Abortion Question

[NM11046]

 

 

 

I don't like abortion, but I'm pro-choice. One thought that I go back to is those using contraceptives. There is still a possibility of pregnancy; I personally know someone who become pregnant despite an IUD. The couple chose to have to baby, and I agree with that decision, but I still think that was their decision to make. They were in school, and it was a life-changing and career altering decision for both of them. They were being responsible with contraceptives and still got pregnant (I understand abstinence is the only certain).

 

My personal belief, there should be time period allowed for abortion. I saw a mention of 5.5 weeks for a heartbeat, but some people don't even know they're pregnant within that period of time. Without getting into the weeds, maybe it should be allowed within the first trimester. I think I saw 0% viability at 21 weeks, and only 50% viability at 24 weeks. After that, I think it should be allowed when there is significant risk to the mother's health.

I think this is very reasonable.

For those of us that don't like abortion being used as birth control, I believe the answer lies in education and information rather than laws preventing the activity. But I also understand the people that do not want to be accomplices of the act. I understand that if public funds are used for abortions, many people feel that makes them a party to the act. This is primarily where the defunding of planned parenthood comes from.

But PUBLIC FUNDS ARE NOT USED FOR ABORTION. Sorry, not yelling at you JJ, just don't know if everyone understands that.

I guess I don't understand that.

PP provides more abortions than any other single entity. They also provide numerous other services.

 

An analogy. The meth addict begging on the corner snorts crystal and eats a little food every once in awhile. It's pretty naive to think that all of the money they obtain panhandling goes only towards food and none of it towards their crank habit.

 

If PP did not provide abortions, how much funding would they really need? Killing babies is their flagship product. They would cease to exist without it. I just cannot believe that any dollar they receive doesn't help them in some indirect (or direct) way to provide abortions.

 

JJ it's not their "flagship". It is the hot button and talking point for conservatives and pro lifers that don't know about the entirety of PP and what they offer, or what their population is and why those folks are going to PP. Not every woman who walks into a PP is going for an abortion.

 

PP is where I went for my first doctor exam when I still lived at home but needed birth control and I was working for $4.00 (or something similarly ridiculous in the 80's) an hour and I wasn't able to go to my small town doctor without my parents being involved. When I walked in I saw a very close family friend's daughter - seriously. PP is serving a population that is predominantly at or below poverty level. They provide medical services, but also more importantly educational opportunities for young people and those who perhaps are more irresponsible and casual about how they are living their life. It's a place to go if one suspects they've been exposed to an STD, or needs an aids test. Men and women use PP.

 

Here's an excellent overview by NPR, so it's fact based and unbiased. It's from late 2015, but is a solid overview and explains QMany & Zrod's comments in more detail. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money

 

And for your reference, here is a list of what PP offers in the way of services:

 

Health Services -

• Reproductive health care for women, men and teens in a caring, confidential and non judgmental setting

• Well-Woman Exam

• HPV (Human papillomavirus) Vaccine for women and men

• Pap Test (cervical cancer screening)

• Pregnancy Testing

• Menopause Services and Hormone Replacement Therapy

• Urinary Tract Infection Treatment

• Vasectomy*

   

Education -

• Sexual Health Education

• Birth Control

• Emergency Contraception • STD Testing and Treatment • HIV Testing and Counseling • Breast Exam

• Pregnancy Options Information

• Diagnosis and Treatment of Abnormal Pap Tests • Abortion*

• Sex education and training for schools, religious institutions, community groups, individuals and families

• Professional training for teachers, counselors, health and social service providers

Advocacy

• Encouraging government officials to support laws that ensure access to reproductive health care and information

• Educating our community to engage in the legislative process to improve women’s health and health education

I am fine with you having personal moral issues with abortion and finding it distasteful. But you're a fact based guy, so here they are. You can hate PP but know that what they do is far broader than one procedure.

