I'm Pro-Life: Change My Mind

[code1211]

Reading it again, I have to agree with you, although for the life of me I can't figure out what I was going to say.



This phrase makes me feel as if you are not reading at all. Possible death is not the only health consideration. There are possible long term damages that can occur to the woman's health without killing her.



Most women do indeed have multiple reasons. Finances, obligations to others, health concerns for the potential child, etc. There is nothing to say that these concerns can't overlap. Ultimately all birth control is about these considerations. A large number of abortions are because other birth control methods failed, and they were using those birth control methods for a reason or many reason.

I often have odd omissions in posts. If you are developing what I seem to have perfected, stay away from power tools unless you have a ready ride to the ER. Also, get plenty of rest.

Okay. 12% of abortions involve a consideration for the Mother's health. That's pretty much about what i assumed. About 90% of Abortions are NOT related to the Mother's health.

This does not mean that her abortion is not her choice. It only reveals that the deceptive label of "Women's Heath" is deceptive. Very likely, intentionally so.

It also does nothing to change who holds direct responsibility and to whom the resulting societally approved right to an abortion on demand is given.

"Multiple reasons" accompany many unexpected events that demand decisive action. Car breaks down. Roof leaks. Light bulb burns out. Dog whines at the door. Good movie opens at the local cineplex.

The choice made, as you point out, reflects the capabilities, priorities and values held by, and guiding, the chooser.

I happen to enjoy beef in most of its forms. I know a Vegan who will NEVER eat anything that used to have a face. We don't share the same capabilities, priorities and values regarding beef.

Our elected courses of action differ when we smell aromas emitted from a nearby Burger King. We both find the chosen course of the other to be questionable. How could you NOT choose the Whopper? It's a mystery!

 

[code1211]

Good. Less welfare babies.

WOW!

Margaret? Margaret Sanger? Is that you?

 

[Far right dem]

WOW!

Margaret? Margaret Sanger? Is that you?

Are you a liberal?

 

[code1211]

Yeah. He expects us to believe he is pro-choice after all that.

I don't expect anything sensible or logical from you.

You can relax.

 

[code1211]

That is being a bit obtuse.

Do you not get the connection between demanding equal rights and saying all humans possess those rights equally?

And yes you have been thrust into a position of making a choice when I asked you to answer the q2uestion I asked which you are still being a man about it by still avoiding an answer. You have not that luxury if you are pregnant.

Could not care less about any other conversation you are having. You are avoiding this one with excuses and now just whinging.

I said decision and you changed that to choice. Intentional?

I don't understand why my position confuses so many so completely.

I feel that human life is valuable. I feel that societal pressures assign responsibilities and resulting rights. Sometimes individual and societal truths come into conflict.

My question to you and others that seem to hold your position is simply this: "Does human life hold no special value to you as you seem to assert?"

Why is rejecting the value of Human Life a foundational prerequisite to assert the need for abortion on demand?

 

[Scrabaholic]

His claim was that PP was mostly in minority areas, not that all abortion clinics were. Last I checked PP was not all or even most abortion clinics.

If you can prove otherwise, I'm all ears.

 

[weaver2]

Also the de facto founder of Planned Parenthood with this goal stated in her own words:
“the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.” Today, about 80% of Planned Parenthood locations are in minority neighborhoods. Her program continues being put into effect.

When you quote someone you should quote it in context of the whole article, situation, scenario, etc. not wipe out words that don't suit your agenda.
Here's the quote in context. It was made in 1922 as the 1st in a series of articles.
Margaret Sanger, "High Lights in the History of Birth Control," Oct 1923.Published Article. Source: The Thinker Oct. 1923, pp. 59-61. ,
........ Birth Control does not mean contraception indiscriminately practised. It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks--those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.
.........We must cultivate the human garden by proper spacing, by improving the quality of our precious crop of children by methods of intensive cultivation and not by the production of mere numbers. As long as we wilfully, as a nation, waste the most precious resources we have--our child life-- let us hold our tongues about the dangers of Birth Control. The advocates of Birth Control place a higher value on the life of a child than do its opponents. We want every child born in this country to bring with it the heritage of health and fine vitality. This is the true wealth of our United States.

