I thought I'd start a thread on Abortion

_

CorporateWhore wrote:

It's difficult to measure, as women who have abortions are not as likely to admit to having one as a family that circumcised their baby.

It's not at all difficult to measure (at least not in countries where it's legal). Medical facilities know how many procedures they perform - circumcisions, abortions, deliveries, toenail removals, etc. You don't have to poll women to get this information.

CorporateWhore wrote:

It might cost less for the patient, but it also costs much less for the abortionist. The doctor develops economies of scale, because he can become more and more specialized in performing abortions every day. It's like the guy who puts the tire on the car in the assembly line. That's all he does, and he can get good at it.

Planned Parenthood has net assets of $951.8 million dollars last year and it's a non-profit. The highest amount of its income came from Health Center Income: $356.9 million. The second highest was from government grants: $336.7 million.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR_2007_vFinal.pdf

Planned Parenthood receives more income from its abortion centers than it receives from government grants! That goes to show how profitable its operations continue to be. In addition, it is common knowledge that Planned Parenthood's operations are heavily weighted toward abortion advice.

I'd love for you to tell me how much it costs a doctor/clinic to perform an abortion. Go ahead. I'm waiting...

I'm no longer even sure what you're comparing it to anyway.

Regarding Planned Parenthood income, you are equating "health centers" with "abortion centers" and these are non interchangable terms. Most Planned Parenthood health centers don't even perform abortions. Abortion only accounts for 3% of the services Planned Parenthood provides - but of course if you read the source you cited you already know this. (In which case you must just think you can pull a fast one over on those of us you bet won't actually read it. Being misleading doesn't help your credibility or your argument though.)

CorporateWhore wrote:

So many possible pregnancies, so little time to abort them eh? I should hope that we had more childbirths than abortions...

Still, abortions are profitable, as Planned Parenthood can attest.

Funny. You said abortion providers kill babies because it's profitable. I said they don't and that it's actually more profitable to provide prenatal care and delivery services. You said abortions are more profitable because they're so common. I said they're only 1/3 as common as childbirth. And then this is your response? I'll take that to mean you know you're wrong on this one.

CorporateWhore wrote:

Nope, it's not. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/nyc/surgical-abortion-.htm

PP calls it a surgical procedure.:D

Just because this is still the term that's widely used doesn't mean that's not being debated within the medical community.

CorporateWhore wrote:

Taking a pill...that's obviously not what we've been talking about.

Why is that not what we've been talking about? It's an abortion. We're talking about abortion.

_

CorporateWhore wrote:

Kabong,

Your discriminating handling of their financial statements notwithstanding, we're talking about profits here. That 3% represents the number of people that come into their centers asking for abortions divided by the number of people that come into their centers in general.

So yes, a ton of people come into PP asking for condoms - big surprise. A discriminating observer of their financial statements can tell that they don't profit from condom sales, though they represent the most common reason why people walk in their doors. They profit from abortions, and revenues from abortion are much higher than contraception sales.

They purposely use ambiguous language - obviously they were referring to the percentage of people that enter their centers, not the amount of money they make and the profits generated from their operations.

So please enlighten us about exactly how much of the money you spoke of came from abortions - if you can. Since you're trying to make a distinction between percentages of patients seen for which services and percentages of revenue generated by which services, I would really like to see this data too.

How can you say the revenues from abortions are much higher than contraception sales? How do you know this? Even without facts, how did this even get past your "deductive evidence"? It actually costs MORE to get an IUD or vasectomy than to get an abortion. And I didn't even know Planned Parenthood sold condoms!

Actually, aren't you contradicting yourself here? Whatever happened to your "economies of scale" argument? You know, the one where you said that, despite the fact that people pay considerably more for labor & delivery, abortions are more profitable than deliveries because you can see more abortion patients in a day than you can see women in labor. Now you have provided proof that Planned Parenthood sees considerably more contraception patients per day than abortion patients (38% to 3%) and are trying to say that that doesn't matter because abortions are more expensive. Talk about a flip-flopper! Maybe you should run for office.

