Pages

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Bookmark this video

How many times have you heard the claim that abortion is "only" 3% of Planned Parenthood's services? Wouldn't you like to have a video that explains, in just four minutes, why that figure is misleading? Now you do, thanks to Students for Life of America:



I like the combo meal analogy. I also like the Boeing analogy that Live Action used in 2011:
In college I interned at the airline manufacturer Boeing, which sells a lot of airplanes and also a lot of spare parts for those airplanes. For every airplane they sold for tens of millions of dollars, they also sold lots of spare parts for as little as 25 cents. By looking at TOTAL number of sales, you could conclude that 1% of their business was selling airplanes and 99% was spare parts, which is totally ridiculous. The reality was the value of the airplanes sales was close to 99% of their business and the spare parts 1%. Looking at the cost and effort of what is being offered is a much more accurate way to measure. ...
[F]ully 38.4% of Planned Parenthood health center income comes directly from aborting unborn children.
Let's not forget that the pro-life explanation also has the advantage of being consistent with Planned Parenthood's behavior. After all, if abortion is just 3% of what PP does, why does PP suggest that its clinics will close whenever abortion legislation is proposed?

171 comments:

secularprolife.org said...

Why do pro lifers picket and try to shut down PP clinics that do NOT offer abortions?

secularprolife.org said...

It's all part of the same company... Some people are boycotting the NFL because of the actions of a few players. Why should the teams who don't have players involved in domestic violence lose revenue? Because those boycotting believe the entire NFL should be responsible.... People who picket PP are trying to send a message to the corporate office that killing unborn children is wrong

secularprolife.org said...

So you are not actually interested in lowering the abortion rate.

secularprolife.org said...

Isn't the 3% from the end user's perspective, ie. the ratio of services sought by women? If so, I don't think its misleading. In the same way, gas stations make almost NO money selling gasoline, and their main profit comes from the coffee and sodas sold by the convenience store attached. But people tend to think of them as gas stations. The ratio of revenue has no bearing on the usefulness from the end user's perspective.

secularprolife.org said...

If Planned Parenthood stops killing unborn children, I have no problem with them staying open. There are plenty of other places out there that don't kill that can help women - especially if government money is given to those places instead of Planned Parenthood.


If a killer-for-hire who donated millions to charity was convicted of mass murder, would you fault the charities for not taking the killers money anymore or returning previous donations? Sure, the guy did nice things like donate his money, but he also did evil things too, so I wouldn't fault the charity for returning the money.

secularprolife.org said...

So you don't actually want to see the abortion rate lowered through free and affordable contraception.

secularprolife.org said...

why does PP suggest that its clinics will close whenever abortion legislation is proposed?

Because abortion legislation is generally aimed at making any clinic that provides abortion more expensive and more difficult to run.

I can't think of a way to contradict the gobblydegook of the rest of the post, because it's all based the one false premise prolifers love to tout: the idea that abortion is some hugely profitable venture.

Of course it isn't. Doctors perform abortions, clinics provide abortions, because access to safe legal abortion is a basic human right, not because it's a profitable service.

You do find profiteers who provide abortions: they are an inevitable result of prolife regimes that have no concern for pregnant women who need abortions.

secularprolife.org said...

Because prolifers hate women having access to affordable reproductive healthcare.

secularprolife.org said...

I have even heard it stated, around here, that the 'mini' birth control pills that PP sells have such low doses of estrogen that the entire *point* is to get women pregnant so that they can then purchase abortions from PP and add to PP's bottom line.

secularprolife.org said...

I see parallels to the climate change deniers who think that the whole scientific community is creating a fake crisis to profit from research grants.

secularprolife.org said...

>> Re: Boeing The reality was the value of the airplanes sales was close to 99% of their business and the spare parts 1%.

Really? I find this hard to believe. Have you ever priced OEM spare parts for your car? If you built an entire new car from spare parts, I guarantee you your Hyundai will cost $100,000.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, spare parts are worth more than the plane, which is why decommissioned planes are torn apart and every salvageable part is sold.

secularprolife.org said...

I can guarantee you that no business breaks down the percentage of their services by retail cost. Take any automobile dealership. You can assume that a person buys an automobile every several years. In the meantime, they'll obtain services for the automobile many more times than they buy another vehicle. The price of the vehicle is very high. But most of their business is in service, not sales. Women need reproductive health services throughout their lifetime. They *might* need an abortion once. Surgery is naturally pricier than maintenance. Over her lifetime a woman needs maintenance items frequently, and surgery rarely. Planned Parenthood is correct in their assessment. You aren't.

secularprolife.org said...

THIS times infinity. Have they priced pregnancy lately?

secularprolife.org said...

I can vouch for that.

secularprolife.org said...

LOL. Then why don't you go picket hospitals?

secularprolife.org said...

Good point. A lifetime of contraception is also going to be way more expensive than a single 400$ abortion.

WHICH IS WHY PP HANDS OUT FAULTY BCP, SO THAT WOMEN WILL GET PREGNANT AND THEN BE FORCED TO HAVE MONTHLY ABORTIONS.

secularprolife.org said...

Huh?

secularprolife.org said...

Tinfoil hat joke.

secularprolife.org said...

There is already free and affordable contraception out there. There is affordable contraception at just about every gas station in the country. When about 1/2 the women who have abortions admit to not even getting that free or cheap contraception you know that free/cheap contraception isn't the problem - it's lack of RESPONSIBILITY by a couple in a consensual relationship.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah? You can buy an IUD at a gas station?

secularprolife.org said...

You would have no problem with them staying open..... who in the hell are you!!?!!
You are aware that there are a many many different reasons a woman might have an abortion. You are aware that even an IUD prevents a fertilized egg for implanting. You are aware that miscarriages don't end in funerals but a baby that could have lived on it's own but died would get a funeral. You know not every thing is black and white. You know that God is the biggest fetus creator and killer out there. You know that a woman has a right to decide for herself what she does with her own body. You know women have always sought abortions whether legal or not because this is just such a complex and personal issue that has very little to do with being evil. You know it is 2014 and we live in a country founded on freedom for the individual. You know that the human race is not an endangered species. But I guess none of these matter because as far as you are concerned your opinion on the subject should be made law for all.

secularprolife.org said...

I've seen them protested at PP on a Sunday when it was closed. Of course I had to yell at them and ask them what the hell they were doing. Kind of odd.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes.

secularprolife.org said...

She's not. If that happened she wouldn't have anyone to shame and blame by using her CPC talking points.

secularprolife.org said...

There are some things that should never be available at a gas station.

secularprolife.org said...

And showing pictures of 6 month old infants at anti-abortion rallies, when NO abortions - NONE - are performed on such infants, is not misleading because why? Sad feelies?

secularprolife.org said...

I asked myintx once why she focused on post-viability abortions, instead of zygotes (since she believes that zygotes are widdle babies) and she explained that she *had* to talk about viable prenates/neonates because otherwise how else could she humanize the zygote? And if a 35 week is a baby, then isn't a 25 week? 15 week? 15 day? 5 day? Moment of conception!


