2009 - 98% of Pregnant Women Who Went To PP get Abortions

[notquiteright]

Hmmmm...I'd say it's more along the lines:

Woman before pregnancy=responsible for their decisions
Woman during pregnancy=responsible for their decisions
Woman after pregnancy=responsible for their decisions

Bottom line: WOMEN - Do NOT have sex UNLESS it is ALSO CONSENT TO BECOMING PREGNANT! If a pregnancy occurs...then be prepared to bring it to full term regardless of personal circumstance - and accept full financial responsibility.

Does that help?

Oh I don't think so. There is more than one action a woman can take if the condom breaks or leaks. Spermicide leaked out or cervical cap slipped, sponge got knocked sideways. Trying to narrow the options is not being even handed. (Ummm you have left out the sperm donor in the 'noble' spiel about financial responsibility) and just between us where did ya'll get those rose colored glasses if you think that somehow forcing a woman to have a child she didn't plan for will benefit society or be properly cared for financially??? Mighty fine words- personal responsibility and financial responsibility- but like many other 'noble' words they fall like lead once they hit reality. :roll:

I do love the OP's attempt to make the numbers seem like 98% of all pregnant women who walk into a PP clinic get abortions- then Quibble and say well maybe 3% or so... :roll:

I don't see Nota as anything close to an unbaised agenda- her post #10 uses the term slaughterhouses- then her post #13 says 'on demand' for abortions- now I have heard of an on demand water heater but abortions are not on demand.

She obviously has strong feelings that aborting a fetus before 20 to 22 weeks is 'slaughter'. So I'd say her opinion is far more anti-abortion due to that than any personal responsibility mantra, except of course if you limit the options to 'have the kid'.

I would think most 'personal responsibility' Conservatives would want as many low-income women who don't want a child to give 'em free abortions- after all who do you think will pay for that child? (take the rose colored glasses off and look at that)

Anywho, most of this just looks like more anti-choice dribble trying to twist numbers or demand a very unrealistic standard be forced onto fellow citizens because of a personal belief...

Edit- there are roughly 56 million women between the age of 18 and 44 so .0056% have abortions every year. There are approx 4 million live births every year so less than 8% of all pregnancies each year are terminated LEGALLY.

So there is no 'slaughter' just a TINY fraction of the child bearing aged women using an option some don't approve of.

 

[year2late]

Is that profiling, generalizing or plain ol' stereotyping. It's kind of a fine line.

Brooks, I think there are a vast majority of Conservatives that do not give a hoot if a person uses or does not use contraception.

But you have to admit there are some rather noisy ones proposing things that are outlandish - that would make many forms of birth control illegal. Think sperm meets egg personhood crap. Hell, one state tried to push for a woman to be considered pregnant before she likely even conceived (for the sake of the abortion timing). The implications of that could be :doh

We have folks who consider life at "sperm meets egg" (period end of conversation) and attack abortion/birth control on this angle - yet have nothing to say about the IVF leftovers that get discarded or left in deep freeze. Except that it is better for them to be thrown away or left in deep freeze forever than to be used in stem cell research.

Frankly, this is the problem the right has had for years.

They have let the loud and aggressive Christian Conservatives take over the party. What otherwise extremely well qualified Republican can get elected to a national office and not go along with this group - it is not impossible, but it is not easy either.

So if the right stops pandering to this group, perhaps the generalizing would go away. Reagan might have welcomed the group (in Moral Majority times), but he never intended them to have a stranglehold on the party.

 

[JayDubya]

Planned Parenthood releases its statistics while doing its abject best to minimize its role as the market leader in contract killing.

Your math is correct, that when a pregnant woman goes to Planned Parenthood, adoption happens a fraction of a percent of the time, referral to prenatal care is also minimal. And is that surprising? They have quotas, like traffic cops setting up speed traps at the bottom of a hill - they are expected to push abortion, it's a real revenue gainer for them.

 

[Brooks]

If there was any one person on the planet who could actually convince all people to set aside their natural instinct to have sex...and /or enforce YOUR BELIEFS regarding sexual behaviors...who would be that person? If there is a group of people who can convince everybody on the planet to refrain from sex unless they are prepared to pay the piper...who would they be?

I think you're being extremely unrealistic about human sexual behavior. Having sex is ingrained in every person, man or woman. It's an innate behavior. Sex is, by far, engaged in for pleasure.

While that's mostly true, it's also true that the amount of sexual activity is societally affected.
There is definitely more sexual activity now than, say, fifty years ago.

So, yes, it is a natural biological urge, but not an irresistable one.

PS - and peaking ahead to Gipper's next post, he's right. If, as you said, sexual activity occurs because of natural instinct, ingrained and innate behavior, then the relief of masturbation would ease that need.
But in realilty it won't because there's more (or less) to it than just instinct and urge.

