Planned Parenthood leaked video (1 Viewer)

[SIDA!]

There are several states where a woman can have an abortion in her ninth month of pregnancy when the baby is full-term. Do you think that women should be allowed to get late-term abortions in these states?

I think if that is what the law allows, yes they should.

But I would prefer a time table that reflects that fetus ability to survive outside of the host with only basic maternal care.

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?

I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

Since when do BIG GUBMENT types like BST ever have a problem with government telling people what to do?

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT...

Which side is trying use government to restrict what a person can do with their own body in this very thread?

Oh yeah, conservatives.

No, the conservative side is for protecting the rights of the unborn babies. LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's the first damn one.

It has no rights. Its not a person.

As I stated earlier... if you stayed directly on point for pushing personhood (and all the laws and protections there-in) you would gain much more respect.

But you don't.

I think you need to revisit your Roe:

These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became "formed" or recognizably human, or in terms of when a "person" came into being, that is, infused with a "soul" or "animated." A loose consensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth. [n22] This was "mediate animation." Although [p134] Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that, prior to this point, the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide. Due to continued uncertainty about the precise time when animation occurred, to the lack of any empirical basis for the 40-80-day view, and perhaps to Aquinas' definition of movement as one of the two first principles of life, Bracton focused upon quickening as the critical point. The significance of quickening was echoed by later common law scholars, and found its way into the received common law in this country.

As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physician and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. [n59] Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.

For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [p165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

By Roe's own definition "personhood" comes into play at viability.

That decision was in 1973, 42 years ago. How early has modern science established viability, ie the point at which a moving human growth becomes a "person"?

That seems pretty googleable, no? - Eta - 21 weeks. So why not just say you think the growth is a person at 21 weeks if you're following the law of the land?

See bolded:

Because he already stated he is okay with an abortion past this point. So, if he concedes personhood begins at 22 weeks or what not...he is saying he is okay with actually murdering a human.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

And damn you guys put words in other peoples mouth at every turn on this subject.

And again.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A time table, huh? Do you have a time table for discarding ear wax?I'm sure you're good with whatever the state decides anyway.

Since when do BIG GUBMENT types like BST ever have a problem with government telling people what to do?

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT...

Which side is trying use government to restrict what a person can do with their own body in this very thread?

Oh yeah, conservatives.

No, the conservative side is for protecting the rights of the unborn babies. LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's the first damn one.

It has no rights. Its not a person.

As I stated earlier... if you stayed directly on point for pushing personhood (and all the laws and protections there-in) you would gain much more respect.

But you don't.

I think you need to revisit your Roe:

These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became "formed" or recognizably human, or in terms of when a "person" came into being, that is, infused with a "soul" or "animated." A loose consensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth. [n22] This was "mediate animation." Although [p134] Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that, prior to this point, the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide. Due to continued uncertainty about the precise time when animation occurred, to the lack of any empirical basis for the 40-80-day view, and perhaps to Aquinas' definition of movement as one of the two first principles of life, Bracton focused upon quickening as the critical point. The significance of quickening was echoed by later common law scholars, and found its way into the received common law in this country.

As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physician and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. [n59] Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.

For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [p165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

By Roe's own definition "personhood" comes into play at viability.

That decision was in 1973, 42 years ago. How early has modern science established viability, ie the point at which a moving human growth becomes a "person"?

That seems pretty googleable, no? - Eta - 21 weeks. So why not just say you think the growth is a person at 21 weeks if you're following the law of the land?

See bolded:

Because he already stated he is okay with an abortion past this point. So, if he concedes personhood begins at 22 weeks or what not...he is saying he is okay with actually murdering a human.

I'd say he's in a moral or intellectual pickle, yes. I think he has replied that the case says, well, if the state so chooses then it he/she is a person, so I guess if he lives in a state that recognizes fetuses as viable, human persons at 20+ weeks, he then views he or she as a person deserving protection and if he is in another state which does not recognize this fact - and let's face it the science remains the same regardless of borders - then it's off with his/her its head, literally.