So basically, she admitted to using the continuum fallacy to special plead for zygotes.

secularprolife.org said...

Affordable.. a pack of condoms costs about $5 last I checked. I don't know what sort of fairy world you live in myintx, but I know a lot of people for whom that $5 decides whether or not they can feed themselves or their kids that day. Let me guess, you think we live in a fairy world and such people 'just shouldn't have sex' and then condoms would be free and never break, there would be no abortions, and angels would descend from the sky and all infants would be born with no severe birth defects. Unlike you, Myintx, and your useless bitching over all your sad feelies about the widdle embwyos, I actually have real compassion for real people, I don't tell them they have to give up the little bit of happiness in their lives and spend my time giving away food to real hungry people rather than sobbing about brainless zefs.

secularprolife.org said...

Tell me, Myintix, since you talk the talk here about how 'affordable' condoms are, then why don't you actually 'walk the walk', start buying condoms, and hand them out to people for free. Think how many abortions you would prevent, for so little money (since you claim they are so 'affordable). Oh... let me guess. Condoms suddenly aren't that 'affordable' if it's precious myintx paying for them, and it would interfere with your real agenda of punishment for sex.

secularprolife.org said...

Enlarging pictures of embryos the size of a quarter to make them appear 1000 times bigger than they actually are is not misleading because why?



Speeding up a video of an embryo, without telling the viewer that it has been sped up, to make it appear that it is reacting to an abortion device, when there is no actual reaction is not misleading because why?


Pot, meet kettle.

secularprolife.org said...

In other words, she admits that she, herself, does not believe that the zygote is 'human'. If she DID believe it, she would not see any need to 'humanize' it. But she wants to try to get others to believe it, so that she can try to get them to pass laws making everyone as miserable as she is, after her failed attempt at extorting babydaddy, rather than 'taking responsibility' for her own foolish and immoral actions.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah. Others here have admitted that they don't *feel* any emotion when it comes to the death of a zygote or an embryo, but it doesn't change the *fact* that they are *precious human beings deserving of life*.

secularprolife.org said...

Condoms are available.. ANd since about 1/2 of women who have abortions admit to not using ANY contraception in the month they became pregnant it shows that they and their partners weren't even responsible enough to go to the nearest gas station or Planned Parenthood.

secularprolife.org said...

Teach a man to fish....

secularprolife.org said...

Condoms


1) are not as effective as bcp or an IUD


2) they take the control out of the woman's hands, at which point the man can poke holes in the condom, refuse to wear it, remove it during etc.



Condoms are great, if you are an abuser who likes to get women pregnant so they can't leave you.

secularprolife.org said...

The point is that is about 1/2 of couples cannot even be bothered to get a condom or spermicide from a local drug store they probably won't be responsible to go a little bit farther to get a prescription for pills, even if they were free. Parents, teachers and society need to be encouraging people to be RESPONSIBLE for their actions.

secularprolife.org said...

So you seek to punish women?


Hey, aren't you opposed to the ACA contraception mandate?

secularprolife.org said...

The pie chart represents the breadth of services provided, so in that sense it is accurate. The video, however sheds light on the fact that although abortion represents 3 percent of TOTAL services, abortion also comes with "bundle" services. The chart she's the services as "unbundled." PP, on their website, states that at each abortion appointment the woman also receives contraception, for example. Also, pregnancy tests and ultrasounds are part of the pregnancy services which come with abortion, since the number of prenatal care services is much smaller than abortion services it is logical to suppose that the majority of those pregnancy tests and ultrasounds end up being mostly in the abortion bundle services. Furthermore PP also follows up after an abortion with another pelvic exam and a breast exam and PAP upon request. In other words I think the video is relevant in understanding that the PP pie chart just lists services provided unbundled, when the reality is that PP provides other services standard together with their abortion services.

secularprolife.org said...

Can you explain the connection between abortion profiteers and pro life "regime" (not sure what you mean by that since abortion is legal in this country)? Women have safe access to an abortion simply by going to their obgyn.

secularprolife.org said...

That sounds like a gross generalization. Sure there are some fundamentalist Christians who believe the earth is 6000 years old, but I would argue that it is a small minority. Also there are gays who are pro life, are they anti civil liberties too?

secularprolife.org said...

Do infanticide laws 'punish' women? No. They protect newborns from being killed. Same with abortion restrictions.

secularprolife.org said...

So basically, they are openly admitting to being sociopaths, such that they don't actually *feel* anything over the deaths of these *precious human beings*. Have they explained why sociopaths, such as they are admitting to being, are fit people to decree morality for everyone else?


You can't have it both ways. Either you think for sure that the zef is a 'real, precious human being', or you don't. Since these views are contradictory, at most, only one of them can be true, making people who believe otherwise to be mistaken.


However, that's irrelevent. If you claim to know for sure that something is a 'real, precious, human being', it doesn't really matter if it actually IS a human being or not. The point is, if you claim it is, and feel NOTHING over it's death, either your lying about your actual beliefs, or you are a sociopath. Either way, neither liars nor sociopaths are fit to decree morality for others.

secularprolife.org said...

Notice I said "mainstream" prolife. Sure, there are some prolifers like SPL who are not fundamentalist Christians, though it should be noted some of the guest contributors to the blog actually are. Even Kelsey the owner of this blog is dismayed that at prolife rallies, there was strong anti-LGBT marriage component. Also, I took a look at the people Students for Life endorses. Many of them are anti-science and anti-gay.

secularprolife.org said...

And where exactly was your great sense of 'responsibility' when you decided to have an 'oops' baby on purpose, to try and extort babydaddy? Or were you just interested in your own selfish self?


Where is your great 'responsibility' now, in accepting that your current misery is all your own doing, for engaging in such a stupid and immoral scheme, rather than trying to take it out on others and make them equally as miserable.


Why does everyone ELSE have to be 'responsible'. Everyone except you.

secularprolife.org said...

Hi CV

I didn't look at the video, I was just responding to the 3%. After looking up Students for Life on the web, and seeing how they were whining about
their sidewalk chalk messages on campus were "vandalized" by pro-choice messages written over them, and how they want people to pledge to vote for pro-life candidates, and seeing the people they endorse, many of whom are opposed to civil rights for LGBT and are climate change deniers, I decided I couldn't take anything they say seriously.

That said, I understand your point. I agree that 3% may indeed be a somewhat massaged number. But it still stands that abortions are nowhere close to being the majority of services offered, and if the 30-odd % of their revenue is from a rather expensive surgical procedure, it still stands to reason that the raw ratio in services, abortion must be somewhere between 3~30%? My point being, a useful figure is from the perspective of the end user. While PP may be synonymous to abortion for some, they also provide a wide range of other services, and to a most of the users most of the time, PP is not used for abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

And your comment explains how people who need the $5 to feed their children can also afford condoms, or why you aren't spending your own precious money to buy them condoms, and prevent horrible abortions because why?