_

CorporateWhore wrote:

I see you too spend your life on this message board, judging by your post count.

Imagine all of the things you could have been doing instead of wasting yer life on posts that no one will ever read? Ahhh, I take that back: at least yer in on the PJ political gossip...

And yet... YOU seem to be reading her posts.

angelica

CorporateWhore wrote:

Kabong, ...

catch22 is definitely not Kabong.

angelica

decides2dream wrote:

btw - just an fyi...being for an option to be available is NOT the same as being pro-abortion. just sayin'.....

Justifying why abortion is the optimal option is certainly pro-abortion by many people's standards. It's certainly not being "con" or against abortion.

_

angelica wrote:

Justifying why abortion is the optimal option is certainly pro-abortion by many people's standards. It's certainly not being "con" or against abortion.

I believe D2D spoke only of abortion being AVAILABLE as an option at all... she didn't say it was the OPTIMAL option, nor has anyone else. The pro-choice position advocates for leaving it up to the pregnant woman to decide which is the OPTIMAL option. It is a NEUTRAL position. Just because someone is not biased AGAINST something does not mean they're biased FOR it. Although, perhaps some people's own bias doesn't allow them to understand that others can be neutral.

angelica

scb wrote:

I believe D2D spoke only of abortion being AVAILABLE as an option at all... she didn't say it was the OPTIMAL option, nor has anyone else. The pro-choice position advocates for leaving it up to the pregnant woman to decide which is the OPTIMAL option. It is a NEUTRAL position. Just because someone is not biased AGAINST something does not mean they're biased FOR it. Although, perhaps some people's own bias doesn't allow them to understand that others can be neutral.

I'm referring to the many, many justifications I've seen on this board alone, for abortion as the optimal option given many scenarios, as being pro-abortion to my sensibilities.

edit: when people are saying here that people just aren't pro-abortion...if that is the case, then people are sending very strong pro-abortion messages unwittingly. Those who are in need of guidance very clearly hear these messages.

_

angelica wrote:

I'm referring to the many, many justifications I've seen on this board alone, for abortion as the optimal option given many scenarios, as being pro-abortion to my sensibilities.

Saying abortion may be the optimal solution in some scenarios and may not be in other scenarios and it's not for someone else to decide, once again, is a NEUTRAL stance.

angelica wrote:

edit: when people are saying here that people just aren't pro-abortion...if that is the case, then people are sending very strong pro-abortion messages unwittingly.

You can hear whatever messages you want to hear, Angelica, but... what is it you always say?... "your judgments about what I say or don't say, and how you interpret/process that are about you."... "if it's not clear for you there's little I can do"... and "The truth exists on its own whether it is being perceived through the smokescreen of our inner filters or not".

angelica wrote:

Those who are in need of guidance very clearly hear these messages.

So are you in need of guidance or are you just wearing the ears of other people?

angelica

scb wrote:

Saying abortion may be the optimal solution in some scenarios and may not be in other scenarios and it's not for someone else to decide, once again, is a NEUTRAL stance.

You seem to misunderstand what I said. I refer to when people say it is THE optimal choice to have an abortion given this or that scenario. I'm not referring to them saying it's up to someone to decide for themselves. Rather, I refer to when one specifically says they believe it's the right choice given certain circumstances, to have an abortion. this is showing a pro-abortion stance. I have seen this over and over in abortion threads on this board.

I assert that people often times give pro-abortion messages, regardless of what they call doing so.

_

angelica wrote:

You seem to misunderstand what I said. I refer to when people say it is THE optimal choice to have an abortion given this or that scenario. I'm not referring to them saying it's up to someone to decide for themselves. Rather, I refer to when one specifically says they believe it's the right choice given certain circumstances, to have an abortion. this is showing a pro-abortion stance. I have seen this over and over in abortion threads on this board.

I assert that people often times give pro-abortion messages, regardless of what they call doing so.

