a greater danger to us both.

 

However if I just decided to abort this week bc next week I'm going to have an X-ray or dental surgery? Yes. That's going to be considered a RCC problem because I would be actively and purposely seeking primarily to do harm to that other life.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Murphy101

[Murphy101]

I've never understood or much respected the everyone else is doing it so it must be okay argument.

 

I don't care if I'm the last RC on earth not using birth control. Sometimes it feels that way.

 

I don't think ethics is just a matter of popularity.

[Carol in Cal.]

I've never understood or much respected the everyone else is doing it so it must be okay argument.

 

I don't care if I'm the last RC on earth not using birth control. Sometimes it feels that way.

 

I don't think ethics is just a matter of popularity.

Although I am not RC, and although I don't believe that using non-abortifacient birth control is sinful, I agree with your view of ethics.  "We must obey God rather than people."

[Bluegoat]

Thanks for the explanation. Just curious about how the bolded works, if you know. If the chemo/radiation/whatever treatment was definitely going to kill the fetus, would the RCC be ok with aborting the fetus first, or would you just do the treatment and whatever happens, happens.

 

 

Generally they would say you go ahead and do what is required, taking into consideration what will be best for all.  But no abortion first.  If the baby dies from the effects of the treatment of cancer, that is very sad, but was not the intent of the treatment even if it was predictable.  The intent was to destroy the cancer.

 

You can see a similar approach with how they treat ectopic pregnancy, although there is more variety of opinion about this among moral theologians within accepted Catholic teaching.  But often what you will see if that they allow the removal of the affected tube by surgical means, but not flushing out the embryo chemically which is seen as directly targeting the life.  You'll also find some who would argue on either side of that position.

[Bluegoat]

re language of "innocence" redux, lol...

 

 

 

Here, it's a good deal more complex than that.  There is for example a lot more social empathy for addicts who got there "innocently" as a slide from prescribed painkillers originally under doctor's orders, than for addicts who got there "guiltily," starting with illegal drugs from the get-go.    

 

Many aspects of American social debate can be reduced to divergent judgments about who's innocent and who's guilty, of what.  Not that it's helpful, but we dearly love to do it. 

 

Sure, and sometimes there seem to be some very odd calvinistic overtones to it as well.

 

But I was thinking about how sometimes it seems to be used in a way where there isn't really a sensible opposite - it doesn't sem to mean the opposite of "guilty" but kind of quality of its own.  Often I think what may really happen is it's a throw-away word - it gets used so much that people say it without thinking.

[poppy]

A Planned Parenthood supporter estimates their annual revenue from abortions at around 15%.

 

"Out of all of the services it provides—pap smears, STD testing, birth control services, and abortion—Planned Parenthood receives an estimated 15% of its revenue from abortion."

 

Source:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/10/no-abortion-is-not-86-of-planned-parenthoods-revenue.html

 

This is far higher than the 3% figure often thrown about. The 3% figure is often implied to be indicative that abortion is an insignificant portion of PP's work; however, it is arrived at by counting every service that PP provides as if they are equal.  One pundit compared that with counting the number of cups of water supplied to racers in a marathon, and then arguing that the marathon organizers are primarily in the drinking water delivery business, which is quite an apt comparison.

 

Oh, I would never say that abortion is an insignificant portion of PP's work. Extrapolating from a few of your links above, it looks like PP performs almost 50% of the abortions in the  US.    Since almost all posters here seem to agree that abortions are sometimes OK (rape, incest, life of the mother) the fact that is is a viable abortion provider is not insignificant.

 

But the 3% figure is not inaccurate, really.  FactCheck says:

Q: How much of Planned Parenthood’s services are dedicated to abortions? Does the federal government fund those procedures?

A: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law.

 

Which lines up with the Washington Post reporters findings as well.  90% of PP's work is not abortion-related.

 

[EmseB]

I knew there was zero chance you would believe anything said about planned parenthood other than 'it is an abortion factory'.

Is there a reason you feel the need to insult me instead of responding to my posts? It's telling that you will cite PP's own stats without any examination or discernment, and then call me out as someone who won't believe "anything".