 

[SIDA!]

This is getting nowhere. The pro-life people believe an unborn baby is a human and deserves rights, even in the womb of its mother, whereas many pro-choice people believe as long as the baby is inside the mother, she can do with it as she wishes, including ending its existence. Neither side seems willing to budge.

My personal feelings on this situation are as follows:

I believe the fetus becomes a human life at some point before it exits the womb. I personally think the safest bet is to assume that life begins at conception. But, I don't truly know and can't be certain of the exact point. If you don't believe life forms at conception then I think it is fair to say that life begins subjectively for each individual being (as far as time from conception). Maybe you say it is a beating heart or brain waves, etc.

However, even if I do believe life begins at conception, how do I rationalize killing a baby in case of rape or other situations? I just do. I would never want or expect my wife or daughter or any woman to be forced to carry and give birth to the child of their rapist.

So it basically comes down to me picking a time in between conception and birth where I find abortion palatable. Unlike Tim or BST, I cannot fathom the idea of a woman aborting a full term fetus. I just find that reprehensible.

So, I guess I pick what those who might disagree with my position might call an arbitrary number of sorts. I think 12 weeks is enough time to get your #### together and figure out what you are going to do. I think 3 months is ample time.

Indelicate and somewhat arbitrary, sure. But I think it is a pretty fair compromise in a general sense.

 

[dgreen]

The one thing that annoys me about the whole conversation is that those who are the most vocal against abortion are generally those who are also the most against policy that would effectively reduce the number of abortions.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/opinion/frum-abortion-reality/

At some point, if you're actually against abortions happening, don't you need to explore a way to reduce demand for abortions? Prohibition doesn't work, and global statistics bear that fact out. It seems that so many conservatives think that if it's illegal it'll just go away. It won't. It'll go to the back alley where you don't have to see it or hear about it, and more young, poor, vulnerable girls will die.

I think abortion is mostly unconscionable. But making it illegal and not providing financial support for mothers isn't going to do much (if anything) to reduce abortion. Unfortunately, most of the people who also think it's wrong are unwilling to do what it would take to reduce abortions. They'd rather spend the money blowing up Muslims.

It's pretty common for people to support a certain position but be really ignorant of what the best solutions are. People are likely to support solutions that are simple and make some sense. Sometimes those solutions are wrong. Sometimes they're right.

 

[SIDA!]

And damn you guys put words in other peoples mouth at every turn on this subject.

And again.

You keep saying this but we have already established that you are incorrect.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You did it again SIDA!

Put words in my mouth. Non stop.

Unlike Tim or BST, I cannot fathom the idea of a woman aborting a full term fetus. I just find that reprehensible.

I think its a horrible outcome. Horrendous.

But I also know that no-effing-body would ever tell me what to do with my body.

And taking away a persons ability to govern their own body is an even worse outcome. Incredibly so.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The one thing that annoys me about the whole conversation is that those who are the most vocal against abortion are generally those who are also the most against policy that would effectively reduce the number of abortions.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/opinion/frum-abortion-reality/

At some point, if you're actually against abortions happening, don't you need to explore a way to reduce demand for abortions? Prohibition doesn't work, and global statistics bear that fact out. It seems that so many conservatives think that if it's illegal it'll just go away. It won't. It'll go to the back alley where you don't have to see it or hear about it, and more young, poor, vulnerable girls will die.

I think abortion is mostly unconscionable. But making it illegal and not providing financial support for mothers isn't going to do much (if anything) to reduce abortion. Unfortunately, most of the people who also think it's wrong are unwilling to do what it would take to reduce abortions. They'd rather spend the money blowing up Muslims.

You know what would be really smart? Is if liberals agreed for full ACA-style regulation of abortion clinics to prevent this...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/12/us/abortion-trial-significance/index.html

...and conservatives agree to promote sex education.

And then allow for an independent scientific panel with 3 researchers (not doctors) picked by Goppers and 3 picked by Dems to determine when the viability definition set out by Roe is reached, because no one really advocates killing living humans, no matter the reason, right?

