Pro-choice distortion

[oxmixmudd]

Wow - we're talking about a 'young girl' about to end a human life being required to know more about that before she does it, as opposed to....

wow

Do you suppose I am not aware of that? You act like I'm arguing for abortion - again trying to paint me as what I am not.

What I am advocating for is honesty in the discussion.

There are two different world views looking at the event through very different value systems. We believe it is wrong to kill the child, and they believe it is wrong to let a mistake ruin the life of a young mother. They do not necessarily see the child as a child, especially in the earliest phases of gestation. They believe the abortion is the best decision, just like we believe not killing the child is the best decision. They also feel that our 'informed consent' is just as much biased propaganda as we believe their approach hiding what actually happens in the abortion is propaganda. We want to emphasize that this is a child they are killing. They want to emphasis that this is not a fully developed child (especially first trimester) and that the responsibility of raising a child lasts a lifetime and she is probably not ready to take that on.

It is not that they are demons trying to make sure this child gets killed, it is that they honestly are wanting what is best for the mother, however misguided you or I would see their method of accomplishing that.

Ergo: Your response mischaracterizes their position.

Ergo: They resist what you are calling 'informed consent' for the same reason you resist telling the young mother about her abortion options.


Jim

[Cow Poke]

You are trying to read things into my words that are not there. But I know there is nothing I can do to stop it. You must first decide for yourself that you will approach my posts with goodwill instead of disdain.

You have two different world views looking at the event through very different value systems. We believe it is wrong to kill the child, and they believe it is wrong to let a mistake ruin the life of a young mother. They do not necessarily see the child as a child, especially in the earliest phases of gestation. They believe the abortion is the best decision, just like we believe not killing the child is the best decision. They also feel that our 'informed consent' is just as much biased propaganda as we believe their approach hiding what actually happens in the abortion is propaganda. We want to emphasize that this is a child they are killing. They want to emphasis that this is not a fully developed child (especially first trimester) and that the responsibility of raising a child lasts a lifetime and she is probably not ready to take that on.

It is not that they are demons trying to make sure this child gets killed, it is that they honestly are wanting what is best for the mother, however misguided you or I would see their method of accomplishing that.

Ergo: Your response mischaracterizes their position.

Ergo: They resist what you are calling 'informed consent' for the same reason you resist telling the young mother about her abortion options.


Jim

Yeah, see my prior post.

[oxmixmudd]

No, just the pregnant ones.

Planned Parenthood’s abortion quota certificate proven authentic – by Planned Parenthood

February 27, 2017 (LiveActionNews) -- On February 8, 2017, President and Founder of Live Action, Lila Rose, posted a photo of a certificate awarded to a Colorado Planned Parenthood for exceeding abortion quotas.

The certificate, “For Exceeding Abortion Visits,” was awarded to the Aurora Planned Parenthood facility back in May of 2013, but still stirs up controversy four years later. Live Action received emails and Facebook comments after Rose’s post, questioning the validity of the award. Some claimed the photo was doctored or photo-shopped.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36715[/ATTACH]

However, Planned Parenthood itself admitted to the validity of the award in a blog post from July 2014. Speaking of pro-life claims that Planned Parenthood had abortion quotas, Vicki Cowart, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM), responded that the photo was of a certificate that PPRM had given to one of its clinics:

The entire basis of their claim was a photo of a certificate that Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains gave to a health center for increasing its abortion services. … And, yes, we absolutely do celebrate our progress in ensuring that more people have access to the full range of reproductive health care, including abortion. And we always will.

Abby Johnson, Founder and President of And Then There Were None and a former Planned Parenthood clinic director, posted the same image of the award to her Facebook page.

“So remember when I posted this photo that we received from a former Planned Parenthood worker? And remember that we said that this was an award for increasing their abortion numbers at the Aurora abortion clinic?” Johnson wrote. “Well, Planned Parenthood has responded and has confirmed that, YES, this is an award that was given out by them. And, YES, they will continue to ‘celebrate their progress and they always will.’”

You are still mischaracterizing their position. Though I agree with you that is a horrible way to approach the issue.

But not as horrible as bombing abortion clinics, or having large groups of people verbally assaulting the individual young ladies entering the clinics

Jim

[Cow Poke]

You are still mischaracterizing their position.

They REWARD their clinics for doing MORE abortions, Jim. "For exceeding ABORTION visits" - not for "providing more services to women".

[Mountain Man]

Do you suppose I am not aware of that? You act like I'm arguing for abortion - again trying to paint me as what I am not.

What I am advocating for is honesty in the discussion.

There are two different world views looking at the event through very different value systems. We believe it is wrong to kill the child, and they believe it is wrong to let a mistake ruin the life of a young mother. They do not necessarily see the child as a child, especially in the earliest phases of gestation. They believe the abortion is the best decision, just like we believe not killing the child is the best decision. They also feel that our 'informed consent' is just as much biased propaganda as we believe their approach hiding what actually happens in the abortion is propaganda. We want to emphasize that this is a child they are killing. They want to emphasis that this is not a fully developed child (especially first trimester) and that the responsibility of raising a child lasts a lifetime and she is probably not ready to take that on.

It is not that they are demons trying to make sure this child gets killed, it is that they honestly are wanting what is best for the mother, however misguided you or I would see their method of accomplishing that.

Ergo: Your response mischaracterizes their position.

Ergo: They resist what you are calling 'informed consent' for the same reason you resist telling the young mother about her abortion options.


Jim

And Hitler thought he was doing the human race a favor by purging Jews from the gene pool. So what? Does it really matter when what they believe is so egregiously evil?

And you wonder why we question your stance on abortion when you post nonsense like this that implies that the opposing sides are on equal moral footing.