 

[Brooks]

Exactly

...or pregnancy tests so they can access a doctor for pre natal care.
Or an ultrasound so they know how far along in a pregnancy they are.

Is a pregnancy test considered a service for a pregnant woman?

Do you know if PP doesn't count an ultra-sound as a prenatal service?

 

[Brooks]

In the proper perspective the stats are hardly surprising or meaningful.

Which was one of my original points in the first place.

But these are only numbers. Admitting they are legitimate (not referring to you) does not prove anything good or bad about PP's mission.
I will never understand why PP are so black and white.
Could a supporter of ANY organization believe that everything an organization does, their presentation, their numerical trickery, their policies, etc. are all good?
How is that even possible?

 

[Brooks]

1. run run here comes the evil Planned Parenthood!!!!:scared:

2. oh wait, they are just a health clinic that overall does very little abortions percentage wise to the rest of their services and nobody educated and honest is fooled by any fear tactics.

1. I refer you to my red signature. Exaggerating causes you to argue against a point that nobody has made. I don't get it.

2. They're just numbers AJ, don't be so wary of them. Why would they bother you?

 

[Brooks]

I think the bolded should read "most PP clinics do not do ongoing comprehensive prenatal care"

Your kind of having it both ways here.
On other threads, perhaps not you, posters have been citing prenatal care as one of the important things that PP does.
But for this percentage argument, PP looks better if we acknowledge that they actually engage in little or no prenatal care, so that's what we say on this thread.

Do you understand what I mean?

 

[year2late]

It's in the link.
Something apparently went bad with the 2009 link so just look at the 2012 link since the same method was used.

Link, page 2:
Green category: Prenatal Services
+
Gray category: Abortion Procedures
+
Red category: Adoption Referrals = 340,276.

It's all in the link

I think the problem comes when we do not have clarification of the stats.

Most PP clinics do not have comprehensive prenatal services listed on their service.

Where does a woman who comes in for a quick pregnancy test come in? If the pregnancy test is positive, but they clearly understand that PP does not do prenatal care, they would go elsewhere . They clearly should be in the "pregnant woman at PP" but my guess is that this group is completely left out (unless they are at the one of the very small numbers of PP clinics that does prenatal care). So a woman can get a test and never have a full fledged clinic visit and be included in the stats

If you can show with your stats that any woman with a positive pregnancy test shows up on that stat, you might have a different response from people.

But, if you ask me for the woman coming to PP who is 100% sure she is pregnant and is aware that their PP does not do prenatal care - yeah there is a strong likelihood that that client is coming in for an abortion. And of that group I would expect a high percentage.

But I think someone can get a pregnancy test without a full fledged clinic visit, so my gut says not in the stats. Planned Parenthoods would have information (varing by state) available on how to access prenatal care in that area (different states have different programs). So my guess is a woman could get the results, grab so info or help on how to apply for a prenatal program assistance and leave.

The stats without complete numbers are taken out of context of the entire scope of service.

 

[AGENT J]

1. I refer you to my red signature. Exaggerating causes you to argue against a point that nobody has made. I don't get it.

2. They're just numbers AJ, don't be so wary of them. Why would they bother you?

1.) weird you think i was talking solely about you, did i qoute you? nope. Please feel free to assume wrong again though
2.) this is also weird, have you actually read the post you partially quoted? i factually dont care, im not wary of them and they dont bother me. I just like facts and reality.

here lets read what i already posted and have talked about before you were even a member.

its probably why you didnt qoute my whole posts because it makes your post even more a failure.

run run here comes the evil Planned Parenthood!!!!:scared:

oh wait, they are just a health clinic that overall does very little abortions percentage wise to the rest of their services and nobody educated and honest is fooled by any fear tactics.

The funny part is, what if PP only did abortions? Would it change how i feel about a medical facility that allows women access to reliable and affordable healthcare? nope they would still be doing a great service for people IE making medical services easily accessible and affordable, i mean how evil

lies and witch hunt exposed and failed again

please try to keep up

 

[year2late]

Your kind of having it both ways here.
On other threads, perhaps not you, posters have been citing prenatal care as one of the important things that PP does.
But for this percentage argument, PP looks better if we acknowledge that they actually engage in little or no prenatal care, so that's what we say on this thread.

Do you understand what I mean?

I have consistently said that comprehensive prenatal care is not a service many PP offer.

My guess is that in the communities that it is offered, they are filling a need within an underserved community. In those communities it would be a very valuable service.

Yes, prenatal care is not the usual at planned parenthood.

But again, the numbers likely do not include the folks coming in for a cheap or free pregnancy test without an actual full clinic visit. I would hope that you would consider this valuable information when discussing the meaning of the stats.

