 |
I still disagree with this post. It is insenstive going into the new year when everything we wish for may be set right. Mothers here and young people should not be subjected to this.
OK, para, the word holocaust may be personal to you, but not to some others, and you have to respect that. I have to ask, are you Jewish? Is that why you object to the use of that word ?
I terminated two pregnancies, para. It was not easy, and certainly not a good time in my life.
Looks like they're ganging up on ya, Clete. I note that Tom used the term "Holocaust" first. It IS used quite often in the abortion debate. Those that claim to be nauseated or disgusted by the term really have a personal problem. Ah, well, I suppose restricting speech is part of the norm for the Authoritarians these days, exemplified by the "trigger warning" foolishness on American college campuses.
I have edited the title to be less headline, grabbing knee jerk, amateur dramatics.
The most contentious part of this whole affair is this:
I would be interested in seeing the actual statute that backs this up, but I can see the viewpoint.Quote:
In doing so they were supported by $528.4 million from government grants and reimbursements;41% of the group's total revenues. Now Title X says that Federal Money cannot 'directly ' pay for abortions. However the Federal money does directly support the operations of PP ,of which abortions are a major part(95% of their 'services' for pregnant women) .
The $530 million could have been better invested into universal healthcare or childhood poverty.
Para, You just proved my point. You nicely expressed your opinion (even though I don't agree with it) without resorting to using phrases that can put off people. So yes it is insensitive to do so. The people who would be upset by the use of Holocaust are not the people who's guilt you are concerned about. So I stand by my statement that it was very insensitive.
By the way, it may be your truth but it is not everyone's truth. Which means it is not a truth at all but an opinion. I'm not going to discuss the merits of your opinion, because neither of us is going to convince the other.
Okay, what did I miss? Were posts deleted? If so, talking about them after they're gone, is just confusing to those of us that are coming in late to the game. :(
I'm in Canada, we don't have planned parenthood. Abortions still happen here, because sadly many women cannot afford to bring a child into the world, even with free health care. There's more to having a child than just paying for your pregnancy and birth. Giving up a child is not easy ever. Not that I know, I've never had an abortion or given up a child, it's just not something I could do. But I won't look down on anyone else that makes that choice. They have a right to choose what's best for them and their situation.
It's easy to say that they should have the child and give it up, but unless someone is paying for their medical expenses through their pregnancy in a country like the US where medical care is very expensive, it's not feasible for a great number of women. Abortion is sometimes the only viable option.
Now, if I totally missed the point of this post, I'm sorry, but as I said, I read all the posts and a lot seems to be missing, and I can't comment on things I didn't read or see.
I highlighted the unsubstantiated part of Toms statement, and from the link provided is FALSE. Abortions are only 3% of the total services of PP. I fail to see why anyone would think they can make such a serious decision for a women. Or why its even their business in the first place.Quote:
In doing so they were supported by $528.4 million from government grants and reimbursements;41% of the group's total revenues. Now Title X says that Federal Money cannot 'directly ' pay for abortions. However the Federal money does directly support the operations of PP ,of which abortions are a major part(95% of their 'services' for pregnant women) .
@ Alty the only thing changed in this thread was the title.
I do wish basic comprehension were taught I did not object to the use of the term in fact I was endorsing tom's comment that the destruction of human life on this scale is in fact no different to the holocaust, because it is systematic and legalised destruction of those who cannot fight back.
Tickle, it is not the word holocaust that is personal to me but the very concept that anyone has the right to terminate a human life on a whim or merely because they made a "mistake". This is an emotive debate particularly for the heddonistic "me" generation. As I said before my birth mother choose not to terminate her pregnancy, she gave me up for adoption and I know she had a sense of loss all her life, never the less I grew to become a productive human being.
If this debate makes you feel guilt tickle and recalls memories you would rather left buried can I suggest you avoid the debate rather than trying to styfle it
Clete, I say again, going through with a pregnancy only to give the child up, is not always feasible. In the US health care isn't free. Just giving birth can cost upwards of $12,000, and that's not including prenatal care!
You say destruction of life. I'm going to tread lightly on that one. I do agree that a baby isn't a human being until it's able to survive outside of it's mother. Having said that, to me every pregnancy I've had (I've had three pregnancies. I have two children), it was life as soon as the pee stick was positive. Sadly I lost my last one at 3 months gestation, a horrific miscarriage that almost cost me my life. Even though I know that that "baby"wasn't yet a real human being, wasn't able to survive outside of my body, I still mourned it, and still do mourn it.