[RedDenver]

 

 

1) I think it is a viable life at any time after the egg has been fertilized.

The "life" argument is a weak one. Both the sperm and egg were alive before fertilization. The vegetables were alive before we eat them. Same with chickens, pigs, cows, etc. We simply can't survive without taking life.

 

If you instead mean "living person", then that's a strong argument, but comes with the difficulty of identifying when those cells became a "person".

 

Well I guess I make some logical presumptions when I use the word "life" in this discussion. It's obvious we are talking about human life and not some vegetable or barnyard animal. I assume everyone will make the logical connection that it is the same as a living person.

 

I realize there is room for debate for life really begins. Some people wait for a heartbeat or exit through the birth canal or first breathe or first conscious memory. Heck I suppose there are those might determine it is at puberty or college graduation or the onset of menopause. From my POV it doesn't matter. Like I said originally, all those mile markers will occur unless that life dies naturally or some outside force kills it, such as abortion. I figure an unborn baby is about as innocent and helpless a creature as any. I'm sure that if a fetus could reason or talk 100% of them would prefer a chance at life, even a crappy life.

 

This whole issue becomes a moot point if we put one requirement on it. The only way a person can be for abortion is if they were aborted themselves. Or, put another way, you dont get a vote unless you were aborted. Really, if people would let the full meaning if that sink in....Absolutely everyone deciding this issue has been lucky enough to not have been aborted. It's kind of like everyone not named Jim gets to decide that all Jim's should be killed.

 

BTW, I am not opposed to abortion in some extreme circumstances and I would prefer that they remain safe and legal for those circumstances.

 

As to the bolded part, I'm making a point that there is no debate about when life begins. As I said before, the sperm and egg were alive before conception, and the resulting zygote is still alive. Those are facts.

 

And we kill lots of things - in fact we must do it survive. Human life is dependent on taking life. So to say we shouldn't kill anything living is unrealistic.

 

The debate is when do the cells become a person. We can debate what it means to be a person, what rights do people have, is abortion killing a person, etc. But the debate is not about whether we can take life or not.

 

This whole issue becomes a moot point if we put one requirement on it. The only way a person can be for abortion is if they were aborted themselves. Or, put another way, you dont get a vote unless you were aborted. Really, if people would let the full meaning if that sink in....Absolutely everyone deciding this issue has been lucky enough to not have been aborted. It's kind of like everyone not named Jim gets to decide that all Jim's should be killed.

This is a silly argument. Here's a couple counter examples:

 

Only women get to vote on pregnancy issues - including the abortion debate. Since men can't get pregnant, they get no vote.

 

Only dead people get to decide what happens to burial grounds. Want to put in a road or an oil pipe line? Well, you have to be dead to vote to approve it.

[ZRod]

 

The Hyde ammendment prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion: except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger. If federal money is being used, then audit them and reprimanded those responsible. It's up to the states to decide what they want to do with state funds.

If PP didn't provide abortions they would still need a lot of funding. They do all kinds of testing and screening; Std, diabetes, cholesterol, flu shots, physicals, counseling, contraceptives, prenatal advice and care. A woman can go in and recieve an IUD without paying a thing. That procedure could cost about a thousand dollars at your typical physician's office.

 

If PP did not provide abortions, how much funding would they really need? Killing babies is their flagship product. They would cease to exist without it. I just cannot believe that any dollar they receive doesn't help them in some indirect (or direct) way to provide abortions.

"Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services."

Guys, I'm not necessarily trying to make an argument here, I'm just trying to explain some perceptions and why some people want to defund PP.

For many people, it doesn't matter how much "good" PP provides. They will be targets as long as they are in the baby killing business.

I get what you're saying, but I don't get why it has to be all or nothing. The battles that people pick and choose are baffeling and often hypocritical.

[knapplc]

What El Diaco was clearly saying with the bold is when it's human, not specifically when it's "alive." My finger is alive. In and of itself it is not human.