Do you think people would agree to that? That would be a 1-1-1 for both sides.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You know what would be really smart? Is if liberals agreed for full ACA-style regulation of abortion clinics to prevent this...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/12/us/abortion-trial-significance/index.html

...and conservatives agree to promote sex education.

And then allow for an independent scientific panel with 3 researchers (not doctors) picked by Goppers and 3 picked by Dems to determine when the viability definition set out by Roe is reached, because no one really advocates killing living humans, no matter the reason, right?

Do you think people would agree to that? That would be a 1-1-1 for both sides.

I don't want to speak for anybody on this particular issue because I don't see my thoughts represented well by either liberals or conservatives, but I don't know of a single person who would be against doing our very best to make sure that the horrors reported from Gosnell's office aren't happening at any abortion clinic. I don't think that's something we need a concession to legislate against (especially considering he was tried, convicted, and shut down.)

But yes, it would be nice if Republicans would be ok with sex ed in school and school provided contraception, as those are two things that absolutely will reduce abortion.

That's great. - But he wasn't shut down due to an inspection. - Gosner's clinic operated 17 years with very little to no actual, practical regulation. A lot of pro choice proponents believe that regulation and inspections are a means to limit abortion clinics or their capacity to provide services. How a clinic like that could operate for 17 years is really something horrible and it's on the state.

Pennsylvania law bars abortions after 24 weeks' gestation, at which point a fetus is considered to be likely viable outside the womb. Gosnell performed multiple abortions at 24.5 weeks, and the grand jury report found that many of those procedures underestimated the period of gestation. One Gosnell employee estimated that about 40 percent of the clinic's abortions occurred after 24 weeks. Gosnell, the grand jury found, killed the babies born alive in his clinic.

This is one of the questions that the grand jury seems to have grappled with: How did Gosnell run a non-compliant clinic for three decades? Much can be attributed to an egregious lapse in regulatory oversight, the report said.

"The Pennsylvania Department of Health has records as far back as the 1980s documenting Gosnell’s dangerous practices," the grand jury found. "For decades, Gosnell did not staff his facility with licensed or qualified employees. He never properly monitored women under sedation. He botched surgeries and then failed to summon emergency help when it was needed."

When the clinic was first inspected in 1979, it had a medical director on staff who was a certified obstetrician/gynecologist. The certificate for approval after that inspection expired in December 1980, but the next "documented site review was not conducted until August 1989."

The Philadelphia district attorney's office made its own set of recommendations, beginning on page 247 of the grand jury report. Most notably, it included a proposal endorsed by abortion rights opponents -- to regulate abortion clinics as ambulatory surgical centers. Pennsylvania passed such a law last year, which took effect in June. Since then, five abortion clinics in the state have closed, although it's unclear how much of a role the new law played in those decisions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/15/the-gosnell-case-heres-what-you-need-to-know/

It's pretty clear that the legislation or oversight in PA was not sufficient.

The story about PP is not particularly reassuring either. It would be nice to know that the fetuses that the USSC said that states could declare to be persons were treated as such in those states, according to the law, at a minimum.

And I don't have a problem with sex education.

And I'm ok when a state like PA takes a shot at scientifically determining that a fetus is a person at 24 weeks or whatever according to Roe. It seems to me that all of this is a reasonable position.

 

[tommyboy]

many pro-choice people believe as long as the baby is inside the mother, she can do with it as she wishes, including ending its existence.

Out of curiosity, what percentage of pro-choice people do you think believe that a mother should be able to "do with it as she wishes" so long as the unborn child is inside her womb? ie, taking this to its logical conclusion, an extremely late-term abortion.This is not a gotcha question and I have no idea as to the answer, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as "many".

Can a pregnant woman engage in any sort of activity she wishes?

Do we restrict her diet? Alcohol? Aspirin? Dieting down to 5% body fat?

No, she makes her own choices.

The minute that child is born and alive... it has protections and rights.

If she's murdered it will be a double homicide

 

[BigSteelThrill]

many pro-choice people believe as long as the baby is inside the mother, she can do with it as she wishes, including ending its existence.