But I do agree that a woman has a right to choose, and the law agrees with her! Just because you made a mistake doesn't mean that you and the child (most of all the child) should have to pay for that mistake.
Is this really about planned parenthood, or is this an anti-abortion post?
Alty you will have to ask Tom that question, I think he was lamenting the cost to tax-payersQuote:
Is this really about planned parenthood, or is this an anti-abortion post?
You cannot reduce a human life to a cost / benefit exercise, that really is a distortion brought about by a society that doesn't care for its people
But you do that every time you buy a shirt made by slaves instead of the much much more expensive one.Quote:
You cannot reduce a human life to a cost / benefit exercise
Abortion is unnecessary because of birth control? Like root canals, many car repairs, and the times I have tossed out some food I burned. The word 'truth' isn't one to be used lightly.
I take it that you have been talking to all the 14 year old girls whose boyfriends tell them they are too young to get pregnant, or that they will pull out in time? And you have been listening to some of the women regularly on this site, who got pregnant despite birth control, some even more than one form? I know several women personally who got pregnant despite the pill, despite tubal ligation, one even who had her bleeping uterus removed (the surgeon left one tiny bit to close off the cervix and it ballooned up as though nothing had changed). Another woman whose doctor never told her that the medication she was prescribed could negate the b.c. pills she took, and it did. On and on!
Be as glad as you wish that your mother had you, but if that determines your views on abortion, then provide a solution to a million extra foster kids each year.
The 72 hour pill seems to be one of the big reasons that the abortion rate is going down (and the pregnancy rate). I would hazard a guess that the public housing crunch, and the economic crunch in general, might be having an effect too, as mothers are told that they can't just get an apartment or even a bigger apartment these days. A lot of girls in horrible situations, such as a mother with a string of awful bf's, get pregnant just to get out of the house. Even just lacking any shred of love, and they think a baby will provide what they are missing.
That's just the people with no money. Of course women with money also have abortions. They have a job and a helpmeet but just got dumped.... etc etc etc... if you can't understand abortion for economic reasons THAT ONLY WOMEN FACE, then start learning.
Curleyben, 'The $530 million could have been better invested into universal healthcare or childhood poverty?' What a joke! That won't even cover the children born instead of aborted for ONE MONTH. Not the next 18 years! I tried to say that yesterday but I guess it fell on deaf ears.
Joy, Roughly along the lines or what I was getting at, just goes to show the skewed nature of this article.
the figures cited were directly from PP's annual report .
I owe no such apology because the baby destroyed had no such choice.Quote:
What really bugs me about this thread was the reference the Holocaust. Whether one agrees with abortion or not, those who have them have made the choice to do so. Those who were affected by THE Holocaust had no choice in the matter. Tom, I think you owe those people an apology.
For those who think this is such a benign harmless medical procedure ,I reference testimony to Congress from a former abortionist.
Written Testimony of Dr. Anthony Levatino, available atQuote:
Imagine, if you can, that you are a pro-choice
obstetrician/gynecologist like I once was. Your patient
today is 24 weeks pregnant (LMP). At 24 weeks from last
menstrual period, her uterus is two finger-breadths above
the umbilicus. If you could see her baby, which is quite
easy on an ultrasound, she would be as long as your hand
plus a half, from the top of her head to the bottom of her
rump, not counting the legs. Your patient has been feeling
her baby kick for the last month or more, but now she is
asleep on an operating room table and you are there to help
her with her problem pregnancy.
The first task is to remove the laminaria that had
earlier been placed in the cervix, the opening to the
uterus, to dilate it sufficiently to allow the procedure
you are about to perform. With that accomplished, direct
your attention to the surgical instruments arranged on a
small table to your right. The first instrument you reach
for is a 14-French suction catheter. It is clear plastic
and about nine inches long. It has a bore through the
center approximately \3/4\ of an inch in diameter. Picture
yourself introducing this catheter through the cervix and
instructing the circulating nurse to turn on the suction
machine, which is connected through clear plastic tubing to
the catheter. What you will see is a pale yellow fluid the
looks a lot like urine coming through the catheter into a
glass bottle on the suction machine. This is the amniotic
fluid that surrounded the baby to protect her.
