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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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...
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.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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.
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.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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.
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".
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.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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.
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:
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
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:
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?
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.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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?
When someone is being pro-abortion, meaning they are speaking the pros of abortion, it's self-evident that they are being pro-abortion. This is basic logic.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
When someone is being pro-abortion, meaning they are speaking the pros of abortion, it's self-evident that they are being pro-abortion. This is basic logic.
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.
The truth is, my eyes and ears are open. I think you just don't make very much sense. And I've noticed that many people seem to have made the same assessment. I don't believe you even care to make sense or to discuss the actual subject matter at all. I've rarely noticed you speaking about the subject matter in any of the many threads in which we've both participated. What I have noticed is you spouting off the same ethereal gibberish repeatedly in what seems to be an attempt to suggest that you are the only truly enlightened being on the board - if not the planet - and anyone who doesn't see things your way is lacking wholeness and is allowing their earthly egos to keep them separate from the beauteous reality we are all destined to someday uncover and enjoy - as soon as we all see things your way. And this makes me sad because I believe some of the theories you seem to subscribe to actually have merit, when explained well, applied appropriately, and not used as a thinly-veiled weapon of self-righteousness.
At least we can agree on one thing: There's no point in us ever again trying to converse with one another.
(And I mean all this in the nicest possible way & I wish you well, so please don't misunderstand me. )
It's really funny when people portray things in terms of "sides"...in two dimensions, rather than as they are in reality.
well angelica in a discussion there are sides. there is what 'i' believe and then there is what 'you' believe. there is of course middle ground or compromise, but thats hardly definable as a side. as for dimensions, there is what is real and what isn't. see..? again 'sides'.
in this discussion either you are prochoice or you believe abortion is murder and a pregnant woman MUST carrry her baby to term without compassion. which opinion do you hold?
and there is only one 'pro' as far as i can see when it comes to abortion and thats that a pregnant woman is no longer under the stress of an unwanted pregnancy. and quite frankly thats the only 'pro' that matters. all the rest is bullshit plain and simple.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
there is a huge difference between dependent and parasitic. a young child could be cared for by ANY random person and survive. a fetus can survive nowhere other than inside the womb of the woman that conceived it.
I'm not sure is you are aware that this is exactly the language the Nazi's employed to de-humanize the 'parasitic race' of Jews in order to justify genocide. A parasite is a foreign body that has no genetic relationship to the host, a fetus is a human being.
I'm not sure is you are aware that this is exactly the language the Nazi's employed to de-humanize the 'parasitic race' of Jews in order to justify genocide. A parasite is a foreign body that has no genetic relationship to the host, a fetus is a human being.
so now abortion is a form of genocide, is that what youre saying?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
youre wrong tim. after a child is born the total dependence on its birth mother ceases. it can obtain all it needs for survival from an alternate source.
So you are saying that the right to live or die depends on whether a baby is dependant on a particular individual or many alternate sources? So if I lived on a desert Island and my one year old son was the only other human being there, would I therefore have the right to kill him?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
so now abortion is a form of genocide, is that what youre saying?
Yes. And perhaps the worst kind in history as it is the biggest genocide in history and committed against the most innocent, most helpless of human beings - our own children!
So you are saying that the right to live or die depends on whether a baby is dependant on a particular individual or many alternate sources? So if I lived on a desert Island and my one year old son was the only other human being there, would I therefore have the right to kill him?
no. youre the one bringing up the analogy of a toddler. why do you do this tim? its an argument ive heard before and its a ridiculous one. i am speaking embryonic stage here. the embryo takes all it can from its mother. thats how it grows. if you take it out of its mother, it will die. it needs the mother to survive at this stage. thats the parasitic nature.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Comments
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.
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.)
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.
Just because this is still the term that's widely used doesn't mean that's not being debated within the medical community.
Why is that not what we've been talking about? It's an abortion. We're talking about abortion.
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.
And yet... YOU seem to be reading her posts.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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.
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.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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 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".
So are you in need of guidance or are you just wearing the ears of other people?
I assert that people often times give pro-abortion messages, regardless of what they call doing so.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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.
...funny...........
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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:
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
What is funny?
Abortion threads are ever funny?
wtf?
What side are you fighting on anyway???
.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
okay, angelica.... keep thinking "that" way.
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.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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:
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?
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.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
And.......................................................
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yeah huh???
You think?
:rolleyes:
The truth is, my eyes and ears are open. I think you just don't make very much sense. And I've noticed that many people seem to have made the same assessment. I don't believe you even care to make sense or to discuss the actual subject matter at all. I've rarely noticed you speaking about the subject matter in any of the many threads in which we've both participated. What I have noticed is you spouting off the same ethereal gibberish repeatedly in what seems to be an attempt to suggest that you are the only truly enlightened being on the board - if not the planet - and anyone who doesn't see things your way is lacking wholeness and is allowing their earthly egos to keep them separate from the beauteous reality we are all destined to someday uncover and enjoy - as soon as we all see things your way. And this makes me sad because I believe some of the theories you seem to subscribe to actually have merit, when explained well, applied appropriately, and not used as a thinly-veiled weapon of self-righteousness.
At least we can agree on one thing: There's no point in us ever again trying to converse with one another.
(And I mean all this in the nicest possible way & I wish you well, so please don't misunderstand me.
well angelica in a discussion there are sides. there is what 'i' believe and then there is what 'you' believe. there is of course middle ground or compromise, but thats hardly definable as a side. as for dimensions, there is what is real and what isn't. see..? again 'sides'.
in this discussion either you are prochoice or you believe abortion is murder and a pregnant woman MUST carrry her baby to term without compassion. which opinion do you hold?
and there is only one 'pro' as far as i can see when it comes to abortion and thats that a pregnant woman is no longer under the stress of an unwanted pregnancy. and quite frankly thats the only 'pro' that matters. all the rest is bullshit plain and simple.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm not sure is you are aware that this is exactly the language the Nazi's employed to de-humanize the 'parasitic race' of Jews in order to justify genocide. A parasite is a foreign body that has no genetic relationship to the host, a fetus is a human being.
so now abortion is a form of genocide, is that what youre saying?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
So you are saying that the right to live or die depends on whether a baby is dependant on a particular individual or many alternate sources? So if I lived on a desert Island and my one year old son was the only other human being there, would I therefore have the right to kill him?
word
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Yes. And perhaps the worst kind in history as it is the biggest genocide in history and committed against the most innocent, most helpless of human beings - our own children!
no. youre the one bringing up the analogy of a toddler. why do you do this tim? its an argument ive heard before and its a ridiculous one. i am speaking embryonic stage here. the embryo takes all it can from its mother. thats how it grows. if you take it out of its mother, it will die. it needs the mother to survive at this stage. thats the parasitic nature.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say