 

[Brooks]

1. I do love the OP's attempt to make the numbers seem like 98% of all pregnant women who walk into a PP clinic get abortions- then Quibble and say well maybe 3% or so... :roll:

2. Anywho, most of this just looks like more anti-choice dribble trying to twist numbers or demand a very unrealistic standard be forced onto fellow citizens because of a personal belief....

1. You don't understand the numbers.
I'll repost them here:
the 3% number comes from the number of abortions divided into the total number of services they perform, roughly 11 million.
The 11 million services is done for 3 million clients.
So the two ways of saying what you're saying is:
1. 3% of all services performed at PP are abortions.
or
2. 13% of all people who go to PP get abortions.
They sound very different but they're both true.
The 98% and the 3% are completely different categories.
These numbers are not easy for everyone to understand, but this is as simply as I can explain them.
And if they are confusing you then that makes my point about how numbers, which should be hard and objective, can fit any agenda depending on how they are presented.

2. Although I'm anti-choice, the numbers aren't. They are from PP's website.

 

[sangha]

You've been begging for these numbers, claiming they don't exist, calling me a liar.
I asked you several times to go to the link and you wouldn't do it, you simply continued to make your erroneous claims.
Now here they are, I even pasted them for you and you have nothing to say about them.
I saw this coming.

And to use the word fascist improperly minimizes the sacrifice made by those who actually had to suffer through it.

'v
I see that you can't explain why you assumed that no pregnant woman went to PP for a breast exam, HIV test, or any of the other services PP provides. Instead, you're going to pretend that I didn't say anything about the dishonest way you've misused the #'s.

 

[sangha]

Women going in for STD tests and breast exams aren't there for a pregnancy related issue which is probably why Planned Parenthood doesn't list them in that way.
If you think the pregnant women getting an STD test should be culled from the non-pregnant women getting an STD test you should let PP know.
But at this point they don't think it's relevant.

You are lying, and your attempt to cover it up is pitiful

Your claim relies on the assumption that the only pregnant women who went to PP were those who went for pregnancy related issues. Instead of explaining why you made that assumption, you're trying to blame PP for forcing you to make that assumption

 

[sangha]

Is a pregnancy test considered a service for a pregnant woman?

If the woman is pregnant, then yes.

Duh

 

[Brooks]

AJ, I don't really understand a lot of what you're talking about here so I'll only comment on the two things I'm sure of.

1. Whether you were addressing me or not, the phrase "run run here comes the evil Planned Parenthood!!!!" is a provocative exaggeration of anything anyone here has said. It's easier to argue against a such a point rather than a more nuanced one, I understand that, but it's a waste of time.

2. "they are just a health clinic that overall does very little abortions percentage wise to the rest of their services "
13% of all women who go to PP get an abortion (about one out of eight). That's a pretty high percentage when it's worded that way, isn't it? That's why PP bases if on 11 million services rather than 3 million clients.

 

[sangha]

Your kind of having it both ways here.
On other threads, perhaps not you, posters have been citing prenatal care as one of the important things that PP does.
But for this percentage argument, PP looks better if we acknowledge that they actually engage in little or no prenatal care, so that's what we say on this thread.

Do you understand what I mean?

The fact that prenatal care makes up only a small part of their practice does not mean that it is not important, nor does it mean that PP doesn't provide any other important services

 

[Brooks]

Brooks: Is a pregnancy test considered a service for a pregnant woman?
Sangha: If the woman is pregnant, then yes.
Duh

If what you're saying is true, then that would be prenatal care, wouldn't it?

 

[sangha]

AJ, I don't really understand a lot of what you're talking about here so I'll only comment on the two things I'm sure of.

1. Whether you were addressing me or not, the phrase "run run here comes the evil Planned Parenthood!!!!" is a provocative exaggeration of anything anyone here has said. It's easier to argue against a such a point rather than a more nuanced one, I understand that, but it's a waste of time.

2. "they are just a health clinic that overall does very little abortions percentage wise to the rest of their services "
13% of all women who go to PP get an abortion (about one out of eight). That's a pretty high percentage when it's worded that way, isn't it? That's why PP bases if on 11 million services rather than 3 million clients.

1) You are lying when you claim that AJ's comment applied to everything anyone said

2) No, it is not high. Nearly 90% of it's client do not get abortions. The overwhelming majority of its clients go to PP for reasons other than "I want an abortion"

 

[sangha]

If what you're saying is true, then that would be prenatal care, wouldn't it?

Obviously not

Duh

So are you ever going to explain why you assumed that no pregnant woman received a breast exam, or an HIV test at PP, or received any of the other services PP offers?

 

[Brooks]

1) You are lying when you claim that AJ's comment applied to everything anyone said

2) No, it is not high. Nearly 90% of it's client do not get abortions. The overwhelming majority of its clients go to PP for reasons other than "I want an abortion"

1. That's not what I said. I said his characterization was an exaggeration of anything anyone said.

2. High is an opinion.

 

[winston53660]

It really is impossible to determine how many pregnant women going to PP seeking prenatal care opt to go that route with their pregnancy since only 63 out of the 800 clinics provide prenatal care and records are not kept on this.