 

No, when it comes to numbers and statistics, I don't just "believe" stuff. I'm generally pretty skeptical, even if the numbers come from people I want to believe and tell me what I want to hear.

 

But I think, more honestly, PP supporters should just say that it doesn't matter to them what percentage of the corporation's business is abortion. Because, does it really matter? If ending the life of a tiny human is amoral, then who cares how often they do it? And if it is wrong, then who cares if it's "only" 3%? I mean, why try to make it look good, like they only do a small amount of this thing unless the thing itself is actually worth minimizing?

 

Yes, I would boycott any organization that was involved in ending the lives of tiny human beings no matter what else they did that you personally found useful. There is a limit to my utilitarianism, in that I can't justify the ends with the means in this.

 

As a matter of fact I would fully and utterly support all money provided by tax dollars to PP going to local health departments for the exact services you outlined at helpful. Contraception, std screenings, cancer screenings, by all means, please make these things available. Why tie them inextricably to abortion and then claim you need the tax $$$ for the other stuff? Let it be seperate entities and keep the taxes with the local health clinics.

[MercyA]

This is data from 2012, so pretty recent, collected by the CDC.

210 abortions per 1000 live births.  (data excludes miscarriages)  So maybe 1 in 6 would be more accurate than 1 in 5--it's still a staggering proportion that was not anticipated in the 1970s.  This is a decrease in rate of 14% compared with 2003.  Not all reporting areas included chemical (as opposed to surgical) abortions in their abortion rate statistics.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6410a1.htm?s_cid=ss6410a1_e

 

Primary, nationwide abortion statistics for the United States are available from two sources—privately from the Guttmacher Institute (AGI) [formerly the research arm of PP] and publicly from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). In recent years, California, Maryland, and New Hampshire have not publicly released their abortion totals—rendering the CDC numbers incomplete. The following information has been gleaned from both sources to provide an overview of the frequency and demography of abortion. 

• Based on available state-level data, an estimated 977,000 abortions took place in 2014—down from approximately 983,000 abortions in 2013 and 1.02 million abortions in 2012. 
• In 2011, 1.06 million abortions took place in the U.S., down from 1.21 million abortions in 2008, 1.2 million in 2005, 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S. (AGI).
• Twenty-one percent of all U.S. pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. (AGI).

(Although the above was copied from abort73.com, a pro-life site, please note that the statistics are all either from the CDC or from the AGI, an unabashedly pro-choice organization.)

Edited May 13, 2016 by MercyA

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

But the 3% figure is not inaccurate, really.  

Again, as I have documented, it is misleading.

[SKL]

 it's definitely certain that they didn't think life - or personhood - began at conception. 

 

1. My comment was in response to a comment about already born people, not fetuses.

 

2. In respect to a known pregnancy, I would not be so "certain" that they didn't consider that a life or a person from conception.  Maybe they didn't have laws about it (I don't know), but an expectant woman/family would think of the gestating being as a human life.  That isn't something we just cooked up since the 1970s.  There are Bible verses that refer to personhood before birth.

[EmseB]

Oh, I would never say that abortion is an insignificant portion of PP's work. Extrapolating from a few of your links above, it looks like PP performs almost 50% of the abortions in the  US.    Since almost all posters here seem to agree that abortions are sometimes OK (rape, incest, life of the mother) the fact that is is a viable abortion provider is not insignificant.

 

But the 3% figure is not inaccurate, really.  FactCheck says:

Q: How much of Planned Parenthood’s services are dedicated to abortions? Does the federal government fund those procedures?

A: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law.

 

Which lines up with the Washington Post reporters findings as well.  90% of PP's work is not abortion-related.

 

Fact Check is citing PP's own 3% claim and PP's own annual report. How does that possibly verify the number?  I can find you a half a dozen links which explain why that number is, at the very least, disputed, if not deliberately obscured. 

 

ETA:  I completely understand that you are not concerned with how many abortions they do, or what percentage of their revenue comes from abortions.  I get it.  But those claims are made by the organization in order to make their business model more palatable to people who do care about that stuff. It's a sound bite, and a statistic which can be manipulated like any other.  To take it uncritically and without examination seems anti-intellectual.  If LiveAction came out tomorrow and said that abortions are 80% of PP's revenue, I would not believe them or repeat the number just because it furthers my argument, or because I agree with their stance on abortion or find the work they do valuable.  I would not take their word for it because they have a vested interest in making such claims.  And PP has a HUGE financial incentive to make that 3% claim.

