General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
This message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (Are_grits_groceries) on Thu Feb 9, 2012, 06:42 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
barbtries
(31,246 posts)will now go to planned parenthood.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Especially the one commenters suggestion
Here’s a solution to their stupidity:
You can make a donation to Planned Parenthood and request a thank you card be sent to:
Karen Handel
Senior VP of Fail
c/o Susan G. Komen Foundation
P.O. Box 650309
Dallas, TX 75265-0309
JustAnotherGen
(37,804 posts)I just may do this. 
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Really help get the word out? Just a thought. Rock on hobbit709!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)This'll tick her off.
renate
(13,776 posts)This is awesome! 
ananda
(34,626 posts).. requesting that a thank you card be sent to:
Karen Handel
Senior VP of Fail
c/o Susan G. Komen Foundation
P.O. Box 650309
Dallas, TX 75265-0309
likesmountains 52
(4,270 posts)
TahitiNut
(71,611 posts)Assholes. 
Kali
(56,726 posts)but I just posted that to faceplant for what that is worth - that might make a good sig line as well,
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)So, this doesn't surprise me. She's probably been chomping at the bit to do this.
That being said: there are many other women's health organizations to give money to. I have very little respect for the Komen Foundation. I always suggest people see if there's a local breast cancer organization you can give to, or give directly to a medical organization that treats breast cancer.
Planned Parenthood does very few abortions anyway. There main role in a community is a place for women to go for pap smears, etc.
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)According to a media matters analysis of Planned Parenthood's 2008-2009 Annual Report, In 2009, Planned Parenthood performed 332,278 abortions, from which it derives about $164,154,000.
That's not "very few abortions." In fact, according to their Wikipedia article, they are the largest abortion provider in the United States.
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)Performing abortions is a very, very small part of Planned Parenthood. They provide reproductive medical care to girls and women who cannot otherwise afford it.
They are the largest "abortion provider in the United States" because they are often the only place in entire counties and tri-county areas that provide this medical procedure. Unlike, say, a vasectomy.
My post was entirely factual, no matter how you wish to twist your stats.
Would you like to tell me what percentage of PP's work is abortion-related, and which is preventative? I've known teh answer to that for years. Do you?
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)to be "very, very few"?
Remember, that's the number of abortions provided by PP every year in the United States. There were 155.6 females in the U.S. in 2009. Many of these were girls too young or women too old to become pregnant. Yet, even including these young girls and older women, PP performed abortions on about one of every 500 females in the United States - in 2009 alone.
To me, that's not "very, very few."
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)services they provide...compared to what else they provide, abrotions account for very few of what they do.
And if they'er the largest abortion provider int he US...then good!
She said: "Planned Parenthood does very few abortions anyway."
That is just plain false. That's what prompted me to reply. I don't usually get into abortion debates, but that statement was just wrong. PP does not do 'very few abortions." It does a lot of them. Every year.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)That means thousands and thousands of women received safe, legal, and reasonably affordable medical care that they might be otherwise unable to access through other channels.
I support PP *because* they do abortions, not in spite of the fact.
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)If abortion is such a wonderful thing, why not celebrate the huge number of abortions that occur every year, instead of trying to minimize and discount the number by characterizing it as "only 3%" of the total number of services done by PP?
So, while I do not agree with your point of view, I can respect your intellectual honesty and consistency on the issue.
Fuzz
(8,827 posts)are wonderful. I wouldn't find any invasive medical procedure wonderful.
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)are expressing the opinion that 322,278 abortions per year are "too few." They want the number to increase.
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)
yardwork
(69,132 posts)I went to the link you gave, and found this:
In Fact, Less Than 15% Of Total Revenue Comes From Abortion Services
Contraception, STD Testing And Treatment, Cancer Screening Make Up Vast Majority Of Planned Parenthood Services. Planned Parenthood's 2008-2009 annual report states: "For the three million patients our doctors and nurses saw, we provided contraception (36 percent of our total services), testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (31 percent), cancer screening and prevention (17 percent), and abortion services (three percent)." [Planned Parenthood Annual Report 2008-2009, accessed 2/17/11]
Planned Parenthood Receives 15% Of Its Annual Revenue From Abortion Services. According to data from the most recent Planned Parenthood Annual Report:
Abortion accounted for 3 percent of total services (approximately 328,308 of 10,943,609 services)
At an average cost of $500, total revenue from abortion services was approximately $164,154,000
Revenue from abortion services was less than 15 percent of the total annual revenue, which was $1,100,800,000 [Planned Parenthood Annual Report 2008-2009, accessed 2/17/11]
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)said that abortions were "too few." I'd say that means that the poster wants the number to increase.
And nothing in your post refutes anything that I said. I pointed out that PP performs over 332,000 abortions per year. That fact is admitted by PP.
Starry Messenger
(32,380 posts)lol. No, I don't want the number of abortions to increase although I wouldn't really care if they did. It would mean that more vulnerable women were getting their legal and safe access to their legal and safe health care. If *I* wanted to be nasty, I could have said that *you* wanted to go back to the days of wire hanger abortions. Isn't mind-reading fun?
And abortion is legal. I'm so fucking glad it is legal. Did I mention it was legal? Yep, it is legal legal legal. You can be as sad as you want to be, it will stay legal. Luckily sanctimonious opinions don't trump the Supreme Court's wise decision that treats woman as human beings.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch.
Fuzz
(8,827 posts)That just is demonstrably wrong.
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)The only ones who do are anti choicers, including Jon Kyl, who said abortion is 90% of PP's services. It was a lie, meant to stop funding for women's health services. Saying it's only 3% doesn't quit have the same propaganda "oomph."
Access to any safe and needed medical procedure is a wonderful thing. I don't understand why you wouldn't think so. 
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)But it's against the rules to say it.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Zebedeo is an anti-choicer. If being an anti-choicer is actually admissible in this forum, then what I just wrote is not an attack, but rather only a statement of fact, like "laundry_queen has an avatar with words in it."
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)has advocated an anti-choice position. Instead, I merely corrected a false claim that PP performs "very few abortions." Since that statement was demonstrably false, I demonstrated its falsity. I did not ever express the opinion that a woman should not have the choice to obtain an abortion.
In another post, I did express the opinion that I believe that the number of abortions that are performed is high, and that it is tragic and heartbreaking, and that I would prefer that the number be decreased. That is an opinion shared by Democratic presidents, as well as many others in the Democratic Party. And it is not anti-choice.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)ananda
(34,626 posts)... is not the abortion itself, but the fact that a woman is free to make her own choice
regarding her body and the fact that she doesn't have to put her life in danger in order
to do so.
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)You had your bogus stats exposed, so now you move on to the core of your argument. What a surprise, Stretch.
I don't argue with anti choice posters, especially on DEMOCRATIC Underground.
REP
(21,691 posts)So the number of abortions done by Planned Parenthood isn't even half of all abortions done in the US.