Oh, let me guess. You don't want to have to compare yourself with people like me who have real compassion for real people who are actually experiencing real suffering, and give food to the hungry, so you put them down with your snotty little comments giving them a fish instead of teaching them to fish, and then try to surround yourself with a big halo of 'compassion' for your sad feelies about a brainless zef which are really nothing more than an excuse to make real people suffer more, because you have no actual real compassion for any real person or any real actual suffering. All you care about is your precious self and using the pwecious widdle zef as an excuse to make everyone as miserable as you, because your extortion scheme didn't work and you got stuck with the 'oops' baby, instead of the free meal ticket you were planning on.


Bitch.

secularprolife.org said...

We may be looking at different definitions of creationism here, Purple Slurpy, although about 40 percent of Americans believe that man was made from God, only a smaller percentage believes that the earth is "recent" (something like 6000 years old), I suppose that is what you mean when you say anti-science.

secularprolife.org said...

Hi CV

Young Earth Creationism is the hardest core Creationist, but basically if you're a Creationist or a climate change denier, you are basically anti-evidence-based science.

And it is shocking how well the pro-life position seems to correlate with these two beliefs, wouldn't you say? Again, how often do you see the combination of pro-choice and Creationist, climate-change denier? Or pro-choice, anti-marriage equality?

secularprolife.org said...

Well, since you did not watch the video, you are assuming it was about revenue for PP. In fact it is just a deconstruction of the pie chart.

secularprolife.org said...

Still abortions are not even close to the majority of services provided by PP. That stands whether I watched the video of not.

secularprolife.org said...

Interesting that you consider climate change to be evidence based. Especially when it has had it scandal of "scientists" falsifying documents; regular name changes (don't here global warming anymore), predictions that were no where near the mark. Evidence based on what? The earth is how many zeros old and we puny human have been documenting weather for a handful of centuries. I also have a problem with the poster boys of the cause (David Suzuki, Leo DiCaprio, et al.) own multiple mansions, acreages and islands and tell us to shrink our carbon foot print. And while we're at it why does no one ever attack China's horrific environmental record.

I believe in climate change btw. After all, Canada has a huge cache of Dino remains and you can't tell me giant lizards would ever put up with 6+ months of winter snow so the climate was very different way back when.

secularprolife.org said...

What are you talking about, everyone attacks China's environmental record.


As for evidence based, yes it is. Disregarding the crap about Leo DeCap., have you actually read a scientific journal? Do you understand statistics? Have you ever worked with a simulation of a chaotic dynamical system? Do you know the Navier-Stokes equation? Do you know what a Lyapunov exponent is, and what chaotic dynamics are? Bifurcations? Do you even understand the difference between a temporal average and a spatial average? My guess is that you don't. You are simply not equipped to understand how climate modeling is done, and if you read a scientific journal, you will see that the models and methods used have a long tradition and track record of modeling many different complicated dynamical systems.



Name changes have nothing to do with the science. Its better described as "climate change" because while the time-averaged temperature is indeed going up, there will naturally be localities where the temperature may go down for awhile.

Unfortunately most don't, and everyone thinks global warming means constant increase in temperature uniformly everywhere in the world.

secularprolife.org said...

Forgive me but I am a see it to believe it. And in 4 decades of personal experience I am simply not seeing it. And I am not taking the word of an unknown scientist on "faith"
I guess you could call me an environmental atheist. I am not going to get my panties in a knot over climate hysteria.

But know that I do not think less of you for choosing to be a believer. Nor will I cast derision upon you for your chosen scientific beliefs.

secularprolife.org said...

Have you ever seen an electron? Have you ever seen a person walk through a wall? Do you think its possible for things to go through a solid barrier without destroying the barrier? It actually is, quantum tunneling, and all your semi-conductor devices like your PC use this principle. Have you seen this happen?



Also, have you seen Pluto go around the sun even once? It has an orbit of 200 odd years. You will never see it in your lifetime.


And I'm sorry, you simply are not equipped to evaluate a complicated model like the climate. I just pity you for your ignorance.

secularprolife.org said...

I've seen them picketing costume shops around Halloween. What that has to do with abortion is unclear.

secularprolife.org said...

And, of course, there's no 'profit' in the forced gestationer position, such as politicians who count on it to be elected to high paying offices, or the salaries of the administrators of force-gestation groups. Because sad feelies.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm not sure which "this country" is, but an American example of an abortion profiteer flourishing under a prolife regime was Doctor Kermit Gosnell.


If you live in the US, you must be aware that a woman can only have safe legal access to abortion from her obgyn if her obgyn is (a) permitted to provide abortions by the hospital - many obgyns work for hospitals which refuse to do so after the era of prolife terrorism, bombing and shooting abortion providers - and (b) is not a prolifer: some obgyns will ruthlessly deny women abortions, infected by prolife ideology.

secularprolife.org said...

The irony in your comments is amusing.

secularprolife.org said...

Was that an insult? I honestly can't tell, I don't think you know what irony means, and the rest of your posts are kinda worthless.

secularprolife.org said...

how often do you see pro choicers adopting multiple children with disabilities from foster care? So what's your point? That all pro lifers are do not have a degree. I really think you revel in this thought so much you are willing to continually generalize

secularprolife.org said...

You really have some nerve. Actually there a quite a few points that were ironic. Some of them are:

- you say you are a scientist but never, not once have I met a scientist who starts throwing out scientific terms to a lay person and not just the terms relevant to the understanding of the topic, but as many as cross their mind even if they are only vaguely relevant to the discussion because they know a lay person cannot accept or refute them. The scientists I have come across do not need to prove anything least of all their knowledge; which makes me think that 1. you are not a real scientist or 2. you are not a very good one as you seem to find pleasure in showing off to a lay person who could not possibly understand, but you keep on your mental jerking off.

- You say that the statistics prove that there is Climate change, but by your own admission you also aptly state that PP's statistics could be massaged. Is it therefore not reasonable to suppose that statistics in the case of Climate change could also be massaged? I am not saying that they are, but it is reasonable to think that if someone has an agenda they could potentially use those statistics to advance it.

- You tell Ann that she will never understand semiconductors and they will always appear as magic. Do you think most of the pro choicers understand semiconductors better than Ann? Or are you saying all pro choicers have a higher education specifically in science? What about blue collar workers, or poors in the ghetto, who are pro choice? Are they therefore really not pro choice because they do not understand science the same way you do?Or are you saying no blue collar workers are pro-choice and only the educated elite are? I think most pro choicers have not read the actual science on climate change, but have instead read the conclusions that are published in media and journals that are more accessible to the lay person. They are therefore blindly believing something that makes sense to them without having done the research themselves, which is how most of the population gets their information, they trust that the media is reporting accurately (well...a part from fox news perhaps)

_ You keep generalizing and saying that pro lifers are anti science and do not believe in climate change. Here is a quote:

"Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions? Can we disregard the growing phenomenon of “environmental refugees”, people who are forced by the degradation of their natural habitat to forsake it – and often their possessions as well – in order to face the dangers and uncertainties of forced displacement? Can we remain impassive in the face of actual and potential conflicts involving access to natural resources? All these are issues with a profound impact on the exercise of human rights, such as the right to life, food, health and development." Want to guess who it is from?