Out of curiosity, what percentage of pro-choice people do you think believe that a mother should be able to "do with it as she wishes" so long as the unborn child is inside her womb? ie, taking this to its logical conclusion, an extremely late-term abortion.This is not a gotcha question and I have no idea as to the answer, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as "many".

Can a pregnant woman engage in any sort of activity she wishes?

Do we restrict her diet? Alcohol? Aspirin? Dieting down to 5% body fat?

No, she makes her own choices.

The minute that child is born and alive... it has protections and rights.

If she's murdered it will be a double homicide

Yep... she has rights. And her rights extend to the unborn.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

(ProNinja - Outta likes, but thanks).

 

[timschochet]

I haven't responded to SIDA!'s attacks in this thread because they're rather insipid. There are so many women out there getting abortions on the day that the baby is about to be delivered that it's an important question that everyone should consider.

Late term abortions are rare. The later they are, the rarer they are. The ones that are REALLY late (9th month) usually only occur if there is some medical issue involved, such as hydrocephalus. I think late term abortions, like all abortions, should be legal and safe.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Isn't PP the organization that was created to keep the black population down? Liberals still support this organization?

 

[MaxThreshold]

many pro-choice people believe as long as the baby is inside the mother, she can do with it as she wishes, including ending its existence.

Out of curiosity, what percentage of pro-choice people do you think believe that a mother should be able to "do with it as she wishes" so long as the unborn child is inside her womb? ie, taking this to its logical conclusion, an extremely late-term abortion.This is not a gotcha question and I have no idea as to the answer, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as "many".

Can a pregnant woman engage in any sort of activity she wishes?

Do we restrict her diet? Alcohol? Aspirin? Dieting down to 5% body fat?

No, she makes her own choices.

The minute that child is born and alive... it has protections and rights.

If she's murdered it will be a double homicide

Yep... she has rights. And her rights extend to the unborn.

Like the right to murder the unborn child?

 

[squistion]

Isn't PP the organization that was created to keep the black population down?

Liberals still support this organization?

No.

Yes.

 

[rockaction]

Isn't PP the organization that was created to keep the black population down?

Liberals still support this organization?

No. To a degree, yes. (Fixed.)

Yes.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/11/10-eye-opening-quotes-from-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/

 

[SIDA!]

I haven't responded to SIDA!'s attacks in this thread because they're rather insipid. There are so many women out there getting abortions on the day that the baby is about to be delivered that it's an important question that everyone should consider.

Late term abortions are rare. The later they are, the rarer they are. The ones that are REALLY late (9th month) usually only occur if there is some medical issue involved, such as hydrocephalus. I think late term abortions, like all abortions, should be legal and safe.

My repeating your position is an insipid attack?

I realize that a lot of words have had their meanings changed in the last few months, I didn't realize that insipid=accurate.

Good to know.

 

[squistion]

Isn't PP the organization that was created to keep the black population down?

Liberals still support this organization?

No. To a degree, yes. (Fixed.)

Yes.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/11/10-eye-opening-quotes-from-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/

Still no. Not the reason Planned Parenthood was created.

 

[rockaction]

Still no. Not the reason Planned Parenthood was created.

Ignoring progressivist eugenics rewrites history. Planned Parenthood was an extension of the progressivist/eugenicist philosophy so popular among both major political parties (and the third party that embraced it) in the teens and twenties of the twentieth century.

I don't think reading a mission statement from PP deflects the eugenicist appeals of its founder and its early adherents.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

MSNBC says that future videos are going to show racially-charged footage. Whatever that means.

My guess is different prices for parts from aborted babies of different races.

Isn't PP the organization that was created to keep the black population down?

Liberals still support this organization?

No. To a degree, yes. (Fixed.)

Yes.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/11/10-eye-opening-quotes-from-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/

Not sure how but I'm guessing this is where the next piece is going, something about pushing abortions in poorer, minority neighborhoods (allegedly, or so the angle would go). .