Sanger's concern were for all families that lacked access to birth control and had huge numbers of children they simply couldn't care for. In spite of Prohibition drinking was on the increase and it was hard liquor rather than beer. Fetal alcohol syndrome caused lowered cognitive ability, out right mental retardation and physically unfit children. Poor farm workers were moving into the cities. Immigration was unlimited: Greeks, Italians and Russians were flooding east coast cities where jobs, housing, assistance and charitable societies were scarce or nonexistant. The population suffered high rates of TB and lung cancer. Dangerous tenements were over crowded. Children started work, if they were able at 10, schooling was infrequent, food was adulterated and medications were uncontrolled. These were the "human weeds" that were Sanger's target population.

Read a book by Sanger to understand her compassion for women, all women, any woman, unable to cope with poverty and too many children.

 

[code1211]

You would have to ask Guttmacher for their specific sources, but I doubt that it was limited to PP.

Abortion in the United States

The Guttmacher Institute recently published new data on abortion in the United States. As we work to update our fact sheets with the latest data, please be aware that some of the information below is out of date. In the meantime, please refer to the following resources for the most current facts...

www.guttmacher.org

The second part being the listed reference.

I think to arrive at the actual numbers of what you are talking about we would have to look at the number of women of each given population to do comparative, and probably narrow that down to the number of women getting pregnant, so that the non pregnant women do not skew the numbers.

In the source that was alleging that Planned Parenthood Clinics were mostly in Minority communities, I didn't notice if they also referenced the overall distribution of abortion clinics.

Refining the data in any survey does what it does. The Law of Large Numbers seems to smooth over many anomalies. I like percents of total populations, but that sort of number is what it is and only do what they do.

Refining data TOO much or TOO little seems to make the resulting data less useful for MY purposes.

I'm always amused at poll takers who target voters of a certain gender, at a certain age, in a certain salary level, in a certain neighborhood type, who engage in a certain activity and on and on. However, it works for them.

If all we're doing is checking to see if Margaret Sanger's goals are being achieved by her legacy clinics, the specific racial consideration seems very useful.

If some sort of remediation is being pursued for the entire group, other factors which ignore any racial component entirely would seem to be useful.

However, if any study is performed by the US Government today, racial considerations seem likely to be included in the study and then cherry picked and exploited by the politicians.

 

[code1211]

Are you a liberal?

I think my views on various topics would cause the ardent in either camp to reject me.

I base most of my political ideas and positions on logic and reason, so I consider myself to be a Conservative.

In general, Conservatives would chase me away, though, for various positions I hold quite firmly.

 

[maquiscat]

In the source that was alleging that Planned Parenthood Clinics were mostly in Minority communities, I didn't notice if they also referenced the overall distribution of abortion clinics.

Refining the data in any survey does what it does. The Law of Large Numbers seems to smooth over many anomalies. I like percents of total populations, but that sort of number is what it is and only do what they do.

Refining data TOO much or TOO little seems to make the resulting data less useful for MY purposes.

I'm always amused at poll takers who target voters of a certain gender, at a certain age, in a certain salary level, in a certain neighborhood type, who engage in a certain activity and on and on. However, it works for them.

If all we're doing is checking to see if Margaret Sanger's goals are being achieved by her legacy clinics, the specific racial consideration seems very useful.

If some sort of remediation is being pursued for the entire group, other factors which ignore any racial component entirely would seem to be useful.

However, if any study is performed by the US Government today, racial considerations seem likely to be included in the study and then cherry picked and exploited by the politicians.

In the end, I would say that the overall numbers were the more important of the lot, with reason for abortion being what you have to address, more so than race. Race might then be a factor of a specific reason, but that still makes it secondary.

My initial point, was when someone brought up Sanger, with an implication that having abortion was a method to reduce black population numbers, to point out to them that her plan failed in the other direction and more white people were having abortions instead of blacks. The woman's goal vs reality don't match.

 

[code1211]

When you quote someone you should quote it in context of the whole article, situation, scenario, etc. not wipe out words that don't suit your agenda.
Here's the quote in context. It was made in 1922 as the 1st in a series of articles.
Margaret Sanger, "High Lights in the History of Birth Control," Oct 1923.Published Article. Source: The Thinker Oct. 1923, pp. 59-61. ,
........ Birth Control does not mean contraception indiscriminately practised. It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the "gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks"?--those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.
.........We must cultivate the human garden by proper spacing, by improving the quality of our precious crop of children by methods of intensive cultivation and not by the production of mere numbers. As long as we wilfully, as a nation, waste the most precious resources we have--our child life-- let us hold our tongues about the dangers of Birth Control. The advocates of Birth Control place a higher value on the life of a child than do its opponents. We want every child born in this country to bring with it the heritage of health and fine vitality. This is the true wealth of our United States.