My information comes from the US Census Bureau. Where are you pulling yours from?
annabanana
(52,802 posts)There is an idiotic idea out there that if abortions become illegal that somehow there will be fewer abortions. No one ever crunches the numbers of bloody, lonely, septic deaths of desperate young women.. either by attempts of self abortion, or suicide. .
Carolina
(6,960 posts)Great response; I'd been thinking the same thing as I read some of the preceding posts.
There are no statistics for those days of yore. And as we can plainly see from the failed experiment with prohibition in the 1930s and the ongoing lunacy of the WAR on drugs: making something illegal does not make it unavailable. There will always be purveyors of goods and services, legal or not. That's capitalism, after all!
The tragedy with making abortion illegal again is that it truly will take us back to the dark ages of loss of freedom, loss of fertility (and possibly other health) and loss of life for millions of women. And of course, poor women are most likely affected since any and all health services are a plane ride away for the rich.
It's sickening.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)I take it, you'd like to add to that number? Bring it up to half a million. That's what would happen if none of those 332k abortion by PP didn't happen. And if we go with the overall #s of abortions performed in the US each year, we'd have close to 1.5mil kids in foster care. Because, guess what, women and girls are going to get pregnant--some are going to act irresponsibly (and the men involved are responsible for that too), some are going to be raped, some are going to have health issues, and some are going to be victims of faulty birth control. So, we'll shave 500k off that number just for shits and giggles (I'm probably being overly generous with my made up number) -- that still leaves us, amazingly, close to 1mil kids who would be left in the foster care system or available for sale (because adoption, especially for healthy white infants, is a booming industry).
What do we do with all those kids? Put them to work as Gingrich suggests? Turn them out on the street? Force people to take them in? Could you imagine 1mil kids, each year, growing up knowing no one wants them? Yes, please, let's save their lives so we can psychologically damage them instead. What a wonderful society that would create.
What pisses me off about the argument that 1 abortion is too many is that no one really seems to give a shit about what happens to that child after they are born. If their life is so fucking precious, why do so many kids languish in foster care? If their lives are so precious, why are so many kids abused or abandoned after they leave that womb? If their lives are so precious, why are children starving in the US right now?
Finally, why are we even having this discussion in the first place? Abortion is legal in the US and, frankly Zebedeo, it's none of your business unless YOU are going to have one.
JHB
(38,096 posts)In 2009, Planned Parenthood provided 4,009,549 contraceptive services (35% of total), 3,955,926 sexually transmitted disease services (35% of total), 1,830,811 cancer related services (16% of total), 1,178,369 pregnancy/prenatal/midlife services (10% of total), 332,278 abortion services (3% of total), and 76,977 other services (1% of total), for a total of 11,383,900 services. The organization also said its doctors and nurses annually conduct 1 million screenings for cervical cancer and 830,000 breast exams.
(bold added for emphasis)
Let's put it this way, then: abortions are a small part of the medical services they perform for women: 3%, by the numbers in Wikipedia.
Its opponents act as if abortions is all they do, or at least everything else is a sideline.
They don't care what it does in real life. To them it is a symbol, and they want to kill it and mount its head on a wall. (and I'm sure there's at least a few who'd like to literally do that to PP's leadership.)
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)3%, and they are often thr only place for hundreds of miles for a teen or woman to get this MEDICAL PROCEDURE DONE.
REP
(21,691 posts)If DU does Hearts for PP, I just may donate every time some of those "facts" that aren't facts are pushed. I'm feeling flush this month 
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)I will try to be.
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)a contraceptive service, and each time they hand out a condom as a contraceptive or sexually transmitted disease service. This is done in order to artificially get the percentage of abortion services down to a low-looking number of 3%. Yet there is no denying that they perform 332,278 abortions per year. That's not "very, very few." It's a lot. In 10 years, that's 3,322,780, or more than one for every 50 females in the United States - or perhaps one for every 20 females of child-bearing age.
And why so much defensiveness? If abortion is such a good thing, why wouldn't you be celebrating the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed by PP every year?
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)I just don't like people trying to take away reproductive choice for women. Being pro choice is a VERY good thing. Why don't you seem to think so???
And, no, that isn't alot of abortions. You really need to educate yourself on this, but we all know you have no desire to, don't we?
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)So, what would you say IS a "lot of abortions"? Just trying to "educate" myself.
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)How many heart bypasses are too many? How many gall bladder ops are too many? How many vascetomies (sic) are too many?
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)then your statement that PP doesn't perform a lot of abortions is meaningless.
On edit: If you don't consider any number a lot, then even if PP performed a billion abortions per year, that would not constitute "a lot," by your definition. So your statement that PP doesn't perform a lot of abortions conveys no information.
uppityperson
(116,005 posts)Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)n/t
Response to Zebedeo (Reply #36)
Bunny This message was self-deleted by its author.
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)I on the other hand will not.
Response to Zebedeo (Reply #41)
Bunny This message was self-deleted by its author.
Spock_is_Skeptical
(1,491 posts)
Irishonly
(3,344 posts)
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"guess you should push for more abortions ..."
I'd think the relevant and honest way of stating it would be "Pushing for women's choice", rather than "push for more abortions."
As you said, intellectual honesty and consistency *is* important, yes? Unless you simply hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself...
Gold Metal Flake
(13,805 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,380 posts)There are 500,000 vasectomies performed every year. Planned Parenthood performs those too: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/centralnc/vasectomy-20843.htm
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)That's an even higher percentage of PP resources than other medical procedures, including abortion.
Starry Messenger
(32,380 posts)They probably drag men off the streets and hold them down to cut their tubes just so they can say they have more vasectomies than abortions. 
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)So, it's really only 250,000.
REP
(21,691 posts)Or is it just Planned Parenthood that's causing a single perfect tear to roll down your cheek?
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)and heartbreaking.
Tonsillectomies, performed over 600,000 times a year on children, have a higher morbidity/mortality rate than a first-term abortion. So safety can't be your concern. What is?
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)not only ends the life (or potential life, if you prefer) of the woman's baby, but also is often a traumatic and negative emotional experience for the baby's mother and father. I think that the vast majority of Democrats would agree with me that it would be good to decrease the number of abortions performed each year.
REP
(21,691 posts)Here are some peer-reviewed studies:
Long answer:
Abortion doesn't affect well-being, study says
New York Times (as printed in the San Jose Mercury 2/12/97)
Abortion does not trigger lasting emotional trauma in young women who
are psychologically healthy before they become pregnant, an eight-year
study of nearly 5,300 women has shown. Women who are in poor shape
emotionally after an abortion are likely to have been feeling bad about
their lives before terminating their pregnancies, the researchers said.
The findings, the researchers say, challenge the validity of laws
that have been proposed in many states, and passed in several, mandating
that women seeking abortions be informed of mental health risks.
The researchers, Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo, a psychologist at Arizona
State University in Tempe, and Dr. Amy Dabul Marin, a psychologist at
Phoenix College, examined the effects of race and religion on the
well-being of 773 women who reported on sealed questionnaires that
they had undergone abortions, and they compared the results with the
emotional status of women who did not report abortions.