 

[Fennis]

Isn't PP the organization that was created to keep the black population down?

Liberals still support this organization?

No. To a degree, yes. (Fixed.)

Yes.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/11/10-eye-opening-quotes-from-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/

Margaret Sanger formed birth control clinics that provided birth control to women of all races. at the time, giving birth control to women was taboo. Birth control was a great liberator for women.

 

[rockaction]

Isn't PP the organization that was created to keep the black population down?

Liberals still support this organization?

No. To a degree, yes. (Fixed.)

Yes.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/11/10-eye-opening-quotes-from-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/

Margaret Sanger formed birth control clinics that provided birth control to women of all races. at the time, giving birth control to women was taboo. Birth control was a great liberator for women.

A lovely PR statement that PP would thoroughly endorse and approve of. Those niggling statements about blacks and lower-class white women, not to mention the statistics that bear those eugenicist arguments out (proportionally and historically), don't deter from the mission at all!

 

[squistion]

Isn't PP the organization that was created to keep the black population down?

Liberals still support this organization?

No. To a degree, yes. (Fixed.)

Yes.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/11/10-eye-opening-quotes-from-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/

Margaret Sanger formed birth control clinics that provided birth control to women of all races. at the time, giving birth control to women was taboo. Birth control was a great liberator for women.

Hey, don't try to confuse them with the facts.

 

[Fennis]

There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist - a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.

-Martin Luther King

 

[rockaction]

Hilariously incompetent in its analysis - Ebert

Wonderful citation of authority - Siskel

 

[Fennis]

Sanger famously opened a birth control clinic in Harlem in 1930 when most of the medical community ignored the plight of poor black people. When she launched the Negro Project, which was designed to help poor blacks in the rural South, WEB DuBois sat on the advisory panel.

But believe pro life nonsense all you like.

 

[chauncey]

Speaking of Planned Parenthood, has anyone here ever visited one for a batch of STD tests? Are they free? Do they cover HIV and HSV? Are there any q-tips involved or is it all done through blood/urine? Are white males aloud to use these services? Asking for a friend.

 

[rockaction]

Speaking of Planned Parenthood, has anyone here ever visited one for a batch of STD tests? Are they free? Do they cover HIV and HSV? Are there any q-tips involved or is it all done through blood/urine? Are white males aloud to use these services? Asking for a friend.

Oh, they will use a Q-tip, though I'm not sure about the battery of services they will otherwise provide.

 

[rockaction]

Sanger famously opened a birth control clinic in Harlem in 1930 when most of the medical community ignored the plight of poor black people. When she launched the Negro Project, which was designed to help poor blacks in the rural South, WEB DuBois sat on the advisory panel.

But believe pro life nonsense all you like.

Excellent. If you cite more authority, I'll believe you.

 

[Fennis]

Web Dubois, Martin Luther King all praise Sanger, but Rockaction from the Internet knows better.

 

[rockaction]

Web Dubois, Martin Luther King all praise Sanger, but Rockaction from the Internet knows better.

Politics make strange bedfellows.

Would you like me to cite abortion statistics within the black community as it relates to Sanger's original goal?

Because, well, you can go look it up yourself.

 

[rockaction]

Here, here's a quick one while he's away.

And if you want to come back and argue more, I have more.

This is The Atlantic, which is fairly standard liberal press.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/abortions-racial-gap/380251/

 

[timschochet]

But even if all of the pro-life assertions about Sanger are true, who cares? Is there anyone that really believes that eugenics is the secret purpose behind Planned Parenthood today?

 

[rockaction]

But even if all of the pro-life assertions about Sanger are true, who cares? Is there anyone that really believes that eugenics is the secret purpose behind Planned Parenthood today?

It's my opinion that organizations never stray too far from their origins. Wanna kill black and lower-class white babies? Work until the structure and incentive (if not the motive) make sure that black babies and lower-class white babies are dead. Have a problem with religion like the original communists at the ACLU? Work until the last public vestiges of religion are eradicated.