Sanger's concern were for all families that lacked access to birth control and had huge numbers of children they simply couldn't care for. In spite of Prohibition drinking was on the increase and it was hard liquor rather than beer. Fetal alcohol syndrome caused lowered cognitive ability, out right mental retardation and physically unfit children. Poor farm workers were moving into the cities. Immigration was unlimited: Greeks, Italians and Russians were flooding east coast cities where jobs, housing, assistance and charitable societies were scarce or nonexistant. The population suffered high rates of TB and lung cancer. Dangerous tenements were over crowded. Children started work, if they were able at 10, schooling was infrequent, food was adulterated and medications were uncontrolled. These were the "human weeds" that were Sanger's target population.

Read a book by Sanger to understand her compassion for women, all women, any woman, unable to cope with poverty and too many children.

Are you saying that Sanger was NOT including minorities as part of her cited populations recommending the "gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks"?

 

[soylentgreen]

I said decision and you changed that to choice. Intentional?

I don't understand why my position confuses so many so completely.

I feel that human life is valuable. I feel that societal pressures assign responsibilities and resulting rights. Sometimes individual and societal truths come into conflict.

My question to you and others that seem to hold your position is simply this: "Does human life hold no special value to you as you seem to assert?"

Why is rejecting the value of Human Life a foundational prerequisite to assert the need for abortion on demand?

No, you made up a whole lot of " if only" type excuses as you are doing now.

Again I could not care less of your so called position which contradicts itself. Your suggestion that all rights should be equal is just ridiculous. All you have done here is create a fantasy and want reality to conform.

Life of itself has only personal value. Being able to live my life is a value that others like you wish to impose on with silly idea of equality that does not exist.

No it is you who disregard the value of human life because you see nothing to it more than a beating heart that something is alive. Life means being able to live that life not just be alive.

 

[roguenuke]

That would be the case if it was just between a doctor and a women but there is a separate life inside the mother which also needs to be considered.

No it doesn't. That "life" inside is not considered a person with any sort of rights legally. That life does not have a separate doctor nor is covered by insurance yet. That life is using resources from the woman carrying it.

 

[roguenuke]

Just because this law is accepted by most Americans does not make it right it just makes it a law, and there was a study done which shown in US adults 48% were pro choice 46% were pro life and 6% held no view so it is not an overwhelming majority according to this study.

The problem with these "studies" is that they sometimes include people who will state they are personally prolife but legally/politically support having at least some choice abortion legal. They wouldn't have an abortion and they may even encourage others to not have an abortion, but they would not prevent them legally from having an abortion. There are so many different positions here that such studies/polls almost never cover them sufficiently.

 

[roguenuke]

I agree. I will not have sex until I am ready and understand that the consequence of my act may be life.

Do you understand that this is not the most likely consequence of sex? It is a potential consequence of sex, just as a potential consequence of driving is getting into an accident. But if you are disfigured in an accident, you can get all the medical care you need/can afford/available to help you return (to the largest extent possible) to normal life for you. And as medicine advances, this return to normal life for most who survive such an accident is getting more and more likely. You don't have to live with the "consequences" of a single decision you make without any additional decisions being available to you. If I lose my job, I can find another. I don't have to go "well that is the consequence of missing too many days" (and it doesn't matter the reason). Sure, that could make it more difficult to find another job, dependent on many factors, but joblessness is not something a person would simply have to live with.

 

[code1211]

In the end, I would say that the overall numbers were the more important of the lot, with reason for abortion being what you have to address, more so than race. Race might then be a factor of a specific reason, but that still makes it secondary.

My initial point, was when someone brought up Sanger, with an implication that having abortion was a method to reduce black population numbers, to point out to them that her plan failed in the other direction and more white people were having abortions instead of blacks. The woman's goal vs reality don't match.

Planned parenthood traces its origins back to Margaret Sanger.

They seem to be following the general guidelines and philosophies that she originally laid out.

Abortions are not, by definition, performed ONLY on people with particular racial identifying traits. It seems that the Planned parenthood clinics, though, lean in this direction.

Sanger seems to have been setting this direction with her attitudes and goals.

 

[roguenuke]

Planned parenthood traces its origins back to Margaret Sanger.

They seem to be following the general guidelines and philosophies that she originally laid out.

Abortions are not, by definition, performed ONLY on people with particular racial identifying traits. It seems that the Planned parenthood clinics, though, lean in this direction.

Sanger seems to have been setting this direction with her attitudes and goals.

Sanger opposed abortion.