Edited May 13, 2016 by JodiSue

[Carol in Cal.]

Fact Check is citing PP's own 3% claim and PP's own annual report. How does that possibly verify the number?  I can find you a half a dozen links which explain why that number is, at the very least, disputed, if not deliberately obscured.

It's The Big Lie in operation as usual.

[MercyA]

re language of "innocence":

 

I believe you.  And I respect the consistency of your perspective.  I also expect that if you and I sat down face-to-face over a cup of tea, or wine, or any other beverage of your choice :laugh:  , we'd manage to find a good deal of common ground.

 

Thank you, Pam, I appreciate that very much. (And tea or wine would both be lovely.)   :)

[poppy]

Again, as I have documented, it is misleading.

 

Sorry, forgot to link. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

 

It comes to the same conclusion as your Washington Post reporter:

 

"Planned Parenthood’s chart shows that abortions made up 3 percent of its total services. Another way to measure the group’s abortion services, however, is to divide the total number of abortions by the number of clients. For example, Planned Parenthood said that it “provided nearly 11.4 million medical services for 3 million people†in 2009. Its 2011 fact sheet says it performed 332,278 abortion procedures in 2009. That would mean that roughly one out of every 10 clients received an abortion."

[poppy]

Is there a reason you feel the need to insult me instead of responding to my posts? It's telling that you will cite PP's own stats without any examination or discernment, and then call me out as someone who won't believe "anything".

 

No, when it comes to numbers and statistics, I don't just "believe" stuff. I'm generally pretty skeptical, even if the numbers come from people I want to believe and tell me what I want to hear.

 

But I think, more honestly, PP supporters should just say that it doesn't matter to them what percentage of the corporation's business is abortion. Because, does it really matter? If ending the life of a tiny human is amoral, then who cares how often they do it? And if it is wrong, then who cares if it's "only" 3%? I mean, why try to make it look good, like they only do a small amount of this thing unless the thing itself is actually worth minimizing?

 

Yes, I would boycott any organization that was involved in ending the lives of tiny human beings no matter what else they did that you personally found useful. There is a limit to my utilitarianism, in that I can't justify the ends with the means in this.

 

As a matter of fact I would fully and utterly support all money provided by tax dollars to PP going to local health departments for the exact services you outlined at helpful. Contraception, std screenings, cancer screenings, by all means, please make these things available. Why tie them inextricably to abortion and then claim you need the tax $$$ for the other stuff? Let it be seperate entities and keep the taxes with the local health clinics.

 

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.

 

[MercyA]

I'm curious about the bolded. I'm sure the Catholic church is against both contraception and abortion. I'm not sure about other positions. I had a friend in college who was not Catholic, but was opposed to both. It probably also depends on the type of contraception. Some are opposed to some forms of contraception, but not others.

 

I'm not Catholic. I'm only opposed to potentially abortifacient birth control and not to barrier methods, spermicides, NFP, or sterilization. 

[EmseB]

1. My comment was in response to a comment about already born people, not fetuses.

 

2. In respect to a known pregnancy, I would not be so "certain" that they didn't consider that a life or a person from conception.  Maybe they didn't have laws about it (I don't know), but an expectant woman/family would think of the gestating being as a human life.  That isn't something we just cooked up since the 1970s.  There are Bible verses that refer to personhood before birth.

 

I think, historically, the baby considered life at the quickening.  A lot of people thought that was when the soul was imparted and stuff like that. But that's because they didn't have the scientific means to see conception, or to know that a totally different human being with unique DNA is created at the moment of conception.  Luckily science has progressed to the point that we don't have to rely on flutters to know that a human being is in there.  But, yeah, obviously before people had a concept of the microscopic they couldn't really consider conception at all.  Or DNA.  But they didn't know about germs either so they didn't wash their hands a lot. Now we know better in many repects.

[SanDiegoMom]

2nd thoughts, TMI... Too much time on the boards today...

Edited May 13, 2016 by SanDiegoMom in VA