The women, initially 14 to 24 years old, completed questionnaires and
were interviewed each year for eight years, starting in 1979. In 1980
and in 1987, the interview also included a standardized test that
measures overall well-being, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.
"Given the persistent assertion that abortion is associated with
negative outcomes, the lack of any results in the context of such a
large sample is noteworthy," the researchers wrote. The study took
into account many factors that can influence a woman's emotional
well-being, including education, employment, income, the presence of
a spouse and the number of children.
Higher self-esteem was associated with being employed, having a
higher income, having more years of education and bearing fewer children,
but having had an abortion "did not make a difference," the researchers
reported. And the women's religious affiliations and degree of involvement
with religion did not have an independent effect on their long-term
reaction to abortion. Rather, the women's psychological well-being before
having abortions accounted for their mental state in the years after the
abortion, the researchers said..
In considering the influence of race, the researchers again found
that the women's level of self-esteem before having abortions was the
strongest predictor of their well-being after an abortion.
"Although highly religious Catholic women were slightly more likely
to exhibit post-abortion psychological distress than other women, this
fact is explained by lower pre-existing self-esteem," the researchers
wrote in the current issue of Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, a journal of the American Psychological Association.
Overall, Catholic women who attended church one or more times a week,
even those who had not had abortions, had generally lower self-esteem
than other women, although within the normal range, so it was hardly
surprising that they also had lower self-esteem after abortions, the
researchers said in interviews.
Gail Quinn, executive director of anti-abortion activities for the
United States Catholic Conference, said the findings belied the
experience of post-abortion counselors. She said, "While many women
express `relief' following an abortion, the relief is transitory."
In the long term, the experience prompts "hurting people to seek the
help of post-abortion healing services," she said.
The president of the National Right to Life Committee, Dr. Wanda
Franz, who earned her doctorate in developmental psychology, challenged
the researchers' conclusions. She said their assessment of self-esteem
"does not measure if a woman is mentally healthy," adding, "This requires
a specialist who performs certain tests, not a self-assessment of how
the woman feels about herself."
The Relationship of Abortion to Well-being: Do Race and Religion Make a Difference?
Nancy Felipe Russo and Amy J. Dabul
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 1997, Vol. 28, No , 23-31
Relationships of abortion and childbearing to well-being were examined for 1,189 Black and 3,147 White women. Education, income, and having a work role were positively and independently related to well-being for all women. Abortion did not have an independent relationship to well-being, regardless of race or religion, when well-being before becoming pregnant was controlled. These findings suggest professional psychologists should explore the origins of women's mental health problems in experiences predating their experience of abortion, and they can assist psychologists in working to ensure that mandated scripts from 'informed consent' legislation do not misrepresent scientific findings.
RUSSO, NANCY FELIPE
ZIERK, K.
Abortion, Childbearing, and Women's Well-Being
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice 23 (1992): 269-280. Also, http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_resea...
Cohort(s): NLSY79
ID Number: 4029
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
This study is based on a secondary analysis of NLSY interview data from 5,295 women who were interviewed annually from 1979 to 1987. Among this group 773 women were identified in 1987 as having at least one abortion, with 233 of them reporting repeat abortions. Well-being was assessed in 1980 and 1987 by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The researchers used analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple regression to examine the combined and separate contributions of preabortion self-esteem, contextual variables (education, employment, income, and marital status), childbearing (being a parent, numbers of wanted and unwanted children) and abortion (having one abortion, having repeat abortions, number of abortions, time since last abortion) to women's post abortion self-esteem.
Most Women Do Not Feel Distress, Regret After Undergoing Abortion, Study Says
The majority of women who choose to have legal abortions do not experience regret or long-term negative emotional effects from their decision to undergo the procedure, according to a study published in the June issue of the journal Social Science & Medicine, NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest reports. Dr. A. Kero and colleagues in the Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology at University Hospital in Umea, Sweden, interviewed 58 women at periods of four months and 12 months after the women's abortions. The women also answered a questionnaire prior to their abortions that asked about their living conditions, decision-making processes and general attitudes toward the pregnancy and the abortion. According to the study, most women "did not experience any emotional distress post-abortion"; however, 12 of the women said they experienced severe distress immediately after the procedure. Almost all of the women said they felt little distress at the one-year follow-up interview. The women who said they experienced no post-abortion distress had indicated prior to the procedure that they opted not to give birth because they "prioritized work, studies, and/or existing children," according to the study. According to the researchers, "almost all" of the women said the abortion was a "relief or a form of taking responsibility," and more than half of the women said they experienced positive emotional experiences after the abortion such as "mental growth and maturity of the abortion process" (NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest, 7/12).
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports...
The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion--denied and completed
PK Dagg
Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont., Canada.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the available literature on the psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion, addressing both the issue of the effects of the abortion on the woman involved and the effects on the woman and on the child born when abortion is denied. METHOD: Papers reviewed were initially selected by using a Medline search. This procedure resulted in 225 papers being reviewed, which were further selected by limiting the papers to those reporting original research. Finally, studies were assessed as to whether or not they used control groups or objective, validated symptom measures. RESULTS: Adverse sequelae occur in a minority of women, and when such symptoms occur, they usually seem to be the continuation of symptoms that appeared before the abortion and are on the wane immediately after the abortion. Many women denied abortion show ongoing resentment that may last for years, while children born when the abortion is denied have numerous, broadly based difficulties in social, interpersonal, and occupational functions that last at least into early adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: With increasing pressure on access to abortion services in North America, nonpsychiatrist physicians and mental health professionals need to keep in mind the effects of both performing and denying therapeutic abortion. Increased research into these areas, focusing in particular on why some women are adversely affected by the procedure and clarifying the relationship issues involved, continues to be important.
Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148:578-585
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/conten...
Psychological sequelae of medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation.
Ashok PW, Hamoda H, Flett GM, Kidd A, Fitzmaurice A, Templeton A.
From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.
Background. Although not much research comparing the emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion is available, few studies have compared psychological sequelae following both methods of abortion early in the first trimester of pregnancy. The aim of this review was to assess the psychological sequelae and emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation. Methods. Partially randomized patient preference trial in a Scottish Teaching Hospital was conducted. The hospital anxiety and depression scales were used to assess emotional distress. Anxiety levels were also assessed using visual analog scales while semantic differential rating scales were used to measure self-esteem. A total of 368 women were randomized, while 77 entered the preference cohort. Results. There were no significant differences in hospital anxiety and depression scales scores for anxiety or depression between the groups. Visual analog scales showed higher anxiety levels in women randomized to surgery prior to abortion (P < 0.0001), while women randomized to surgical treatment were less anxious after abortion (P < 0.0001). Semantic differential rating scores showed a fall in self-esteem in the randomized medical group compared to those undergoing surgery (P = 0.02). Conclusions. Medical abortion at 10-13 weeks is effective and does not increase psychological morbidity compared to surgical vacuum aspiration and hence should be made available to all women undergoing abortion at these gestations.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005 Aug;84(8) 61-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
Post abortion syndrome: myth or reality?