[ZRod]

 

 

Because we are the Alpha species on the planet is my guess.

 

So why's it matter. Many other mammals kill their fully born young.

One could argue, since we are the only fully sentient species on the planet, we should transcend the violent and animalistic tendencies of other creatures on Earth.

And yet we kill those other species violently, and daily.

[Fru]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/324316-trump-proposed-budget-nixes-funds-for-meals-on-wheels

 

Guess the heartbeats that depend on MOW don't matter.

[RedDenver]

What El Diaco was clearly saying with the bold is when it's human, not specifically when it's "alive." My finger is alive. In and of itself it is not human.

That's exactly my point. The word "life" has nothing to do with the distinction.

 

An example of when this might matter in the debate is when people say "the heart is beating". Lots of living things have a beating heart.

[Fru]

 

Tell me again about how concerned your party is for "heartbeats"

 

This is despicable.

[knapplc]

There's no evidence providing healthcare to congress improves performance, either.

[Danny Bateman]

Remember:

We totally can't afford Meals on Wheels and climate change is a waste of money, but we can all agree that funding Trump's golf trips to Florida every weekend is sound fiscal policy.

[NM11046]

Shameful. The fact that this man defended it without a blink of empathy. I'm horrified at where we are right now.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

 

I don't like abortion, but I'm pro-choice. One thought that I go back to is those using contraceptives. There is still a possibility of pregnancy; I personally know someone who become pregnant despite an IUD. The couple chose to have to baby, and I agree with that decision, but I still think that was their decision to make. They were in school, and it was a life-changing and career altering decision for both of them. They were being responsible with contraceptives and still got pregnant (I understand abstinence is the only certain).

 

My personal belief, there should be time period allowed for abortion. I saw a mention of 5.5 weeks for a heartbeat, but some people don't even know they're pregnant within that period of time. Without getting into the weeds, maybe it should be allowed within the first trimester. I think I saw 0% viability at 21 weeks, and only 50% viability at 24 weeks. After that, I think it should be allowed when there is significant risk to the mother's health.

I think this is very reasonable.

For those of us that don't like abortion being used as birth control, I believe the answer lies in education and information rather than laws preventing the activity. But I also understand the people that do not want to be accomplices of the act. I understand that if public funds are used for abortions, many people feel that makes them a party to the act. This is primarily where the defunding of planned parenthood comes from.

But PUBLIC FUNDS ARE NOT USED FOR ABORTION. Sorry, not yelling at you JJ, just don't know if everyone understands that.

I guess I don't understand that.

PP provides more abortions than any other single entity. They also provide numerous other services.

 

An analogy. The meth addict begging on the corner snorts crystal and eats a little food every once in awhile. It's pretty naive to think that all of the money they obtain panhandling goes only towards food and none of it towards their crank habit.

 

If PP did not provide abortions, how much funding would they really need? Killing babies is their flagship product. They would cease to exist without it. I just cannot believe that any dollar they receive doesn't help them in some indirect (or direct) way to provide abortions.

 

JJ it's not their "flagship". It is the hot button and talking point for conservatives and pro lifers that don't know about the entirety of PP and what they offer, or what their population is and why those folks are going to PP. Not every woman who walks into a PP is going for an abortion.

 

PP is where I went for my first doctor exam when I still lived at home but needed birth control and I was working for $4.00 (or something similarly ridiculous in the 80's) an hour and I wasn't able to go to my small town doctor without my parents being involved. When I walked in I saw a very close family friend's daughter - seriously. PP is serving a population that is predominantly at or below poverty level. They provide medical services, but also more importantly educational opportunities for young people and those who perhaps are more irresponsible and casual about how they are living their life. It's a place to go if one suspects they've been exposed to an STD, or needs an aids test. Men and women use PP.