- Also pro lifers have no problem with stem cell research, for example, as long as it is not embryonic. Other types like induced pluripotent stem cells, to name an example are ok. Are they therefore anti science because they research stem cells that do not come from embryos?

secularprolife.org said...

What is wrong with embryonic stem cell research? The embryos will be destroyed regardless, or die of freezer burn.

secularprolife.org said...

Do you ever actually contribute anything to the discussion?

secularprolife.org said...

Evangelicals adopt many children so that they can get brownie points with god. Its a racket.
http://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/ethiopia-adoption-boom-casualties-child-catchers-evangelicals-fake-orphan-racket

secularprolife.org said...

Hi VC

You're right, that was not me at my best. It was 3am, writing a reply after I put my kid to sleep and waiting for some analysis results on the calculations I'm doing at work. I don't usually feel so annoyed, but Ann has in the past asked me snarky question about whether I've done anything for the poor etc., and when I answered them and asked why that is relevant to the discussion, she ignores my replies, and I was getting a bit fed up with her worthless points.

BTW, those scientific terms are in fact terms used by climate scientists, and things like the Navier-Stokes equation do describe fluid flow on a mesoscopic level, and they were to show that climate scientists in fact are using real physics and numerical methods in their computations, and their results and methodologies are well accepted by non-climate scientists and other physicists.

I never said I was the greatest scientist. I am only a junior postdoc and am at the start of my career, but I have amassed a decent number of publications and have been cited a decent amount, so I'm not doing too badly, but Einstein I am not.

Also, I found Ann's critique of climate science to be BS, she doesn't like it because she hates the liberal poster boys? That to me shows a non-working brain. And she says the models do not make good predictions. I pointed out the models do not predict pinpoint results like the temperature of Miami on 17th of August, 2018, but they do show that certain kinds of events like storms becoming more powerful and frequent. Given that the model is hugely complicated and that weather is by nature chaotic, (chaotic systems are ones where prediction of exact states of the future are BY PRINCIPLE impossible unless absolutely perfect knowledge of the present is given. In these kinds of systems, statistical features of the future can be predicted, but the exact state of the future cannot. I hope you understand what that means.)

I also was not mocking poor people who are uneducated. I was mocking Ann's "I am a see it to believe it" statement. By that statement, she should not be able to believe that Pluto will ever complete an orbit about the sun, as it takes 200+ years, and she will never have seen it. Basically she is saying "my common sense is sufficient". That attitude is quite frankly completely anti-scientific. Common sense is a terrible predictor of novel situations, and I was just pointing that out.

secularprolife.org said...

The quote is from pope Benedict. You keep mentioning MAINSTREAM because those pro lifers who also support those other things you mentioned are the ONLY ones the media EVER show or talk about because, I assume, it is much more newsworthy to have the potential for, if not the actual, conflict. However there are MANY pro lifers out there who do not hold their same views. Can you imagine NPR doing a piece on pro lifers who are also pro stem cell research, accept the Big Bang theory, acknowledge climate change and the need to take care of the earth, and that are willing and able to dialogue? No, that would not fit in the liberal media narrative, so these pro lifers, and there are many, are NEVER shown, instead portrayal of the bible thumping preachers are what we are now accustomed to seeing when we think pro life. I tend to stay away from extremists and by the way I remember reading on cnn that most pro choicers favor some restriction on abortion, however there seems yo be an over representation on this blog, of pro choicers who want NO restrictions (this is besides the point, but I thought it was interesting)

secularprolife.org said...

I am one of those pro-choicers who believe reasonable restrictions are a good idea. Because of various societal and biological considerations which I have elaborated here in the past, I think capping abortions around wk 25~30 is perfectly reasonable, and I am willing to support that.

I have no clue who pope Benedict is, but I do like the current pope Francis. The reason I harp on anti-science of mainstream pro-life is that I find the justification of that position to be more important than the actual position itself. There is no denying that pro-life politicians, the ones who make policy, also very often tend to disregard or dismiss science on an a la carte basis. Usually because it disagrees with the bible. To me, policies that are not grounded in evidence from social sciences and biology are not only bad policies, but are policies that are doomed to fail and cause harm. I keep harping on this because I find the MAINSTREAM pro-life is dominated by those who are solely driven by religious dogma, and I think this will only drag us down.

secularprolife.org said...

>> Can you imagine NPR doing a piece on pro lifers who are also pro stem
cell research, accept the Big Bang theory, acknowledge climate change
and the need to take care of the earth, and that are willing and able to
dialogue?




If you are a politician, you go out there and you want people to know your positions. When I say MAINSTREAM pro-life, I am talking about politicians. Why don't you go look at the positions held by various pro-life politicians. Can you tell me how many want Creationism out of the class room, and how many support environmental regulation?



Also, do you really think there is a liberal conspiracy against those that don't fit the liberal agenda?

secularprolife.org said...

No, she just contributes random nonsense, thought what we're seeing may actually be her best intellectual effort. If so, I can only feel pity for her.

secularprolife.org said...

Support for the existence of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy drops rapidly as one gains wisdom. Pro-life, belief in Creationism and denial of climate change are all issues that tend to be held together (notice I didn't say always held together, but there is a strong tendency for all to be believed as a set), and support for all these issues drops as one's level of education increases. Don't you think that says something about the pro-life position?

secularprolife.org said...

Life site News
LiveAction
Operation Rescue

The big PL organizations tend to be anti gay, anti science, and christian. They only mention "science" as having any validity when it suits them.

secularprolife.org said...

Women who get abortions also require other services. Or do you magically believe there are women out there who only need abortions, but never contraception, pregnancy testing, STD testing and treatment, cancer screenings and such? Actually, those really DO constitute the majority of services given by PP. The majority of PP clinics don't even do abortions. The one in my city, for example. Yet they manage to always stay busy.

secularprolife.org said...

Who gives a damn what you have a problem with? Planned Parenthood doesn't use tax money to provide abortions. You're trying to make some sort of screwy claim that because hospitals do abortions in the hospital, then Medicare shouldn't pay for your grandmother's hip replacement done at the same hospital. It's BOGUS and dishonest, myintx. And stop bleating about "evil" because it makes you sound childish. So does your argument about government funding. But of course, your ilk doesn't go around trying to remove government healthcare funding from hospitals, because that would inconvenience YOU.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah. You don't get to decide women can't use female controlled contraceptives either, fruit loop.

secularprolife.org said...

...And he'll sit around in a boat all day, drinking beer.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope. That doesn't follow.

secularprolife.org said...

Abortion restrictions don't protect newborns from being killed. And if you restrict abortion, you are guaranteeing death to more newborns. If you restrict contraception, you're guaranteeing death to more newborns. Just look at "pro-life" Ireland and the mass graves found in septic tanks of former "homes" (aka slave camps) for unwed pregnant women. That shows just how much anti-choicers care about the wellbeing of "precious children." I would never even THINK of tossing a child into a septic tank.

secularprolife.org said...