And Planned Parenthood normally sets up in areas of poverty, not based on racial identifying traits.

You are playing six degrees of separation. Family planning involves many aspects and it is highly important that those with the least resources for themselves and their current situation are given opportunities to allow for family planning to occur for them, with little to no cost for them since they can't afford children. Planned Parenthood is involved in all legal forms of family planning, with just one being abortion, but many others being affordable healthcare and contraceptives, as well as advice and planning for becoming a parent. That is not eugenics, but rather common sense. If someone is having trouble affording contraceptives and personal healthcare for themselves, they are not likely financially situated to have children at the moment, so it is better for them and society to provide them with affordable birth control options and some education about sex and parenting and other subjects pertaining to parenthood and sexual activity so that they may become better prepared to be parents when they are more financially able.

 

[code1211]

No, you made up a whole lot of " if only" type excuses as you are doing now.

Again I could not care less of your so called position which contradicts itself. Your suggestion that all rights should be equal is just ridiculous. All you have done here is create a fantasy and want reality to conform.

Life of itself has only personal value. Being able to live my life is a value that others like you wish to impose on with silly idea of equality that does not exist.

No it is you who disregard the value of human life because you see nothing to it more than a beating heart that something is alive. Life means being able to live that life not just be alive.

Actually, "life" can exist without a beating heart. Human life is present when human DNA is present in the cells that are demonstrating functions that are present ONLT when life is present.

We agree that life has personal value. "Rights" implies a societal environment. A society in its simplest form includes two people. When the society includes millions, the complexities multiply.

What you define as life seems to depart from the common scientific definition of life. The scientific and the legal definitions of life differ as well.

If you are discussing science, then life means one thing. If you are discussing legality, life means something else. If you are discussing "justice" or "fairness", life probably has other meanings as well.

I feel that you are either limiting your consideration or just ignoring the complexities in order to maintain whatever it is you fell is your position on abortion might be.

That's okay. You are completely free to think whatever it is you think for whatever reasons you feel you should include or exclude.

I only ask that when you pass judgements on what I believe, you include those considerations and conclusions that I have specified as being foundational for me.

 

[weaver2]

Planned parenthood traces its origins back to Margaret Sanger. They seem to be following the general guidelines and philosophies that she originally laid out. Abortions are not, by definition, performed ONLY on people with particular racial identifying traits. It seems that the Planned parenthood clinics, though, lean in this direction. Sanger seems to have been setting this direction with her attitudes and goals.

Fergodsake READ WHAT SANGER WROTE. You keep saying stupid stuff about her that simply isn't true. All of her writing is in the public domaine. Here is a tiny selection of it. Read something. I'd suggest #5. You can quote lots of juicy stuff from that article that makes her look ghastly if you quote out of context, but, at least you'll know you're being dishonest when you do that. (Self-knowledge is a beautiful thing even for simpletons and and clodpates.)

subject index 1="motherhood"

1. Is Motherhood Sacred?
2. n.d. (Autograph draft document)
3. Is Motherhood Sacred?
4. n.d. (Autograph draft article)
5. An Important Book
6. 1914-07-00 (Published article)
7. The Tragedy of the Accidental Child
8. 1919-04-00 (Published article)
9. A Better Race Through Birth Control
10. 1923-11-00 (Published article)
11. Woman and Birth Control
12. 1923-12-00 (Published article)
13. Does Marriage Interfere With a Career?
14. 1925-09-25 (Published article)
15. Motherhood Enslaved in Italy
16. 1929-00-00 (Typed draft article)
17. One Million Letters from Mothers
18. 1930-00-00 (Typed draft article)
19. Should a Wife Support Herself?
20. 1932-09-23 (Published article)
21. How I Decided to Begin My Fight
22. 1939-02-00 (Published article)
23. Is This the Time to Have a Child?
24. 1942-05-25 (Typed draft article)
25. Sexual Adjustment and Parenthood
26. 1944-06-00 (Published article)

 

[soylentgreen]

Actually, "life" can exist without a beating heart. Human life is present when human DNA is present in the cells that are demonstrating functions that are present ONLT when life is present.

We agree that life has personal value. "Rights" implies a societal environment. A society in its simplest form includes two people. When the society includes millions, the complexities multiply.

What you define as life seems to depart from the common scientific definition of life. The scientific and the legal definitions of life differ as well.

If you are discussing science, then life means one thing. If you are discussing legality, life means something else. If you are discussing "justice" or "fairness", life probably has other meanings as well.