It's like bureaucratic creep; the organization survives even if its originators (or its need) are dead.

 

[timschochet]

But even if all of the pro-life assertions about Sanger are true, who cares? Is there anyone that really believes that eugenics is the secret purpose behind Planned Parenthood today?

It's my opinion that organizations never stray too far from their origins. Wanna kill black and lower-class white babies? Work until black babies and lower-class white babies are dead. Have a problem with religion like the original communists at the ACLU? Work until the last public vestiges of religion are eradicated.

It's like bureaucratic creep; the organization survives even if its originators (or its need) are dead.

I couldn't disagree with you more on the bolded.

But in any case: in 1930 there were 11 million blacks in the USA. Today there are 38 million. So if Planned Parenthood's secret plan was to get rid of them, it didn't work, did it?

 

[Fennis]

Here, here's a quick one while he's away.

And if you want to come back and argue more, I have more.

This is The Atlantic, which is fairly standard liberal press.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/abortions-racial-gap/380251/

Did you read the article you linked? they didn't cite the cause of higher abortion rates to your illogical views about Planned Parenthood.

 

[timschochet]

To add to what I just wrote: in 1930, blacks represented just under 10% of the total population. Today they represent nearly 13%. So again, if Sanger's intent was to shrink down their numbers, she was a total failure.

 

[rockaction]

Here, here's a quick one while he's away.

And if you want to come back and argue more, I have more.

This is The Atlantic, which is fairly standard liberal press.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/abortions-racial-gap/380251/

Did you read the article you linked? they didn't cite the cause of higher abortion rates to your illogical views about Planned Parenthood.

No, I simply said Planned Parenthood had roots in eugenics and that black abortion rates were wildly higher than white ones.

Of course they didn't go after Planned Parenthood or make the connection I made in the article. It's The Atlantic.

 

[Fennis]

But even if all of the pro-life assertions about Sanger are true, who cares? Is there anyone that really believes that eugenics is the secret purpose behind Planned Parenthood today?

Rockaction read it in pro life daily

 

[rockaction]

To add to what I just wrote: in 1930, blacks represented just under 10% of the total population. Today they represent nearly 13%. So again, if Sanger's intent was to shrink down their numbers, she was a total failure.

Yep. But proportionately, it's a cultural joke that many people speak about and rail about.

The stats are there. You can go to the CDC and see the rates, both first-time and recidivist. This should hardly be new stuff.

 

[squistion]

But even if all of the pro-life assertions about Sanger are true, who cares? Is there anyone that really believes that eugenics is the secret purpose behind Planned Parenthood today?

Pretty much only rockaction and his ilk.

 

[timschochet]

How come rockaction gets to have an ilk? I've always wanted to have an ilk.

 

[rockaction]

But even if all of the pro-life assertions about Sanger are true, who cares? Is there anyone that really believes that eugenics is the secret purpose behind Planned Parenthood today?

Pretty much only rockaction and his ilk.

I love this. An organization that announces that they want to rid society of lower-class whites and blacks does just that, and I'm the idiot for suggesting, at the least, bureaucratic creep.

Whoops.

Non-Hispanic white women had the lowest abortion rate (8.0 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratio (132 abortions per 1,000 live births), and non-Hispanic black women had the highest abortion rate (29.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratio (459 abortions per 1,000 live births). - CDC, Abortion Surveillance, 2011

 

[rockaction]

How come rockaction gets to have an ilk? I've always wanted to have an ilk.

Centrists get no ilk, they get mangled policy.

 

[Fennis]

But even if all of the pro-life assertions about Sanger are true, who cares? Is there anyone that really believes that eugenics is the secret purpose behind Planned Parenthood today?

Pretty much only rockaction and his ilk.

I love this. An organization that announces that they want to rid society of lower-class whites and blacks does just that, and I'm the idiot for suggesting, at the least, bureaucratic creep.

Whoops.