Koop CE.
What are the health effects upon a woman who has had an abortion? In his letter to President Reagan, dated January 9, 1989, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wrote that in order to find an answer to this question the Public Health Service would need from 10 to 100 million dollars for a comprehensive study.
PIP: At a 1987 briefing for Right to Life leaders, the author--US Surgeon General C Everett Koop--was requested to prepare a comprehensive report on the health effects (mental and physical) of induced abortion. To prepare for this task, the author met with 27 groups with philosophical, social, medical, or other professional interests in the abortion issue; interviewed women who had undergone this procedure; and conducted a review of the more than 250 studies in the literature pertaining to the psychological impact of abortion. Every effort was made to eliminate the bias that surrounds this controversial issue. It was not possible, however, to reach any conclusions about the health effects of abortion. In general, the studies on the psychological sequelae of abortion indicate a low incidence of adverse mental health effects. On the other hand, the evidence tends to consist of case studies and the few nonanecdotal reports that exist contain serious methodological flaws. In terms of the physical effects, abortion has been associated with subsequent infertility, a damaged cervix, miscarriage, premature birth, and low birthweight. Again, there are methodological problems. 1st, these events are difficult to quantify since most abortions are performed in free-standing clinics where longterm outcome is not recorded. 2nd, it is impossible to casually link these adverse outcomes to the abortion per se. Resolution of this question requires a prospective study of a cohort of women of childbearing age in reference to the variable outcomes of mating--failure to conceive, miscarriage, abortion, and delivery. Ideally, such a study would be conducted over a 5-year period and would cost approximately US$100 million
Health Matrix. 1989 Summer;7(2):42-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
Psychological sequelae of induced abortion.
Romans-Clarkson SE.
Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin, New Zealand.
This article reviews the scientific literature on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion. The methodology and results of studies carried out over the last twenty-two years are examined critically. The unanimous consensus is that abortion does not cause deleterious psychological effects. Women most likely to show subsequent problems are those who were pressured into the operation against their own wishes, either by relatives or because their pregnancy had medical or foetal contraindications. Legislation which restricts abortion causes problems for women with unwanted pregnancies and their doctors. It is also unjust, as it adversely most affects lower socio-economic class women.
PIP: A review of empirical studies on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion published since 1965 revealed no evidence of adverse effects. On the other hand, this review identified widespread methodological problems--improper sampling, lack of data on women's previous psychiatric history, a scarcity of prospective study designs, a lack of specified follow-up times or evaluation procedures, and a failure to distinguish between legal, illegal, and spontaneous abortions--that need to be addressed by psychiatric epidemiologists. Despite these methodological weaknesses, all 34 studies found significant improvement rather than deterioration in mental status after induced abortion. There was also a high degree of congruity in terms of predictors of adverse reactions after abortion--ambivalence about the procedure, a history of psychosocial instability, poor or absent family ties, psychiatric illness at the time of the pregnancy termination, and negative attitudes toward abortion in the broader society. As expected, criminal abortion is more likely than legal abortion to be associated with guilt, and women who have been denied therapeutic abortions report significantly greater psychosocial difficulties than those who have been granted abortion on the grounds of their precarious mental health. Overall, the research clearly attests that abortion carried out at a woman's request has no deleterious psychiatric consequences. Problems arise only when the woman undergoes pregnancy termination as a result of pressure from others. Legislation that undermines the ability of the pregnant woman to assess herself the impact of an unwanted pregnancy on her future impedes mental health and should be opposed by the psychiatric profession.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1989 Dec;23(4):555-65
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
Psychological and social aspects of induced abortion.
Handy JA.
The literature concerning psychosocial aspects of induced abortion is reviewed. Key areas discussed are: the legal context of abortion in Britain, psychological characteristics of abortion-seekers, pre- and post-abortion contraceptive use, pre- and post-abortion counselling, the actual abortion and the effects of termination versus refused abortion. Women seeking termination are found to demonstrate more psychological disturbance than other women, however this is probably temporary and related to the short-term stresses of abortion. Inadequate contraception is frequent prior to abortion but improves afterwards. Few women find the decision to terminate easy and most welcome opportunities for non-judgemental counselling. Although some women experience adverse psychological sequelae after abortion the great majority do not. In contrast, refused abortion often results in psychological distress for the mother and an impoverished environment for the ensuing offspring.
Br J Clin Psychol. 1982 Feb;21 (Pt 1):29-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
As for ending the life of a zygote/embryo/fetus - rest your mind. Over 90% of sexually active women have had an early spontaneous abortion without realizing it - thinking it was a heavy period. It's natures design. (deCherney Obstetrics)
uppityperson
(116,005 posts)
yardwork
(69,132 posts)I imagine that carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term, and then raising that child, probably causes emotional trauma.
REP
(21,691 posts)The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion--denied and completed
PK Dagg
Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont., Canada.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the available literature on the psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion, addressing both the issue of the effects of the abortion on the woman involved and the effects on the woman and on the child born when abortion is denied. METHOD: Papers reviewed were initially selected by using a Medline search. This procedure resulted in 225 papers being reviewed, which were further selected by limiting the papers to those reporting original research. Finally, studies were assessed as to whether or not they used control groups or objective, validated symptom measures. RESULTS: Adverse sequelae occur in a minority of women, and when such symptoms occur, they usually seem to be the continuation of symptoms that appeared before the abortion and are on the wane immediately after the abortion. Many women denied abortion show ongoing resentment that may last for years, while children born when the abortion is denied have numerous, broadly based difficulties in social, interpersonal, and occupational functions that last at least into early adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: With increasing pressure on access to abortion services in North America, nonpsychiatrist physicians and mental health professionals need to keep in mind the effects of both performing and denying therapeutic abortion. Increased research into these areas, focusing in particular on why some women are adversely affected by the procedure and clarifying the relationship issues involved, continues to be important.
Emphasis added
grantcart
(53,061 posts)obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)yardwork
(69,132 posts)All the data I've ever seen says that that is a widely distributed but nonetheless completely spurious claim. In other words, it's a lie.
I've also heard that abortions cause breast cancer in women. Also a lie. Were you going to bring that up next?
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)by education and prevention of both men and women...or by edict of a few overly emotional men controlling the uterus and life of an unknown woman they no nothing about in order to force a pregnancy to term, no matter what.
Really, it's about ownership of your own life. Guarantee you, Zebedeo, if men were the ones who got pregnant, they'd have a very different view of abortion. Contraception might even be more available than viagra.
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)What other medical procedures are you so oddly emotionally invested in?
Carolina
(6,960 posts)those children? Are you doing SOMETHING with your money, your time, your energy, your political activity to help poor children once they're born?