I feel that you are either limiting your consideration or just ignoring the complexities in order to maintain whatever it is you fell is your position on abortion might be.

That's okay. You are completely free to think whatever it is you think for whatever reasons you feel you should include or exclude.

I only ask that when you pass judgements on what I believe, you include those considerations and conclusions that I have specified as being foundational for me.

This really is a facepalm moment for you if you think you are discussing science.

You have shown that in a subject such as how rights work you prefer to believe in fantasy ideals that do not work in real life.

Now your claiming that because you value life and life is studied by science therefor your value system is science based.. If you had even the first clue about science then you would realise that it does not involve a value system on life. That value you have is personal and subjective opinion, not science.

You are badly mistaken in thinking I am here to argue against any moral position you are taking. That is not even worth considering when you make it so clear that you base your morals on a complete misunderstanding not only of science but how society works as well.

 

[maquiscat]

If you can prove otherwise, I'm all ears.

I'm not sure what you are asking me to prove. They made a claim about PP specifically, and you returned with something about abortion clinics in general. I merely pointed out the goal post shift. To make an analogy, they made a claim against McDonald's, and you returned with something about all fast food places. It doesn't matter where all the other abortion clinics are in relation to their claim. Only where the PP abortion clinics are. And keep in mind that not all PP clinics are abortion clinics.

 

[Lursa]

Fergodsake READ WHAT SANGER WROTE. You keep saying stupid stuff about her that simply isn't true. All of her writing is in the public domaine. Here is a tiny selection of it. Read something. I'd suggest #5. You can quote lots of juicy stuff from that article that makes her look ghastly if you quote out of context, but, at least you'll know you're being dishonest when you do that. (Self-knowledge is a beautiful thing even for simpletons and and clodpates.)

Not this again. Blaming Margaret Sanger's views on racism/eugenics for *today's* PP organization is like blaming the FF's like Jefferson, who kept slaves, for how we interpret the Constitution *today*. Society evolves and moves on and institutions do so as well.​

​

If you want to throw out PP because of Sanger's views, shall we throw out the Constitution as well because of slave-owning founders? ​

Previously posted I always shake my head at the hypocrisy...or maybe just the severely limited thinking...that leads to comments like his on Sanger and PP.

 

[Scrabaholic]

I'm not sure what you are asking me to prove. They made a claim about PP specifically, and you returned with something about abortion clinics in general. I merely pointed out the goal post shift. To make an analogy, they made a claim against McDonald's, and you returned with something about all fast food places. It doesn't matter where all the other abortion clinics are in relation to their claim. Only where the PP abortion clinics are. And keep in mind that not all PP clinics are abortion clinics.

I re-read up thread and he said PP clinics, not any kind of abortion clinic - so we are both wrong.

I cannot find stats for PP, though I had them at one time. However, he made the claim, it's up to him to prove it and from a reliable, non biased source.

 

[maquiscat]

I re-read up thread and he said PP clinics, not any kind of abortion clinic - so we are both wrong.

I cannot find stats for PP, though I had them at one time. However, he made the claim, it's up to him to prove it and from a reliable, non biased source.

I'm not sure what I'm wrong about, unless by "we" you meant you and him. All I did was point out the goal post shift, unintentional as it was. I didn't accept his argument as valid or accurate in and of itself, nor claimed it invalid and inaccurate.

 

[Individual]

Abortion is 100% the termination of a child for a fact and since you want to cast everyone out who doesn’t agree with you as “forcing women to remain pregnant” then I could say the same about you who is fine with the murder of innocent lives, but I’m not going to because the point in this post is to find common ground and find out why we think why we do. But clearly for you this is not possible as you think that, if you want to have any decent discussion with anyone instead of just trying to shut down dialogue by deciding that I want to force pregnancy why not actually try and have a civil discussion, thanks.

Abortion terminates the creation of a child, which IMO has no prenatal legal Rights as an individual without being claimed by the Woman.
A Womans Right to choose an abortion imposes no force upon those who are pro-life.
When one side believes life begins at conception and another believes life begins at birth, there's little chance of finding common ground, which has resulted in State governments passing laws related to abortion as the Federal government has recognized the Womans RIGHT to choose an abortion.
I think 24 weeks is about the best compromise that can be achieved, though in the case of abortion I would prefer leaving any judgement of the Womans choice to God and focus solely on laws need to be imposed upon the born who interact with others who have been born.
Why should anyone want to change your mind as long as you don't attempt to impose upon their Right to make their own choices?