[carpedm9587]

So, why are they so opposed to "informed consent"?

Because the law was structured in such a way that the woman had no choice about what information she wanted to see or the procedures required to obtain it. She HAS to look at an ultrasound (which means she has to undergo an ultrasound) and HAS to review the information as outlined in the law before making a choice.

When I go to my doctor, I have no desire to have the government tell me what I must look at before I make a decision. That is between me an my doctor. If I want an ultrasound, I'll get one. If I want to look at my X-rays, I'll look at them. If I don't, I won't. No informed consent form I have ever signed has required me to do anything other than talk to my doctor, and hear about the options. I have no problem with an informed consent law that requires a doctor to outline all of the options available to a woman at that point. I have a problem with any law that mandates medical procedures and the format in which the information is presented.

[carpedm9587]

Planned Parenthood is NOT an abortion provider like the NFL is NOT about football.

The NFL sells 5 million hot dogs in a season, and there are only 256 games, therefore, football is only .005% of what they do!

That's the logic that Planned Parenthood uses to claim that abortions are only 3% of what they do.

Umm...REALLY bad analogy. All of the services offered by planned parenthood are related to woman's health, of which 3% is abortion-related. It's an accurate description. Hot dogs have nothing to do with football. Indeed, it isn't necessarily the NFL selling them, AFAICT. In some cases, the teams own the concessions, and in others it is the food vendors who sell the hot dogs and the team takes a percentage because they are the draw. And the comparison of number of dogs to number of games is ludicrous. Comparing the number of dogs to the number of tickets sold might be a little better, but even then it's ridiculous given the differential in the price of the two things and (again) the fact that hot dogs are not related to football.

Really, really bad analogy.

[carpedm9587]

For the same reason we would not want to be forced to give a young girl seeking help in a pro-life clinic a list of area abortion clinics.

Jim

You raise an interesting point. If "informed consent" is required and groups like planned parenthood are required to review all of the options (which I think they should), it stands to reason that ALL woman's care facilities should be required to outline ALL of the options, right?

[carpedm9587]

Do you suppose I am not aware of that? You act like I'm arguing for abortion - again trying to paint me as what I am not.

What I am advocating for is honesty in the discussion.

There are two different world views looking at the event through very different value systems. We believe it is wrong to kill the child, and they believe it is wrong to let a mistake ruin the life of a young mother. They do not necessarily see the child as a child, especially in the earliest phases of gestation. They believe the abortion is the best decision, just like we believe not killing the child is the best decision. They also feel that our 'informed consent' is just as much biased propaganda as we believe their approach hiding what actually happens in the abortion is propaganda. We want to emphasize that this is a child they are killing. They want to emphasis that this is not a fully developed child (especially first trimester) and that the responsibility of raising a child lasts a lifetime and she is probably not ready to take that on.

It is not that they are demons trying to make sure this child gets killed, it is that they honestly are wanting what is best for the mother, however misguided you or I would see their method of accomplishing that.

Ergo: Your response mischaracterizes their position.

Ergo: They resist what you are calling 'informed consent' for the same reason you resist telling the young mother about her abortion options.

Jim

My understanding of the pro-choice position is a little more nuanced than this. Adoption would just as easily avoid the ruining of a young woman's life. The issue is more about whether or not is it the place of government to make medical decisions for a woman who has not committed any crime and is perfectly capable of making her own medical decisions. The question of "when a new human person begins" obviously impacts the position. "When a new human person begins" is a partly scientific question and partly a philosophical one. I doubt it will ever be settled to everyone's satisfaction.

[mikewhitney]

My understanding of the pro-choice position is a little more nuanced than this. Adoption would just as easily avoid the ruining of a young woman's life. The issue is more about whether or not is it the place of government to make medical decisions for a woman who has not committed any crime and is perfectly capable of making her own medical decisions. The question of "when a new human person begins" obviously impacts the position. "When a new human person begins" is a partly scientific question and partly a philosophical one. I doubt it will ever be settled to everyone's satisfaction.

Ah. you are one of the people that says "shoot first and then ask questions."

[Mountain Man]

When I go to my doctor, I have no desire to have the government tell me what I must look at before I make a decision. That is between me an my doctor. If I want an ultrasound, I'll get one. If I want to look at my X-rays, I'll look at them. If I don't, I won't. No informed consent form I have ever signed has required me to do anything other than talk to my doctor, and hear about the options.

And when was the last time you were ever in a position to make a choice that could result in the murder of another human life?

The "informed consent" is not so much for the benefit of the woman but for her unborn child, and anything that could make her less likely to agree to commit murder is inherently the RIGHT decision!

[Cow Poke]

Umm...REALLY bad analogy. All of the services offered by planned parenthood are related to woman's health, of which 3% is abortion-related.

Yeah, that's their pitch deceptive pitch.

[Cow Poke]

And when was the last time you were ever in a position to make a choice that could result in the murder of another human life?

The "informed consent" is not so much for the benefit of the woman but for her unborn child, and anything that could make her less likely to agree to commit murder is inherently the RIGHT decision!

But when you pretend that the human life in jeopardy is just a clump of biomass...

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, that's their pitch deceptive pitch.

Not to mention that with the exception of abortion, the vast majority of their healthcare services are referrals to other clinics, the vast majority of their income comes from performing abortions, and they are the single largest butcher shop in the US, performing 1/3 of all abortions in the country.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...-its-own-lies/

[Mountain Man]

But when you pretend that the human life in jeopardy is just a clump of biomass...

This is why the pro-death lobby is opposed to ultrasounds, because it makes the "clump of biomass" lie much harder to sell.