Hi CV.


I looked at current State Governors and candidates endorsed by Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life organization. Almost without fail, pro-life candidates do not support LGBT civil rights, often are for protection of religious-based discrimination against gays, are against measures aiming to stem climate change, and in general tend to support prayer in public school and oppose church-state separation.



As scientists, it is often said "all models are wrong, but some are useful". i think this is a case where the model that pro-life = anti-science, anti-LGBT civil rights, while not perfectly correct, is an exceedingly useful model predicting how pro-life politicians think and act. Thoughts, criticisms?

secularprolife.org said...

Almost without fail, pro-life candidates do not support LGBT civil
rights, often are for protection of religious-based discrimination
against gays, are against measures aiming to stem climate change, and in
general tend to support prayer in public school and oppose church-state
separation.



I think it's kind of funny how pro-lifers tell us, endlessly, about how pro-sex, pro-contraception, pro gay and pro-science they are, yet, when you look at ANY of the Pl candidates or prominent organizations, you will find out that their 'mission statements' also include being anti gay, anti welfare, anti healthcare, anti sex, anti science etc etc.


Funny that.

secularprolife.org said...

CV says that those pro-lifers don't fit the liberal agenda and therefore don't receive the spotlight. The conservatives seem to not care about these pro-lifers either.

secularprolife.org said...

Does Planned parenthood have separate electric bills for the rooms used to do abortions and for the room the receptionist uses to take the money for abortions? It's highly likely some tax money is used to support the killing industry PP has - be it electrical, laundry, etc. And besides, it's just a shell game with the money they get from the government vs donations. The more government money they get, the more donations can go to killing. That's why many are against abortion clinics getting government money.


If they stop killing, they'd likely get more government money and more donation.

secularprolife.org said...

And if there are so so many democratic, progressive pro-lifers, then why isn't SPL busier than it is? Why aren't there more organizations like SPL with big money backing?

secularprolife.org said...

Some pro-lifers at SPL are reasonable folks, and I respect their positions. But it seems like a majority are anti-science, anti-LGBT type pro-lifers, ie the cookie cutter pro-lifers. Even a secular blog is like this, which leads me to conclude that these progressive pro-lifers are really on the fringe.

secularprolife.org said...

yeah, I like SPL because the arguments are generally well thought out, and there is not a lot of the hysteria that you see on other sites


The people here, with the exception of a couple of folks ( you know who) generally put a lot of thought into their arguments.

secularprolife.org said...

Way to dodge the point, myintx. But it didn't work. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU CLAIM and my claim that all hospitals get federal money in the form of Medicaid and Medicare payments, EVEN THOUGH abortions are done in hospitals? Does that mean that Medicare shouldn't cover your grandmother's hip replacement because it's done in the same hospital? OF COURSE NOT!! And that's where your argument is all out of gas.

secularprolife.org said...

She's certainly not interested in lowering the abortion rate among the wealthy and middle class. Too much trouble, you see, to bother trying to catch and prosecute them. Guess 'those' particular zefs aren't as 'precious' as those of the poor.

It couldn't be that more restrictions on middle class and wealthier women might end up inconveniencing myintx in some way, could it? Because we know that she wouldn't like that one little bit.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, and the poor can just get help from the local church, which will give them a job, pay million dollar hospital bills, and pay 250k to raise the kid.

secularprolife.org said...

Now Myintx is claiming in another thread that she never tries to 'humanize' the zef, because 'it's already a human being'. God, she's so full of shit.

secularprolife.org said...

Care to tell me what Halloween costume shops (run by different companies and competing with eachother, btw) have to do with abortion, myintx, that they are being picketed by pro-lifers? While you're at it, care to tell me where all these free condoms are, that you claim are all over the place. Went to some more stores tonight. No free condoms. Do they really exist somewhere? If so, where? Or is your claim that there are free condoms everywhere just more myintx sad feelies to paint everyone as 'irresponsible'?

secularprolife.org said...

Of course she is. I've never met anyone more dishonest

secularprolife.org said...

Do laws that forbid people to steal your kidneys 'punish' dialyis patients, despite the fact that they are killing them? No. They are protecting your ownership of your own body. Same with laws that allow you to get an abortion. The embryo does not have special rights. If a dialysis patient doesn't have a right to your kidney for their 'very life', then an embryo does not have a right to your uterus for it's 'very life'. No, it doesn't matter how you designate one as 'natural' or 'unnatural' or a 'disease'. Either a 'right' exists because of a 'very life' or it doesn't. You don't get to claim the embryo has some great sacred 'human right', then negate that right in everyone else just because it might inconvenience precious myintx.

secularprolife.org said...

PJ wrote: **You are aware that miscarriages don't end in funerals **


Myintx claims that zefs and embryos are 'real people for sure', and that laws should be passed enforcing this, but that this would (according to her) not result in tampon funerals, or police investigation of a woman's periods.


She has, however, thus far refused to explain exactly where and how it would be legal to throw a dead born person in the trash and not report their death to the police or have a death certificate filled out on them.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, precious myintx is upset about her tax money going to things she doesn't support. Gues what? There's a lot of fucking things like that, sweetiepie. I'm upset, among other things, at my tax money going to welfare payments for children the parents didn't want, but had anyways, to public schools, and to gun-grabbing politicians.


Do you oppose all circumstances of a person's tax money being spent on things they are opposed to, or just those particular things you have sad feelies about, and you are fine with MY tax money being spent on things I don't like but that you feel warm and fuzzy about?

secularprolife.org said...

**If they stop killing, they'd likely get more government money and more donation.**

So... do you object to clinics that hand out antibiotics? Because I can guarantee you that the usual 2 week course of antibiotics results in a hell of a lot more 'killing' than goes on in any abortion clinic. Do you have any idea how many bacteria are killed by antibiotics?

And no, to preclude your usual bleating, and sobbing, I don't think newborns have as little value as bacteria. However, a newborn is not a zef and you have failed, 23 times now, to give me a definition of the word 'human' that both gives 'humans' more rights than bacteria, and also lets the zef sneak through as a 'human'. I'm not going to fill in the blanks for you, until you provide me with such a definition, I'm not going to have any more sad feelies for the zef than I would for escheria coli. No, saying that 'human beings are organisms of the human species' does not give me a reason for such rights, that statement does not qualitatively differ 'humans' from bacteria, about which I could say an 'escheria coli is an organism of the species escheria coli'. Whoop te doo.

secularprolife.org said...

**You would have no problem with them staying open..... who in the hell are you!!?!!**


I'd say it's fairly obvious, she's a hypocrite who cries bloody murder if her precious tax money is spent on things she dislikes, but not only has no problem with OTHER people's tax money being spent on things that they oppose, but also likes to engage in actual extortion schemes of other people to line her own pockets.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah. If every human life is so fucking precious that women MUST be legally obligated to risk life and health for that life, then what's a little tax money to save those lives???

secularprolife.org said...