 

[sangha]

1. That's not what I said. I said his characterization was an exaggeration of anything anyone said.

2. High is an opinion.

1) Which means that it applies to anything anyone has said

2) More proof that you have no facts

So are you ever going to explain why you assumed that no pregnant woman received a breast exam, PAP smear, or an HIV test at PP, or received any of the other services PP offers?

 

[Removable Mind]

Oh I don't think so. There is more than one action a woman can take if the condom breaks or leaks. Spermicide leaked out or cervical cap slipped, sponge got knocked sideways. Trying to narrow the options is not being even handed. (Ummm you have left out the sperm donor in the 'noble' spiel about financial responsibility) and just between us where did ya'll get those rose colored glasses if you think that somehow forcing a woman to have a child she didn't plan for will benefit society or be properly cared for financially??? Mighty fine words- personal responsibility and financial responsibility- but like many other 'noble' words they fall like lead once they hit reality. :roll:

I do love the OP's attempt to make the numbers seem like 98% of all pregnant women who walk into a PP clinic get abortions- then Quibble and say well maybe 3% or so... :roll:

I don't see Nota as anything close to an unbaised agenda- her post #10 uses the term slaughterhouses- then her post #13 says 'on demand' for abortions- now I have heard of an on demand water heater but abortions are not on demand.

She obviously has strong feelings that aborting a fetus before 20 to 22 weeks is 'slaughter'. So I'd say her opinion is far more anti-abortion due to that than any personal responsibility mantra, except of course if you limit the options to 'have the kid'.

I would think most 'personal responsibility' Conservatives would want as many low-income women who don't want a child to give 'em free abortions- after all who do you think will pay for that child? (take the rose colored glasses off and look at that)

Anywho, most of this just looks like more anti-choice dribble trying to twist numbers or demand a very unrealistic standard be forced onto fellow citizens because of a personal belief...

Edit- there are roughly 56 million women between the age of 18 and 44 so .0056% have abortions every year. There are approx 4 million live births every year so less than 8% of all pregnancies each year are terminated LEGALLY.

So there is no 'slaughter' just a TINY fraction of the child bearing aged women using an option some don't approve of.

Just to be clear regarding MY POSITION about sex and abortion. I support pro-choice tenets. But not without limitations. I subscribe to the right of a woman to manage her own reproductive role...within viability provisions state in Roe v. Wade.

I believe in taking responsible measures to prevent a conception in order to have sex for pleasure. I am powerless over other peoples sexual behaviors. I can't control or coerce others into being responsible each and every time they have sex for pleasure. But I don't condemn each and every person who winds up with an unexpected, unwanted, or unintended pregnancy...by claiming that every conception was out of ignorance, neglecting to be responsible, or using abortion as a method of birth control...as so many pro-life and anti-abortion advocates do.

There reality is...**** HAPPENS! We can't legislate sexual behaviors...and not even the ones that result in unwanted conceptions.

In the post you used to quote me was a summary of my perceptions of what Nota Bene believes regarding sex and reproduction (nothing more or less):

Woman before pregnancy=responsible for their decisions
Woman during pregnancy=responsible for their decisions
Woman after pregnancy=responsible for their decisions

Bottom line: WOMEN - Do NOT have sex UNLESS it is ALSO CONSENT TO BECOMING PREGNANT! If a pregnancy occurs...then be prepared to bring it to full term regardless of personal circumstance - and accept full financial responsibility.

Most importantly about my beliefs is that:

I completely disagree that by the mere act of having sex...that a woman is also giving consent for possibly an unexpected, unwanted, or unintentional conception.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)AJ, I don't really understand a lot of what you're talking about here so I'll only comment on the two things I'm sure of.

2. Whether you were addressing me or not, the phrase "run run here comes the evil Planned Parenthood!!!!" is a provocative exaggeration of anything anyone here has said. It's easier to argue against a such a point rather than a more nuanced one, I understand that, but it's a waste of time.

3. "they are just a health clinic that overall does very little abortions percentage wise to the rest of their services "
13% of all women who go to PP get an abortion (about one out of eight). That's a pretty high percentage when it's worded that way, isn't it? That's why PP bases if on 11 million services rather than 3 million clients.

1.) of course not, using deflections is all you ever have and it never works
2.) you are free to have that opinion rookie but the people here have posted how evil PP is and that they are just hired hit man and enemies to this country bigger than any war or attack we have ever had etc etc. so no its not an exaggeration at all.
3.) no 13% is not high at all when the other number is 3% and 87%

like i said keep up so you dont have failed posts like this in the future