With suction complete, look for your Sopher clamp. This
instrument is about thirteen inches long and made of
stainless steel. At the business end are located jaws about
2 inches long and about \1/2\ an inch wide with rows of
sharp ridges or teeth. This instrument is for grasping and
crushing tissue. When it gets hold of something, it does
not let go. A second trimester D&E abortion is a blind
procedure. The baby can be in any orientation or position
inside the uterus. Picture yourself reaching in with the
Sopher clamp and grasping anything you can. At 24 weeks
gestation, the uterus is thin and soft so be careful not to
perforate or puncture the walls. Once you have grasped
something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and
pull hard--really hard. You feel something let go and out
pops a fully formed leg about six inches long. Reach in
again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull
really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same
length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear
out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.
The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the
baby's head. The head of a baby that age is about the size
of a large plum and is now free floating inside the uterine
cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it if the
Sopher clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will
allow. You know you have it right when you crush down on
the clamp and see white gelatinous material coming through
the cervix. That was the baby's brains. You can then
extract the skull pieces. Many times a little face may come
out and stare back at you . . .
If you refuse to believe that this procedure inflicts
severe pain on that unborn child, please think again.
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/...2005172012.pdf.
But that only if you believe that the fetus (not a baby) was a life. Not everyone does. So don't apologize, just says a lot about you as does using this very skewed report to forward your agenda. I'm out.Quote:
I owe no such apology because the baby destroyed had no such choice.
I've tried to stay out of this, but there are also medical reasons for abortion. As a medical professional I've seen this all too often.
Abortion is a choice and a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy for whatever reason should not be chastised.
Pro-lifers really get under my skin as they see it as a black and white issue when it clearly is not black and white, there are many shades of gray scattered in there, but pro-lifers wear blinders and refuse be open minded.
"Your patient today is 24 weeks pregnant (LMP). "
Unrealistic scenario!
The limits go by state law. Perhaps J_9 has experience with how many women in her state and hospital have abortions anywhere near that late, unless there's a medical emergency.
We don't do abortions at my hospital. In 2 hours I will have been awake for 24 hours, so I'm a little too tired to research the statistics for my state.
Something that is not being taken into consideration is congenital birth defects that are incompatible with life such as anacephaly. Right to lifers think that it is okay to carry a baby to as near term as possible with a congenital defect that is severely disfiguring and would cause the baby excruciating pain in the few hours that it will live. This is not only cruel and unusual punishment for the baby, but for the family as well.
I have a personal story regarding abortion. Prior to Roe v Wade my brother-in-law's birth mother found out she was pregnant as a teen. Since abortion was illegal she attempted a back alley abortion. It didn't work. My BIL is now in his late 50s and is mentally challenged because of the botched abortion. He will never live alone and will always be dependent on one of us. The medical records and adoption records were opened after his adoptive parents (my in laws) were told of his mental deficiencies.
As as a nurse I have had, without breaking HIPAA, a 12 year old child deliver a baby after she was raped by her grandfather. Within a year that child committed suicide all because her parents did not believe in abortion.
There is a bigger picture here that pro-lifers just choose to ignore. They think that once there is a heartbeat it is a life. That's furthest from the truth. Until the 24th week of gestation a fetus is completely dependent on the mother. If the mother doesn't have a heartbeat, the baby won't. There are other medical conditions in which the mothers life is placed in jeopardy when she is pregnant. Had one of those recently as well. Mother was counseled NOT to carry the baby and was advised to abort. Because she was pro-life she chose to continue with the pregnancy. As warned, she passed 2 hours after the delivery despite all medical interventions, and this child will never know her mother.
Abortion is one of those hot topics where there will always be two camps, actually three, as J_9 mentioned, some take into consideration medical reasons, with varying points of view. All will believe that they are justified in their reasons and beliefs and feel the other camp is wrong for theirs.
I see this frequently when I counsel women and families about choice in childbirth, breastfeeding, circumcision, and vaccinations... other hot topics that will always have different views.
Many times opinions or beliefs come from personal experiences, but personal experience is not necessary to have an opinion or belief. Sometimes one can offer facts and statistics, but it still won't alter someone's opinion, belief, or personal experience.
Even whether or not government monies (taxes) should be used is debatable.
Like ScottGem, I'm out as these types of debates will never be settled....and often just fall into arguing and hurt/angry feelings.
I agree with what you are saying Doula. It's really a no-win situation. My only issue is trying to educate, as nurses do, that it's not always as simple as terminating a pregnancy because a woman is using it as birth control, she can't afford a baby or another baby, etc. it's not always that simple. Many couples try for years to conceive only to find out that the fetus will suffer tremendously during the labor, birth, and few hours following the birth.
Would you make that baby suffer? It's very selfish of you if your answer is yes.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:23 AM. |