It's hard to say. I'm still waiting for Myintx to explain how her attempted extortion of babydaddy was necessary for the 'unborn child's very life', which, given that every mammalian species on earth other than human beings manages to reproduce just fine without any money, is going to be a very hard case for her to make. My guess is that it was really necessary for Myintx's 'very pocketbook'.


She's plenty compassionate with other people's money, other people's organs, and other people's lives, but the moment any 'compassionate principle' for someone's 'very life' threatens to affect precious her, she has all sorts of reasons why it shouldn't.

secularprolife.org said...

Look in the mirror. Now you have!

secularprolife.org said...

Not if he learns how to be RESPONSIBLE.

secularprolife.org said...

A couple having a hard time making ends meet can go to a clinic to get birth control. Doesn't our government already give lots of money to places to hand out birth control? I've never heard of them running out. The couple can also go to thrift shops, their church etc for food, clothes, etc - those are places where many pro-lifers donate time and money to help poor people. Or, a couple could SAVE THEIR MONEY until they can get birth control. It's called being RESPONSIBLE.

secularprolife.org said...

If those 49% of women who didn't use contraction AT ALL in the month they became pregnant and then had abortions would have at least used contraception from a gas station there'd likely be a few hundred thousand less abortions a year.

secularprolife.org said...

I never said they did. re-read my last post.


Restricting abortion will save lives.


You'd never think of killing a child, but you'd kill him or her just a few months before birth - it's the SAME HUMAN BEING - just in a different stage of development.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, I know there are many different reasons women have abortions. "Cannot afford a child" and "not the right time for a child" are 2 of the main reasons. Those are great reasons to GET HELP from the many places that can help, but horrible reasons to kill.


Yes, miscarriages happen. "God" also lets born people die of natural causes every day - that does NOT justify killing someone because they are deemed unwanted, does it? NO!


It's not 'her body' killed in the abortion. No one should be able to kill another human being just because they are unwanted. All innocent human beings should have a right to life.

secularprolife.org said...

Do hospitals do abortions that aren't medically necessary? e.g. one to hide the results of an affair or 15 minutes of fame?

secularprolife.org said...

Uh huh. Where's all this free birth control, myintx? Come on, now's you're chance to prevent lots of abortions. I've told 6 men at work, that you know all these places that are all over the place, where free condoms and other birth control are handed out. They don't know where they are, but sure would like to use them.

Now's your chance, myintx. Where do you get these free condoms, that you keep saying are all over the place? Specific locations, please. So far, all you've done is talk about 'clinics and government'. I want specific clinic or store names and addresses.

Or, is all this 'free birth control' maybe not available in most places, and you're just lying again?

**It's called being RESPONSIBLE.**



And you got pregnant on purpose to extort babydaddy rather than 'being responsible' like you demand everyone else be, because why?


Babydaddy's money was needed for the embwyo's 'very life' because why? Or was it just needed for myintx's 'very pocketbook'?

secularprolife.org said...

Oh yeah. And another thing, sweetiepie? Where exactly do people get this money you claim they should 'save'. Not everyone lives in a little fairytale world like you, Myintx. They are already shopping at thrift stores and churches, but that doesn't cover everything.


So, where does the money come from? When they are already shopping at thrift stores, not to mention getting food out of dumpsters and are living in the cheapest place they can find, often sharing it with another family. Do they starve their real children? Stop buying gas for the car they need to get to work? Turn the furnace down to 50, so their 6 month old baby freezes?


I think we can be pretty sure that precious myintx isn't going to actually help these people, the way I am. All she's going to do is look down her holier-than-thou snoot at them, and tell them to either be permanently celibate, or have another child they can't afford. Because 'responsible'. Or to get all this 'free birth control' that you claim is available everywhere, though nobody else seems to know where it is and you refuse to tell anyone specific locations.

secularprolife.org said...

Once again you want to focus on the reasons you don't feel are justified, ignore that many other reasons exist for your convenience. God let's born people die of natural causes everyday because death is a natural part of life, so if even God doesn't believe every fertilized sperm is sacred because then why create so many just to kill them before they even have a first breath, then I guess it tells us a little something about the grey area that is life, an innocent human being has a right to live when they are ABLE to live. A bunch of fertilized cells cannot live without the body of the mother and the mother is an actual innocent human who has a right to self-determination. Once those cells are removed- you can have at it and raise it as your own.

secularprolife.org said...

If someone has to profit, it's better to profit in LIFE than in DEATH.

secularprolife.org said...

Are you saying money is a valid excuse to kill a human being that has done nothing wrong?

secularprolife.org said...

No one should have a right to 'self-determine' to kill an innocent human being.


"..nnocent human being has a right to live when they are ABLE to live - and the only place an unborn child is able to live is in his or her mother's womb"- then let him or her live there for a few short months and he or she has the possibility of a full and productive LIFETIME. No one should be allowed to kill 'just because' they don't want an 'invader' in their womb - that unborn child should be THEIR responsibility (and the father's too). It's selfish to try to pull the 'self-determination' card as an excuse to kill.

secularprolife.org said...

In New York City, all someone has to do is call 311 to get free condoms.. yet they're killing like crazy over there. Planned unparenthood is supposed to be helping women. If someone walks into their clinic and says "I cant afford to put food on the table and dont want to get pregnant, can you give me some birth control" shouldn't they help?


Not everyone is so dirt poor that they have to decide between a condom and a few cans of soup. For some it would be birth control of part of a cell phone payment. Or birth control and a meal out once a month. If there is something people want, they should budget their money and save for it. Not expect handouts.

secularprolife.org said...

Go back to the stone ages with your closed narrow mind.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm saying that abortion isn't as profitable as pre-natal care and delivery.

secularprolife.org said...

Does it matter? Hospitals do abortions that need to be done in hospitals. Clinics do abortions that can be done in clinics. Just like any other type of healthcare. No one owes you a reason, myintx. But thanks for admitting that you just want to punish women for having the "wrong" kind of sex.

secularprolife.org said...

Continuum fallacy. And NO, Restricting abortion will not save lives.

secularprolife.org said...

You're too dumb. That went right over your head.

secularprolife.org said...

Wanting to protect unborn children from being killed is not being close minded. Being close minded is running to PP at the first sign of pregnancy and not being open minded about all the options and HELP out there.

secularprolife.org said...

Most people aren't pro-life to make a profit... many people are pro-abortion though for reasons related to money personal gains - i.e. right to abort so they don't have to spend money CARING for their unborn child, right to abort so they can think about themselves over their own unborn child, etc. SELFISH is what it is.

secularprolife.org said...

It's fact, not fallacy.


Most women obey laws. If abortions are restricted (with exception for life of the woman being endangered) most women would do the right thing.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, it does matter. If an abortion is needed to save the life of the woman, that is one thing. If it is WANTED for 15 minutes of fame or to hide the results of an affair, it's selfish and WRONG to kill.




Post viability abortion restrictions aren't about 'punishing' anyone. Neither are infanticide laws -they are about PROTECTING children - born and unborn. Pre-viability abortion laws are about PROTECTING unborn children too.

secularprolife.org said...