Yeah, it's tragic and heartbreaking to see unwanted or poor children fall victim to the streets, to drugs, gangs, alcohol, or crime OR to see them languish in awful schools, in poor housing (or sheltors), in dead end, low wage, benefit-less jobs
Do you think women should bear the biological result of incest or rape?
haele
(15,234 posts)Of the five abortions where I knew the women who have gone through one personally, one was an abortion to clear out a miscarriage that would have caused sepsis and possibly killed a mother of two, one was on a fetus that would have resulted in a severely deformed baby that might have lived a painful month or two in ICU, one was a pregnancy that would potentially have killed both mother and child, and only two were elective.
There were probably others, but these were the ones I knew about, the ones where there was a noticeable impact to anyone outside the personal relationship of the potential mother, her family, her doctor, and whatever personal deities might be involved.
The key to abortion is to remember that abortion is only one result of an unwanted or non-viable pregnancy. Looking at every pregnancy as either viable / accepted, or non-viable / unaccepted, very few of the other results if the pregnancy is non-viable or unaccepted are as clean or safe for the mother or the potential infant than abortion.
Nature handles it through miscarriage, stillbirths, and maternal mortality. Modern medicine has changed that drastically, so that what might have been a natural outcome or even a “god’s will” situation has been altered through human intervention.
Whatever your personal "moral" views on abortion if you don't have a medical interest in a legitimately life and family saving medical procedure, there really is no reason to determine who can have one or who isn't supposed to have one.
Pregnancy has dangers that most people blow off, because they don't remember that even in the 1950’s when the majority of US births started occurring in hospitals, on average one in 1000 women in the US died giving birth, and one out of every three pregnancies that made it to the third trimester still ended in a miscarriage or stillbirth, and neo-natal (first 27 days) mortality was around 10%.
Medically, the continuous dangers in pregnancy is the primary reason why abortion should still be legal and safe.
And the economy willing (studies have shown that abortion rates go down as the economy improves) rare because that most pregnancies will happen to healthy women who want to have families and the morality police don’t have the overwhelming need to punish women for the un-intended or unwanted pregnancies because of the evil, nasty sex that caused the pregnancies.
It's none of my - or any other person's - business how many abortions occur, just that they are safe and were the choice of the parties directly involved. Just as I have no business in how many pregancies come to term, just that the pregancy was desired by the mother and the delivery is safe, and the babies can be cared for through adulthood.
Haele
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)You said: "viable / accepted, or non-viable / unaccepted"
Haele, you know that these are two completely different issues. Whether a pregnancy is viable or not is one issue. Whether the pregnancy is "accepted" is a completely different issue.
And statistics from the 1950s (52 to 62 years ago) are hardly relevant to today's discussion.
Keep in mind that all I said was that 332,278 abortions every year was not "very few abortions." That's what I said. In fact, I was correct. PP performs A LOT of abortions, each and every year. Not "very few."
I did not want to get drawn in to a discussion of whether abortion is good or bad. My opinion is that the number of abortions performed today is tragically high, and it would be a better world if the number were much smaller. I think that opinion puts me in good company in the Democratic Party. But my post wasn't even about that. My post merely corrected a false claim by a poster that PP performs "very few" abortions.
a simple pattern
(608 posts)14.5 percent of households (approximately one in seven) were food insecure last year.
That's 72.5 people already in line for food, health care and employment in front of each of your proposed forced births.
Your move.
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)Your post is about a different issue.
a simple pattern
(608 posts)Unless you're a baby salesman, and then they exist until the check clears.
uppityperson
(116,005 posts)something, at LEAST get your quote right. Speaking of correcting "a false claim". Ironic, that.
haele
(15,234 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 1, 2012, 11:57 PM - Edit history (1)
Is there a difference between a therapeutic abortion -which is what they called a medically necessary abortion back before RvW - and an elective abortion, or an abortion with a viable fetus or a non-viable fetus?
To really evaluate the question of the number of abortions and what that means, you need to break down that 332,278 abortions per year number into categories - therapeutic/medical necessity for life or health of the mother or a non-viable fetus, therapeutic/elective (the woman and her family would be economically harmed or there is a mental or emotional hardship if she carried a baby to term) or totally elective - you know - the stereotyped PP abortion - where a low-class female who uses abortion as a form of birth control or a single party girl made a mistake she's trying to correct. The realty of the last category, of course, is usually made by a woman in a committed relationship who doesn't want to have a child at that time.
I can look at that PP number, and it means very little in an overall context. It's a symptomatic number, at best, and the Anti-Abortionist moral questions aside - it actually seems to be a reasonable number, considering the amount of sexual activity the average healthy person in the US engages in that has nothing to do with reproduction.
What this number does carry with it in an overall context is evidence the lack of availability of reproductive health care - and points a direction at the myths that this rather schizophrenic culture spreads concerning sexual responsibility and personal autonomy.
What number would you want to see? I know that most Anti-Abortionists (I refuse to call the pro-lifers, as if they were pro-life, they would be more interested in fixing the actual causes of abortions than regulating a symptom) would say "no abortions", but then we might be looking at 10,000 to 50,000 additional fatalities or cases of sterility or reproductive disability in women of childbearing age. What does that mean when a family loses its mother, or a young woman who would make a great mother will never be able to have children?
If all you see is one raw number, and none of the causes for that number, then you are arguing a strawman based on your personal feelings.
With better education and a better economy, that abortion number will go down. Closing Planned Parenthood and access to therapeutic and elective abortions only makes it more dangerous for the women who need the service.
Haele
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That's the only number you need to worry your furrowed little brow over, because that's the only instance where it is ANY OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS, JACK.
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)
Starry Messenger
(32,380 posts)I wish I could hug a post.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,618 posts)You had to know that was coming. 
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 1, 2012, 12:23 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'm not sure that the plural is "uteruses" instead of "uteri", but I see no reason to hide the post on something as trivial as a possible spelling error. Everything else seems fine.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Just because someone doesn't have a uterus doesn't mean they can't have an opinion.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: A little harsh, but does promote discussion. Not all discussions are positive. That would make for an echo chamber.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Although I thought the poster was a little over the top, I will vote to leave it alone only because it seems like a round and round circle of agreeing to disagree.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The comment is harsh, but on topic. The foundation of this comment is who gets to decide about abortions, not about the number of abortions or what might be considered abortive (like birth control). The question isn't about how to calculate birth control numbers or numbers of abortions performed, but who gets to decide. Clearly the poster believes that these decisions are up to those directly involved in either aborting, or controlling reproduction.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It's called being pro-choice.
You do realize that your vote is, essentially, to ban expressions of pro-choice opinion on democratic underground. Wow, just wow.
To the rest of you, I appreciate your time.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)right now.
As in, some people seem to think the point of alerts and juries is to hide opinions they, personally, disagree with. I happen to believe the poster I was responding to was clearly advocating an anti-choice agenda- something I think is WAY outside the mainstream of opinion here and hard to fathom coming from a Democrat... yet, I did not alert on the posts, I responded to them.