Given all my comments in all the abortion threads, you must be referring at least in part to me. And I think you seem to misundertand what I said - and what a lot of other people have said since I've read all the same posts as you and haven't heard one person ever suggest that it's not up to someone to decide for themselves. Wait - actually I've heard this a lot... coming from the anti-choice camp.

angelica

scb wrote:

...since I've read all the same posts as you and haven't heard one person ever suggest that it's not up to someone to decide for themselves. ...

lol.........

...funny...........

catefrances

angelica wrote:

Okay, I'll bite...

People can and do become more and more conscious of what they were at one time unconscious of all the time. It depends on intent.

It's easy to see those who intend to justify their agendas, and those who intend to uncover the truth, even if it means they must suspend judgment, grow, and go beyond ego. The intention determines the outcome...the consequences of the choices.

so once they become aware of it, tis no longer subconscious. so the intent would be... to become aware of their unconscious and that it once was but now is no longer? if i am unconscious of something then how could i possibly have any intent in regard to it, negative or otherwise? holy fuck... i think my awareness is being expanded as we speak. :rolleyes:

Dylan Stone

angelica wrote:

lol.........

...funny...........

What is funny?

Abortion threads are ever funny?

wtf?

What side are you fighting on anyway???

.

angelica

GTFLYGIRL wrote:

What is funny?

Abortion threads are ever funny?

wtf?

What side are you fighting on anyway???

.

It's really funny when people portray things in terms of "sides"...in two dimensions, rather than as they are in reality.

Dylan Stone

angelica wrote:

It's really funny when people portray things in terms of "sides"...in two dimensions, rather than as they are in reality.

Yeah...


okay, angelica.... keep thinking "that" way.

angelica

GTFLYGIRL wrote:

Yeah...


okay, angelica.... keep thinking "that" way.

really...you wanted to know what's so funny. To see people in extremes, where the "pro-abortion" folk never ever step over lines is....comical.

For real.

And then to play the "abortion threads are funny?" card, rather than attempt to even understand the context I was referring to.

The whole time I'm puzzled why people are so unwilling to see what is.

_

angelica wrote:

It's really funny when people portray things in terms of "sides"...in two dimensions, rather than as they are in reality.

It's also funny when people say others are saying something and then aren't able to support their claim at all... No, wait... that's just sad. :(

It's also sad when one person constantly speaks about reality as if she has the sole monopoly on it in all circumstances... No, wait... or is that funny?

See, I'm getting my emotional self all confused here. Good thing I have you around to always lead me toward the wholeness and enlightenment that you have and I so long to possess... whether or not my bias and ego allow me to see it yet. :rolleyes:

_

angelica wrote:

really...you wanted to know what's so funny. To see people in extremes, where the "pro-abortion" folk never ever step over lines is....comical.

For real.

And then to play the "abortion threads are funny?" card, rather than attempt to even understand the context I was referring to.

The whole time I'm puzzled why people are so unwilling to see what is.

Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe YOU'RE the one who doesn't see "what is"? And have you ever stopped to notice that YOU'RE the one who's trying to pigeon-hole people into being pro-abortion just because they're not anti-abortion?

angelica

scb wrote:

It's also funny when people say others are saying something and then aren't able to support their claim at all... No, wait... that's just sad. :(

It's also sad when one person constantly speaks about reality as if she has the sole monopoly on it in all circumstances... No, wait... or is that funny?

See, I'm getting my emotional self all confused here. Good thing I have you around to always lead me toward the wholeness and enlightenment that you have and I so long to possess... whether or not my bias and ego allow me to see it yet. :rolleyes:

as for you, you over and over misconstrued what I have said in this thread. And when I have expressed that fact, you've been uninterested in uncovering the misperception.

I'm not interested in speaking to you, or showing you anything on a subject you have your ears closed to hearing.

I'm interested in speaking to the subject matter only.

Dylan Stone

angelica wrote:

I'm interested in speaking to the subject matter only.

And.......................................................