Non-sequitur. A woman wanting an abortion needs no justification other than I AM and I WILL. Where a surgery is done depends upon the complexity of the surgery. If a woman doesn't want to have the child resulting from an affair, or even one conceived in marriage, that's the only rationale needed. And that's coming from someone who has never had an abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, and there is no such thing as a post-viability abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

No they would not. They will do what they want, when they want, regardless of laws. They always have.

secularprolife.org said...

They don't have to spend money "CARING" for their "unborn child" anyway. There is no financial need applicable to a fetus. They don't eat. They don't wear clothing or need housing, and they don't go for medical checkups. There are no daycare expenses so the woman can work, etc. And nobody is forced to parent a born child either, for that matter. Selfish doesn't work anymore. It's shaming and blaming. Everyone is "selfish" to a degree. Even you.

secularprolife.org said...

Great post. I'm sick hearing the "selfish" argument from here.

You're kicking butt at LAN. I wish I could upvote you more there. I'm banned again otherwise I would join up there. Great work, keep it up!

secularprolife.org said...

Which is real nice and sad feelie and all, yet I don't see you bitching about McDonalds, KFC, Raid, or antibiotics. Unless you provide a REASON, which you have failed to do 24 times now, why killing 'humans' is wrong, but not killing cattle, chickens, cockroaches, or bacteria, I can only assume that you have no real objection to DEATH.

secularprolife.org said...

Parents are required to CARE for their children until the child can be safely handed off to someone else (even if that takes time and they feel their 'rights' are being violated).


Being selfish and eating all the ice cream without sharing is one thing. Killing an unborn child because you have "sad feelies" about your so-called "bodily autonomy" is another thing. It's wrong and it should be restricted.

secularprolife.org said...

Then what does Susan Robinson do at her clinic in New Mexico? She doesnt attempt to deliver the babies after 24 weeks. She kills unborn children.

secularprolife.org said...

Are you sure they are viable, or is that you talking out your rear end again?

secularprolife.org said...

NOPE.

secularprolife.org said...

**Most people aren't pro-life to make a profit... **


Oh really? And your attempted extortion of babydaddy was necessary for the baby's 'very life' rather than your own 'very pocketbook' because why?

secularprolife.org said...

Sorry, Unless you can explain why an embryo has special rights that no other human being has to another person's body, refusing to let it occupy your body is not 'sad feelies'. Otherwise I could just as well claim that you have no right to shoot a rapist over your 'sad feelies' over being raped.


Fact is, you do have a right to kill someone who is violating your rights. It doesn't matter if they 'cant help it' or have a cute head.

secularprolife.org said...

Most women obey laws.

secularprolife.org said...

She doesn't care. She'll kill anyway. She does abortions after 24 weeks for more than just fatal fetal defects and the woman's life being truly endangered.

secularprolife.org said...

I and several others have given you the reasons why unborn children should not be killed. You're too selfish to listen.

secularprolife.org said...

YEP

secularprolife.org said...

So, if a woman with a newborn doesn't want to pay hospital bills for her sick child she can kill? Money is no excuse to kill a human being that has done nothing wrong.

secularprolife.org said...

Stop trying to equate newborns that can be handed over to social workers with embryos kthxbye

secularprolife.org said...

They are both human beings. Both should be protected from being killed.

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, no, you haven't given me any *reasons*. All you've done is made repeated *assertions* that it shouldn't be. In fact, you haven't even given me any *reasons*, despite my repeatedly asking, why any 'humans' at all should have a 'right to life' but not cattle, chickens, cockroaches, or bacteria.

secularprolife.org said...

As for 'selfish', I'm sure there are several reasons why people such as you should not try to extort money from people such as babydaddy. But you're too selfish to consider those reasons. Why are you the only one who gets to be 'selfish'?

secularprolife.org said...

Lying again... is it because of the disease you said you had? is that one of the side affects - spewing lies and insults?

secularprolife.org said...

Nope

secularprolife.org said...

No, you haven't given me any *reasons*. You've merely made *assertions* that they shouldn't be. In fact, you haven't even given me any reasons, despite my repeatedly asking, why ANY 'humans' should have a 'right to life', but not cattle, chickens, or cockroaches.


As for the 'selfish' card, that one's wearing a trifle thin. I can play the 'selfish' card too, sweetiepie. Why shouldn't we pass laws requiring you to give up almost all your income to feed starving children, all the rooms in your house to the homeless, and your kidneys to dialyis patients. I have several reasons why starving children, the homeless, and dialysis patients should not be killed. You're just to SELFISH to listen, not to mention a fucking hypocrite, because you claim that a pregnant woman is (sob) 'killing' her precious zef by denying it her uterus, but somehow denying people food, shelter, and kidneys falls into a different category, for no apparent reason other than it might inconvenience precious myintx rather than other people.

secularprolife.org said...

Uh huh. How long does it take to get these free condoms? How far do you have to drive to get them, or how long do you have to wait to get them in the mail. How many people DON'T live in NY city?

**Not everyone is so dirt poor that they have to decide between a condom and a few cans of soup.**


Yeah, some people live in a fairytale world like you. That doesn't mean everyone does.

**Or birth control and a meal out once a month. If there is something people want, they should budget their money and save for it.**


So, now you're back to claiming that everyone lives in a fairytale world and has enough money to 'save'.


Your statements about 'cell phone plans' and a 'meal out once a month' shows exactly what a spoiled fairytale existence you have, and just how clueless you are about how some people live, the question with them is not whether they get a 'cell phone plan' but whether they get to set the furnace above 50 degrees; and not 'one meal out a month' but whether they will find some fresh roadkill, or poach a rabbit, or find a package of out of date hamburger in a dumpster and be able to have meat at home that night for themselves and their kids. Or peanutbutter. Or nothing.



But you just look down your holier than thou snoot about 'not expecting handouts' and 'being responsible' because you have the luxury of a soft cushy life.

secularprolife.org said...

Your actions regarding babydaddy aren't a great big secret. You just wish they were.

secularprolife.org said...

Rats and humans are both mammals. Both should be protected from being killed.


See, it's easy to make unsupported assertions.

secularprolife.org said...

yeah, that's why no women take drugs, become prostitutes, or kept drinking during prohibition. Oh, no, wait...

secularprolife.org said...

A zygote, embryo and fetus are structurally and functionally different from a human baby. That is a scientific fact. It cannot be disputed. They are not the same.

secularprolife.org said...

*No one should be able to kill another human being just because they are unwanted.*

And yet you said in another thread that 'evil rapists' should be killed. What's the reason for that, other than their being 'unwanted'? Rape is arguably far less damaging to your body than a lot of pregnancies.

Oh, let me guess? If someone is 'unwanted' by myintx and doesn't have a cute head, then it's ok to kill them. But if they're not all cute, and they are 'unwanted' by people other than precious myintx, then you're all sad-feelie about them.

** All innocent human beings should have a right to life.** I specifically stated in my example that the rapist's brain was being controlled by a computer, so he couldn't 'help himself', thereby making him innocent. Why doesn't HE have a 'right to life'? Because he doesn't have a cute head and look all adorable and thumb sucky?

secularprolife.org said...