Similarly anyone who disagrees (Juror #2, I'm talking to you) with the point made in my post, rather than voting to "hide" it, should respond to it. Make your case. That's what a discussion board is for.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Presumably, you only find out if it's hidden.
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)by a poster who said that Planned Parenthood performs "very few abortions." That claim was demonstrably false, and so I demonstrated its falsity. I expressed no opinion on the issue of whether a woman should have the choice to obtain an abortion.
REP
(21,691 posts)You don't like "very few." Doesn't really change anything.
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)I corrected it. Now posters are trying to suck me into an argument about choice. I expressed no opinion about choice.
REP
(21,691 posts)Then why so concerned?
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)to the discussion in this thread.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Had you not posted the things you posted here, it would have not occurred to me to contribute. But, because of you, I did.
And, for that, I thank you.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm getting my wallet out, right now.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)uppityperson
(116,005 posts)What is your opinion on it?
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)Only 3% of PP's services each year are abortions, no matter what stats you and Jon Kyl want to state. Yet, you've spent all day trying to twist my posts and other people's posts into saying we are celebrating abortion and lying about how many LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURES PP performs every year.
PP snips 500,000 set of testicles a year, yet you don't seem too emotionally invested in those lost possible babies. Why is that?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I think you're being -how shall we say?- less than genuine, on that point.
If you're anti-choice, cop to it. Don't pretend.
yardwork
(69,132 posts)Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)who alerted on his post. Must have been someone else who thought it was uncivil. I wasn't particularly bothered by the rudeness.
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)The number of uteri that I have is zero. But I hardly see how that is any of YOUR business. Thank you kindly.
BTW, I have not expressed any opinion in this thread (or anywhere on DU) about whether a woman should have the right to obtain an abortion. But if I had wished to express such an opinion, I do not agree that I should be disqualified from doing so because of the absence of a uterus.
Many people do not have uteri. These include not only men, but also women who have undergone a hysterectomy. Are you saying that women who have undergone a hysterectomy should not be permitted to express an opinion on the issue of abortion?
In a similar vein, should people who do not own a gun be disqualified from expressing an opinion on the issue of gun control?
Should people who do not smoke be disqualified from expressing an opinion on laws pertaining to smoking?
Should people who do not use drugs be disqualified from expressing an opinion on laws pertaining to drugs?
Should people who are not in the U.S. military forces be disqualified from expressing an opinion on U.S. military action?
These are not rhetorical questions. I really would be interested in your answers.
REP
(21,691 posts)What next - a violinist, a shark and an island?
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)is sometimes the appropriate response.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The CORE of reproductive choice is that it is the pregnant woman who needs to be the one to make the damn call about her own body. Your "similar vein" issues are, almost to the one, completely fucking different animals.
I do believe that people need to have the right to control their own damn bodies and their own choices, insofar as they don't impact other people- other people who don't depend on residing inside their body for survival, that is. (Yes, before you launch into the inevitable sidebar telling me that a clump of fetal cells is the same thing as a "baby" and a "person"... Whether or not one agrees with that assessment, the fact remains that that "person" is wholly dependent upon residing INSIDE the body of another for survival, and as such laws restricting womens' choice amount to the government forcing women to use their bodies as incubators, against their will)
So, to answer your questions:
Totally fucking irrelevant. If guns were only capable of shooting the person who owned/fired them, it might be sort of relevant.
My attitude on smoking is that it's legitimate to regulate it in public spaces where the smoke may impact other people. I think consenting adults need soveriegnity over their own bodies, so as far as smoking that doesn't impact others against their will, it doesn't matter whether someone is a smoker or not, the fundamental right of self-determination is unchanged.
Yeah. I mean, I think the decision, like smoking, needs to be up to the individual. No one should have to take drugs or smoke if they don't want to.
This doesn't even make sense.
Gun ownership and Military action are totally irrelevant. I think we all should have a say in military action because it's our country and military action is done in all of our name. Gun ownership (and I'm not a big gun control booster) affects us all, because guns are used by one person on another person. Drugs and smoking are issues of personal bodily integrity and autonomy, just like reproductive choice.
The point you -in typical anti-choice fashion- seem totally unwilling to get is, it is a woman's body, and by deciding arbitrarily that you should be in charge of telling her to remain pregnant against her will, you are sticking your nose WHERE IT DOESN'T BELONG.
I didn't say you were "disqualified from having an opinion", I said you're disqualified from having an opinion about OTHER peoples' bodies and what THEY should do with them.
Should I have the right to decide what kind of pants I wear tomorrow? Yes. Should I have the right to decide what kind of pants YOU wear tomorrow?
...Do you understand the difference? That's not just a rhetorical question, I'd like to hear the answer.
Every woman gets one opinion about one body- her own. Every man gets, well, none. Sorry.
It is HER BODY. NOT YOURS. FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO DO, RATHER THAN RUN OTHER PEOPLES' LIVES FOR THEM. PERIOD. END OF FUCKING STORY.
Sorry if this is "rude" or "harsh", but I've had it up to fucking here with god-damn anti-choicers.
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)Are they disqualified, like men, from expressing opinions concerning abortion, because they are unable to bear children (or to use your terminology, they have no uterus)?
You asked:
Answer: Yes. I understand the difference. And in general, I agree with your philosophy that people should have individual autonomy over their own bodies, and the law should proscribe activities, generally speaking, only to the extent that they have the potential to have an adverse effect on OTHER persons. There are some exceptions to this philosophy, but in general I think you and I are on the same page with regard to this principle.
However, people disagree about whether the unborn child is another person. Some say the child is another person. You seem to believe otherwise, or in the alternative, you place the persons who are not yet born into a category that is subject to being killed because they are "wholly dependent upon residing INSIDE the body of another for survival."
If you do not believe that the child who is not born yet is another person, is it because you believe that the child is the SAME person as the mother? Or is it because you believe the child is not a person at all? In either case, I would differ with you, because the child, even from the moment of conception, has a different DNA. The child may in all likelihood have a different blood type than the mother. The child may even be of a different race than the mother. Take our President, for example. Would you say that Barack Obama was the same person as his mother, prior to his birth? Or would you say he was not a person prior to his birth? Was there a point in time at which he became a person (or became a person other than his mother)? What about 5 minutes before his birth? Was he "another person" then?
If you agree that a baby is a person other than his mother prior to his birth, then I think our shared philosophical viewpoint dictates that the issue of whether his mother should have an abortion is an issue in which society as a whole has an interest, and the opinions of members of society are entitled to be expressed - just like the gun control or military action scenarios which you addressed in your post. In other words, it is not just a matter of personal autonomy, because the action of having an abortion does have an adverse effect on another person.
That is not to say that I believe that a woman should not have a choice to obtain an abortion. I have not said that. I am merely saying that I think that persons in this society who do not have uteri should not be disqualified from expressing opinions pertaining to abortion.