Non-Hispanic white women had the lowest abortion rate (8.0 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratio (132 abortions per 1,000 live births), and non-Hispanic black women had the highest abortion rate (29.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratio (459 abortions per 1,000 live births). - CDC, Abortion Surveillance, 2011

White women have lower birth rates than black and Hispanic women, due to higher uses of birth co troll. Your argument makes no sense.

 

[squistion]

How come rockaction gets to have an ilk? I've always wanted to have an ilk.

Tim you are sui generis - one of a kind, which is not considered part of an ilk (unless it is an ilk comprised of one of a kinds).

 

[rockaction]

But even if all of the pro-life assertions about Sanger are true, who cares? Is there anyone that really believes that eugenics is the secret purpose behind Planned Parenthood today?

Pretty much only rockaction and his ilk.

I love this. An organization that announces that they want to rid society of lower-class whites and blacks does just that, and I'm the idiot for suggesting, at the least, bureaucratic creep.

Whoops.

Non-Hispanic white women had the lowest abortion rate (8.0 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratio (132 abortions per 1,000 live births), and non-Hispanic black women had the highest abortion rate (29.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratio (459 abortions per 1,000 live births). - CDC, Abortion Surveillance, 2011

White women have lower birth rates than black and Hispanic women, due to higher uses of birth co troll. Your argument makes no sense.

No, they have lower abortion rates per live births.

And lower-class white women have higher abortion rates than middle or upper-class white women.

This has been constant since Roe, and will keep being constant. If you're interested, there are many resources (such as the CDC) that will provide you with charts, figures, stats, etc. I guess I could do it for you, but at this point, you're not really reading the quotes and you obviously have an agenda that is in clear contradistinction to facts, a word (facts) that I do not use lightly in any way.

When I say it's a fact that lower-class white women and blacks have higher proportional abortion rates than upper-class white women, I'm hanging my hat on the notion that it's a fact, and not an opinion, and is pretty well established as such.

If I'm wrong, I'll take it accordingly and apologize.

 

[rockaction]

How come rockaction gets to have an ilk? I've always wanted to have an ilk.

Tim you are sui generis - one of a kind, which is not considered part of an ilk (unless it is an ilk comprised of one of a kinds).

Agreed. Off to catch up on and watch the HBO show "Ballers" so I can bring wisdom and insight into that thread.

Saw two, then vacationed. Seems like an easier show to watch tonight compared to True Detective.

 

[Fennis]

But even if all of the pro-life assertions about Sanger are true, who cares? Is there anyone that really believes that eugenics is the secret purpose behind Planned Parenthood today?

Pretty much only rockaction and his ilk.

I love this. An organization that announces that they want to rid society of lower-class whites and blacks does just that, and I'm the idiot for suggesting, at the least, bureaucratic creep.

Whoops.

Non-Hispanic white women had the lowest abortion rate (8.0 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratio (132 abortions per 1,000 live births), and non-Hispanic black women had the highest abortion rate (29.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratio (459 abortions per 1,000 live births). - CDC, Abortion Surveillance, 2011

White women have lower birth rates than black and Hispanic women, due to higher uses of birth co troll. Your argument makes no sense.

No, they have lower abortion rates per live births.

And lower-class white women have higher abortion rates than middle or upper-class white women.

This has been constant since Roe, and will keep being constant. If you're interested, there are many resources (such as the CDC) that will provide you with charts, figures, stats, etc. I guess I could do it for you, but at this point, you're not really reading the quotes and you obviously have an agenda that is in clear contradistinction to facts, a word (facts) that I do not use lightly in any way.

When I say it's a fact that lower-class white women and blacks have higher proportional abortion rates that upper-class white women, I'm hanging my hat on the notion that it's a fact, and not an opinion, and is pretty well established as such.

If I'm wrong, I'll take it accordingly and apologize.

Forget abortion. black women and Hispanic women have higher birth rates than white women. Black women and Hispanic women also use birth control at lower rates than white women. As black and Hispanic women use more birth control, their abortion rates drop.

Same foes when looking at income numbers, higher income women use birth control at higher rate than lower income women, so rich women have fewer abortions than poor women. Richer women also have lower birth rates.