 

Here's an excellent overview by NPR, so it's fact based and unbiased. It's from late 2015, but is a solid overview and explains QMany & Zrod's comments in more detail. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money

 

And for your reference, here is a list of what PP offers in the way of services:

 

Health Services -

• Reproductive health care for women, men and teens in a caring, confidential and non judgmental setting

• Well-Woman Exam

• HPV (Human papillomavirus) Vaccine for women and men

• Pap Test (cervical cancer screening)

• Pregnancy Testing

• Menopause Services and Hormone Replacement Therapy

• Urinary Tract Infection Treatment

• Vasectomy*

   

Education -

• Sexual Health Education

• Birth Control

• Emergency Contraception • STD Testing and Treatment • HIV Testing and Counseling • Breast Exam

• Pregnancy Options Information

• Diagnosis and Treatment of Abnormal Pap Tests • Abortion*

• Sex education and training for schools, religious institutions, community groups, individuals and families

• Professional training for teachers, counselors, health and social service providers

Advocacy

• Encouraging government officials to support laws that ensure access to reproductive health care and information

• Educating our community to engage in the legislative process to improve women’s health and health education

I am fine with you having personal moral issues with abortion and finding it distasteful. But you're a fact based guy, so here they are. You can hate PP but know that what they do is far broader than one procedure.

 

NM-

I am aware of all the other things that PP does. I probably shouldn't have used the phrase "flagship product" but there is no denying they provide more abortions than any other source.

 

I wouldn't say I hate PP as they do provide a lot of good and needed services. Part of the problem is that I was more trying to explain how many others see PP, not necessarily how I see them or feel about them.

 

You're right, I do have some moral issues with abortion and I do find it to be quite distasteful in most circumstances. But I also realize it is not going to be legislated away. People will always have abortions whether they are legal or not and I do want them to be done in a safe and sterile medical environment whether or not I agree with any specific reasons for having one.

 

Most reasonable people can agree that in cases of rape, incest or when the mothers life is in danger that abortions should be allowed. However, I probably take a harder line against them when the only argument is "it's a woman's choice" or when they result from lack of personal responsibility. I can accept them in cases where honest attempts at birth control have failed but I do not like to see it used as just another form of birth control. Personally I have a big problem with people who have had multiple abortions (Like Martha Plimpton) and promote them like there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. But I can accept that in some cases it is necessary and not the worst thing that could happen.

 

My hang up with abortion is not fueled by some right wing radical religious fervor as I suspect most anti-abortion people are. I just simply feel it is a viable living human being beginning at conception and, in my mind, that fetus has done nothing to harm anyone and is one of the most innocent and vulnerable beings and I think in most cases they deserve a chance at life outside the womb. They surely cannot defend themselves so I speak up the best I can in their defense. I don't want to tell others what they can or can't do and I don't want to make them feel even worse about the tough choices they may have to make. But I also am not going to placed in a position where I am condoning killing innocents because mommy and daddy wanted to be careless and irresponsible.

 

A lot of people feel it is inconsistent to be for the death penalty and against abortion. There is no inconsistency in my mind at all. I am all for using the death penalty to kill those who have earned it through their own heinous actions. And I am just as opposed to killing someone with the death penalty as I am an innocent baby. In fact, I view that as even worse because the wrongly executed person knows what is happening. I feel pretty good about having the default position that promotes life and discourages snuffing it out.

[JJ Husker]

 

Tell me again about how concerned your party is for "heartbeats"

 

This is despicable.

Anybody that says anything that stupid should be kicked off this planet. What a dbag.

[Ratt Mhule]

 

Tell me again about how concerned your party is for "heartbeats"

 

This is despicable.

 

Pro-life people are not pro-life. They are pro-birth. Once the person is born, they are their mothers/fathers are on their own. And if you aren't apart of this country, then f#*k you. Sad.

[ZRod]

https://twitter.com/axios/status/842461464631885824

Tell me again about how concerned your party is for "heartbeats"

This is despicable.

When is a reporter just going to stand up and say "wtf are you talking about?!!!"