By the way, you have been expressing opinions pertaining to abortion. How many uteri do you have?
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Also, what do you care what someone else does with their body or life?! Abortions also SAVE lives.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm saying the opinion that one person is entitled to make that decision FOR another person, in any case, is not to my mind, valid. That's MY opinion.
Can I stop people from having that opinion? Obviously not.
A woman with a hysterectomy has the same rights, to my mind, as everyone else- i.e. she has autonomy over HER body. The abortion "question" is moot, in her case, is it is in yours and mine, because she doesn't have a uterus and she's not going to get pregnant.
Let's look at Gay Marriage. Do I grok that some people have all sorts of meddlesome opinions which make them believe that they're entitled to tell gay people they've never met that they shouldn't be able to legally get married? Yes, some people do. And yes, I think that "opinion" is bullshit. Do I think that all opinions about gay marriage are created equal? No. I do not. I think that what is valid is respecting the idea that people should have fundamental RIGHTS to self-determination, and that includes the right of gay people to decide for themselves whether to marry each other or not, legally.
Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Don't like gay marriage? Don't have a gay wedding.
Now, you want to play the classic anti-choice game about DNA and life from conception and all this other yibber yabber like we haven't heard it fifty bajillion times before, sort of like the glassy-eyed jesus thumper at my door somehow imagines I've never managed to be exposed to the "good news" in my 5 or so decades on this planet, and oh how fortunate for me that finally someone has shown up to clue me in. 
Your sperm is alive. Unfertilized eggs are alive. They also have different DNA, and different unique combinations of DNA. Do they deserve "rights"? The anti-choice delusion; and it's based upon religious dogma and nothing more, is that somehow at the moment of conception some magic action happens in the fertilization of the egg whereby these two living gametes with the same 46 total (23+23) chromosomes which will end up in the zygote, magically transmogrify at that instant into a "baby" with rights. Magic.
This:
Is NOT a Baby. Understand?
And we can add another tick in your disingenuous column. It is the anti-choice crowd who are unable to distinguish between a single cell and a baby "five minutes before birth". How many abortions are taking place 5 minutes before birth? Got any numbers for that, Mr. Numbers? Oh, I know that your average, bloviating right wing AM hate radio asshat loves to float shit about the women running around pregnant for 8 months and then aborting because they "look fat", right up there with the bon-bon eating welfare queen who takes the limo to buy vodka with food stamps... but the FACT is- the STATISTICAL FACT (you know, with those planned parenthood numbers you seem to think you're scoring points by flogging upthread) is that the vast majority of abortions- over 90%, in most analyses, take place before 12 weeks in gestational age. Roe v. Wade and the Casey decision both recognize that a fertilized egg and a baby "five minutes before birth" are NOT the same thing.
The only people saying they ARE the same thing are the people who want to outlaw abortion and birth control.
You do? I don't. I don't think that "society has a whole" has any business being inside a woman's uterus, inside people's bedrooms, inside their bloodstreams, or inside their pants. I recognize that the one and only person qualified to make decisions about a pregnancy is THE WOMAN IN WHOSE BODY THE PREGNANCY IS TAKING PLACE. Period. End of fucking discussion.
Oh, don't get me wrong- you can "express your opinion" all you want- the First Amendment protects that- and as a member of the pro-choice majority in this country, I will respond by saying I think you should worry about controlling your own fucking body, and not anyone else's.
Understand?
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)But not all the others.
So you believe that women who have had hysterectomies are disqualified, like men, from expressing opinions concerning abortion, because they are unable to bear children.
And you answered the question about the number of uteri you have - none.
Other than that, you failed to answer any of my questions, or address the substance of my post.
Here are the questions again:
If you do not believe that the child who is not born yet is another person, is it because you believe that the child is the SAME person as the mother?
Or is it because you believe the child is not a person at all?
Take our President, for example. Would you say that Barack Obama was the same person as his mother, prior to his birth?
Or would you say he was not a person prior to his birth?
Was there a point in time at which he became a person (or became a person other than his mother)?
What about 5 minutes before his birth? Was he "another person" then?
Then you quoted me in an excerpt, but left off the first part of my sentence.
I said:
You left off the first part of that sentence - the conditional clause, and misquoted me as saying:
Your stance seems to be rather hypocritical. You assert that those without uteri have no business expressing opinions about abortion, but when it is pointed out that you have no uterus and you have been expressing strong opinions about abortion, you think that is OK, because your opinion should be allowed to be expressed, and it is only those that disagree with you that should STFU about abortion. Can you see how that may seem like a double-standard?
The crux of the abortion issue is whether the unborn offspring - "baby," "child," "fetus," "zygote," "embryo," or whatever you want to call him, is a person, and if so, whether said offspring is a different person than his mother. You and I generally agree with the principle of personal autonomy - that, as a general rule, it is none of anyone else's business what someone does with their own body - provided that it does not have an adverse effect on another person.
I would like to know whether you believe the unborn offspring is not a person, or whether you believe the unborn offspring is the same person as the mother. I would argue that either assertion is on shaky ground. If you assert that the unborn offspring is the same person as the mother, it seems that your definition of the "same person" is quite unjustifiably broad. Half the time, the offspring is of a different sex than the mother. The offspring has different genetics and may be of a different race than the mother. It seems quite ridiculous to say that the offspring is the same person as the mother. But if your answer is that the offspring is "not a person," then you have other difficulties. Does the offspring ever become a person? Surely he does, at some point. What is that point? That's why I asked you about a baby that is 5 minutes from being born. Is he "not a person," because he is inside his mother's body? You mentioned that most abortions occur within 12 weeks of gestation. Do you believe that offspring that are less than 12 weeks from gestation are not persons? Do they become persons at exactly 12 weeks? Or only at the moment they come through the birth canal? Do they have to be full term pregnancies to count as persons? So a baby that is born premature is not a person until he has reached the point which is 9 months after conception?
Violet_Crumble
(36,382 posts)I would like to know if you think abortion should be made illegal. As someone who had an unwanted pregnancy and who decided by myself whether to continue the pregnancy or not, I would have told any fucking weirdo who wasn't a family member or a friend to fuck off and mind their own business. I don't give a shit if they've got a uterus or not, coz I'm equal opportunity when it comes to mindless meddling anti-choice morons...
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Don't let the door hit ye on the ass, there, Zeb.
Spock_is_Skeptical
(1,491 posts)you are awesome. thanks. i 100% agree with ya, in fact, I tend to be a little more potty-mouthed in their general direction.
I mean seriously.
why be nice or worry about rudeness to anti-choicers. they are using every underhanded method there is, and don't give two shites about the opposition. they murder people. they are terrorists. who cares if you sling hyperbole, it's true.
why bother entertaining their trolling, condescending ways though... there's no "reasoning" with 'em. so let it out!
but I hear ya, they are really a pain in the ass. what does being "nice" get you?
gets ya murdered, that's what. so seriously fuck the troll/s in this thread...