"..Innocent human being has a right to live when they are ABLE to live - and the only place an unborn child is able to live is in his or her mother's womb"



The only place a homeless person may be able to live during the winter is in YOUR heated house. Why doesn't the homeless person have a right to occupy your house for a 'few short months'? No-one should be allowed to kill 'just because' they don't want an 'invader' in their house. That Homeless Person should be YOUR responsibility. It's selfish to pull the 'my property rights' card as an excuse to kill.

secularprolife.org said...

Women do NOT need to care for their children unless they take that on voluntarily. Nobody forces them. So, NOPE.

secularprolife.org said...

Problem here is, you're not offering enough information with your whiny statistics. Saying that 49% of the women who have abortions didn't use contraception in the month they became pregnant is all sad feelie and all, but tells me NOTHING. You're attempting to imply with your statistic that they were merely (sob) 'IRRESPONSIBLE" but haven't offered enough data to support that conclusion.


Here's some other possible reasons, for your sad feelie statistic:


1. The woman wanted to become pregnant at the time, and her boyfriend told her to go for it, then ran out on her after she got pregnant.
2. The woman wanted to become pregnant, then she (or her family) suffered some sort of financial disaster or other severe emergency, shortly after she became pregnant.
3. The woman wanted to become pregnant, and was diagnosed with a medical or health problem making continued pregnancy dangerous to her.
4. The woman wanted to become pregnant, but the embryo was diagnosed with a severe birth defect.


Oh, let me guess, People never have problems in your little spoiled fairy-tale world. All pregnancies are perfect, and money and nannies fall out of the sky.

secularprolife.org said...

Right. Just like during prohibition most people didn't drink, right? Just like marijuana being illegal keeps people from smoking it, right? Just like the IRS stops people from cheating on their taxes. You are VERY naïve, my dear. Just as many women had abortions when it was illegal, and still have them where it's illegal. Either they go where it is legal, or they obtain clandestine abortions. And before 1973, a man discovered a safe method of aborting that was taught to women all over the country. Just look up menstrual extraction, and the Jane Collective where you can see for yourself exactly how much women IGNORE laws against abortion. Look how they are ignoring laws NOW. Your state has seen a large increase in "miscarriages" brought on by flea market Cytotec, which is available OTC in Mexico. You must be really dumb.

secularprolife.org said...

Uh huh. No 'planned parenthood' where I live, or where many people live. And no free condoms at gas stations. And as I mentioned above, your statistic does not have enough data to prove your whiny contention about 'irresponsibility'.

secularprolife.org said...

**The point is that is about 1/2 of couples cannot even be bothered**


No, the point is you're a little spoiled bitch liar and the mere fact that 49% of women who get abortions did not use birth control in the month they got pregnant doesn't prove your snotty little holier than thou conclusion of 'cannot be bothered', because you have not provided data disproving any and all of the following:


1. Boyfriend said he'd help support a baby, but then ran out.


2. Boyfriend lied about having had a vasectomy.


3. Financial or other emergencies shortly after becoming pregnant.


4. Mother developed or was diagnosed with health problems making continued pregnancy dangerous.


5. The embryo was diagnosed with a severe birth defect.


Myintx needs to be RESPONSIBLE for not making wild claims that are far from proven by the data she offers. But probably this is the usual case of everyone else having to be RESPONSIBLE. Everyone but myintx.


Don't try to sneak your whiny statistics that don't prove your snotty assertions past me again, sweetiepie. It didn't work this time, and won't work next time.

secularprolife.org said...

Where is your proof? You have NONE because you made it all up. You are a sorry excuse for a human being.

secularprolife.org said...

If a woman gives birth at her home she is responsible for caring - at least caring enough to call 911 and watch the baby until someone comes to get the baby. OH NO. She might feel FORCED to CARE.BOO HOO.

secularprolife.org said...

They are all HUMAN BEINGS.

secularprolife.org said...

Go ahead and advocate that it be against the law to kill roaches. And go ahead and advocate that we can kill born children. Good luck with that.
Unborn children are human beings, just like born children. ALL human beings should have a basic right to life. If cows are roaches are smart enough to try to protect themselves then they can.


PARENTS have a responsibility to care for their offspring. That responsibility should start when their offspring are created - at fertilization. Me not donating a kidney is NOT the same as intentionally poisoning, dismembering or killing someone - NOT AT ALL.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, go advocate that rats be saved. You're free to do that. Who knows. Maybe you'll have luck and laws will be passed protecting rats. Now, go away and do that. Buh-bye.

secularprolife.org said...

Most women aren't prostitutes. Most women obey laws. Thanks for backing up my statement :)

secularprolife.org said...

If someone is in that situation they can WAIT until they or their partner has enough money for contraceptives - or find other ways to entertain themselves in the bedroom. Or, at a minimum practice NFP AND use early withdrawal - both are recognized forms of contraception by the CDC. Even those 2 forms used together are better than nothing.


My parents taught me that if there is something I WANT (not need) then I should save my money for it.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, if she's conscious, she should call 911. That isn't "caring" for anyone.

secularprolife.org said...

You do realize, she doesn't have to attempt resuscitation, right? And most people probably shouldn't. Nor should she attempt to sever the cord. If it was a precipitous delivery she'll need medical attention herself. Calling 911 is a great idea. Doing anything to the baby isn't.

secularprolife.org said...

Prove that a zygote with one third the number of chromosomes required to be human is a human being.

secularprolife.org said...

If there is a zygote that is defective, it might not survive. That in NO WAY makes the intentional killing of an unborn child acceptable.

secularprolife.org said...

But in your mind it is OK to murder born babies, children and adults. You are a sick puppy.
And until you prove there is an unborn child, your other statement is gobbly gook.

70 percent of conceptions will die in the first trimester. And 42 percent of conceptions do not have enough human DNA to produce a living human child. You murder innocent humans trying to save non human life.

secularprolife.org said...

Uh huh. Moving the goalpost. We've now gone from 'free condoms all over the place' to 'they just have to WAIT'. Though I notice apparently YOU'RE not willing to WAIT '9 short minutes' if a man whose brain is being controlled by a computer is raping you, so that he can have a 'chance' to get the computer removed and a 'chance for a full and productive life', you just up and call him 'evil' for upsetting your little fairytale existence, and KILL him. Why do you want to kill innocent men who are the victims of evil scientists, myintx?

**minimum practice NFP AND use early withdrawal - both are recognized forms of contraception by the CDC** Both of which are very ineffective, so that you can trumpet them out as people who 'couldn't be bothered' to use birth control.

**My parents taught me that if there is something I WANT (not need) then I should save my money for it.** Well, isn't it special that you've apparently lived in a spoiled princess fairytale world since your early childhood, that you HAD all this extra money to 'save'. Apparently you're still so clueless you fail to grasp that not everyone lives in a fairytale like precious widdle you.

secularprolife.org said...

FYI, resuscitation can break the baby's ribs, killing it.