~high five to you~
AND FUCK YEAH.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)Thank you.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Those that don't own the equipment ought not to be telling people what they can or can't do with it.
I also think that people who don't like abortions ought to go out of their way to not find themselves in the position of getting one. Problem solved!
Irishonly
(3,344 posts)Thank you
PVnRT
(13,178 posts) My advice is to stop talking to the person they only see and hear what fits their agenda, pointless to engage them.
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)REP
(21,691 posts)uppityperson
(116,005 posts)numbers, for taking this seriously enough to prove this to us.
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)It probably wouldn't surprise you.
uppityperson
(116,005 posts)It is easy to throw out crap and then not return to back it up. This poster is quite obvious.
yardwork
(69,132 posts)I thought that you were interested in reducing the numbers of abortions?
Your agenda is showing.
Zebedeo
(2,322 posts)I was not complaining about the number of times a BC prescription was refilled. I was merely pointing out that PP has artificially lowered their reported percentage of business that is abortion related by counting all those refills as separate services. This is done for PR purposes in order to make the organization less controversial.
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)I know why, because I Googled this, and the sites that "prove" this and agree with you are very... interesting. I'm not much of a fan of someone like Jill Stanek.
Starry Messenger
(32,380 posts)There is nothing about women's health that is controversial, except anti-woman bigots make it so. Your conspiracy theories are utterly without ground and have no place on a progressive website.
yardwork
(69,132 posts)I don't understand why you think that refilling contraception prescriptions and giving people condoms is a bad thing. The only groups who are opposed to contraception are extremely anti-progressive.
please posters, save the anti-abortion comments for a more appropriate venue
Sgent
(5,858 posts)NM
MH1
(19,097 posts)The access to reproductive choice IS life.
Taking away women's reproductive choice = DEATH. "Pro-life" is most assuredly NOT pro life, it is PRO DEATH to women.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)It's a national organization with many, many locations. Most abortion providers are doctors working alone or single location clinics. However, even with that national presence PP provides only about one quarter of legal abortions performed (annual n these days is about 1.2 million.)
It's obvious from the exchange in this subthread the obamanut2012 was talking about abortions as a portion of the total services offered.
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)
ellie
(6,975 posts)Which translates into 15% of their revenue. How is 3% is a majority of anything? They are the largest abortion providers because they are a national organization.
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)PRRed.
MH1
(19,097 posts)that drives fundies and misogynists up the wall.
What, allow women to actually CHOOSE when to bear children?!? gasp! we can't have that, you know!!
Response to Are_grits_groceries (Original post)
Post removed
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Karen Handel ran the most anti-LGBT governor's race in Georgia's history. She's bad news and Komen has made a specific shift to the right by appointing her to VP of Policy. Fight back by making a donation ...to Planned Parenthood in Karen's honor.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)I'm sure they'll be relieved to hear that.
sarge43
(29,173 posts)That would have been news to my mother who died of it at 92.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)We have to fight back for common sense and logic.
uppityperson
(116,005 posts)"If you are not willing to support an organization that takes a stand you want when they come under attack, you cannot be surprised when less organizations listen to you."
This organization caved when they came under attack, the opposite of taking a stand. And Erick you RW screeder, you are a fucking idiot.
Thank you Are_grits_groceries for bringing this to our attention.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Erick Erickson, the right-wing author or the article linked in the OP, is a fucking idiot.
Posting that for blogslut who had a post hidden in error upthread.
Sid
kath
(10,565 posts)or a lack of understanding of who "Erick" is - ie, hidden by MISTAKE, isn't there a way it could be restored?
Also, blogslut should have the ding against his or her record removed.
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)Erick Erickson is a fucking idiot.
csziggy
(34,189 posts)But to make it clear you are quoting, highlight the part that is quoted text, then click the "excerpt" button above the posting box.
Usually I include the link in the excerpt box so it is clearly associated with the quote.
You can also do a blockquote to indent text like this, but it is not as clearly set apart. it does show up better with a large block of text, but I prefer the excerpt formatting.
librechik
(30,956 posts)And I will urge my friends and family members to do the same.
CBHagman
(17,464 posts)...and progressives in general are responding. This is going to lose Komen a lot of supporters and probably result in a lot of donations to Planned Parenthood.
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)I wonder what % Komen has lost?
This move will also tick off socially-liberal Republicans (of which there are quite a few).
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)to make up for the $700K they lost in Komen funds.
One was a $250,000 donation from one couple. KFTC really stepped into it this time.
obamanut2012
(29,279 posts)I think they did, too. Good. I've disliked them for years.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Who the hell are they, to think they have a "trademark" on the word CURE?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/komen-foundation-charities-cure_n_793176.html
Nervy fuckers--it's like that idiot Donald Trump expecting to be paid every time Mitt Romney says "You're fired."
Assholes!
That's a NICE donation--bravo to whomever coughed up that amount of dough!
ThatsMyBarack
(7,641 posts)What color should everything be?
Raine1967
(11,673 posts)I discovered it while writing my own blog.
From the original Article in WaPo (AP)
THIS Cliff Stearns
&feature=player_embedded
Did you hear him mention the name Lila Rose? well, here is some background:
The latest release follows similar undercover video releases from young conservative activists, most notably the James O'Keefe-led ACORN videos. And like those videos, which were later revealed to have been selectively edited, this one has immediately generated controversy.
The young woman behind the Planned Parenthood video is O'Keefe associate Lila Rose, whose group Live Action last month sent fake pimps and prostitutes ostensibly involved in an underage sex trafficking ring into Planned Parenthood offices with hidden cameras. Here's how she describes her latest video, which you can watch below:
I wrote more about it over here I'm not trying to plug my blog, I just want people to see that these things are all interconnected. It's not just Karen Handel. Part of me honestly suspects that Ericson knows that O'keefe has his fingerprints all over this.
In other words -- the Planned Parenthood investigation is based on a lie that representative Stearns has chosen to believe.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Fundraising and research for a medical cure to breast cancer. They already do screening, why not simply make this a core part of their business focus? I think it's pretty obvious that, while it may have started out as a great organization dedicated to raising awareness of breast cancer and becoming a vehicle to fund research, SGK has morphed into an organization that cares more about fundraising than finding cures. Planned Parenthood has a long demonstrable history of providing affordable healthcare services for all facets of women's health. Why not become the primary advocate for both screening and research? The SGK foundation has been co-opted by RW anti-choice rightwinger's who have now exposed themselves clearly for what they are - cynical marketers of cute trinkets and pithy lipservice to finding a cure...but if such a cure were to be found, they'd have no reason to exist and billions of dollars of funding would dry up. Somehow, I doubt the SKF foundation will ever find a cure because it's not good for their business model.
Hopefully, the people involved with marketing for SGK might be disillusioned enough with the RW tilt to bail on the organization and they would help PP transition the donating community to a progressive non-profit who will not play politics with the health of all women.
We donated $25.00 yesterday and my wife will be renewing our lapsed membership in PP.