spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
None of which was used for abortion because federal funding of abortion is illegal.
Is Abortion Murder?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
You're telling me that they could survive without that funding?
Not in their current form. Which would be a tragedy to women and abortion foes alike; most of the reduction of abortions over the past few decades has come about because of organizations like Planned Parenthood, which provides education and birth control to women who want to control whether or not they get pregnant.
And none of it was spent on abortions...oops.
Last edited:
The Price
Planned Parenthood would, technically, survive without it. But I think you're looking at it from a problematic perspective:
That's all the anti-abortion crowd is asking. Because, you know: Planned Parenthood! Abortion!
Additionally, the same NYT article points out:
The push against Planned Parenthood is one of those things that leaves me wondering if the anti-abortion advocates actually give a damn about the damage they would do if given their way.
____________________
Notes:
Calmes, Jackie. "Louisiana Lays Bare Difficulty in Push to Cut Planned Parenthood Funding". The New York Times. 1 Sesptember 2015. NYTimes.com. 2 September 2015. http://nyti.ms/1Uodnsr
Bowser said:
Planned Parenthood would, technically, survive without it. But I think you're looking at it from a problematic perspective:
Dr. Stephanie Taylor recently showed off the private community health center here, newly built on the site of a women's clinic wrecked by Hurricane Katrina a decade ago, pointing out the colorful furnishings, germ-resistant flooring and, in the sunny lobby, a welcoming Tree of Life mural. So it was a tad incongruous when she added, "We're at ground zero for sexually transmitted infections."
Dr. Taylor's point was twofold: Demand for tests and treatment is great, not just in this neighborhood beyond the French Quarter, but all over Louisiana. And clinics like this CrescentCare Health and Wellness Center need all the allies they can get — including the state's two Planned Parenthood clinics, one here and one in Baton Rouge, whose public funds are now threatened by Republicans in the state capital and in Congress.
"We have a syphilis epidemic right now in New Orleans," said Dr. Taylor, the medical director overseeing programs to combat sexually transmitted infections for the State Office of Public Health. She is also the director of Louisiana State University's sexually transmitted infections program, which operates in the wellness center here. Louisiana ranks first among the states in cases of gonorrhea, second in chlamydia, and third in syphilis and H.I.V., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The political dispute embroiling Planned Parenthood here and nationwide is over abortion, though public funds are not permitted by federal law to be used for abortion, except in cases involving rape, incest or a pregnancy that threatens the mother's life. Neither clinic in this state — like nearly half of all Planned Parenthood centers — performs abortions. What the Louisiana Planned Parenthood clinics did do last year was administer nearly 20,000 tests for sexually transmitted infections, as well as provide gynecological exams, contraceptive care, cancer screenings and other wellness services for nearly 10,000 mostly low-income patients.
"You can't just cut Planned Parenthood off one day and expect everyone across the city to absorb the patients," Dr. Taylor said. "There needs to be time to build the capacity."
With the calls to stop funding for Planned Parenthood, a visit to New Orleans and Baton Rouge suggests that it would not be as easy to do without the nonprofit centers as some Republicans and their anti-abortion allies say. Other states would face similar problems.
(Calmes↱)
Dr. Taylor's point was twofold: Demand for tests and treatment is great, not just in this neighborhood beyond the French Quarter, but all over Louisiana. And clinics like this CrescentCare Health and Wellness Center need all the allies they can get — including the state's two Planned Parenthood clinics, one here and one in Baton Rouge, whose public funds are now threatened by Republicans in the state capital and in Congress.
"We have a syphilis epidemic right now in New Orleans," said Dr. Taylor, the medical director overseeing programs to combat sexually transmitted infections for the State Office of Public Health. She is also the director of Louisiana State University's sexually transmitted infections program, which operates in the wellness center here. Louisiana ranks first among the states in cases of gonorrhea, second in chlamydia, and third in syphilis and H.I.V., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The political dispute embroiling Planned Parenthood here and nationwide is over abortion, though public funds are not permitted by federal law to be used for abortion, except in cases involving rape, incest or a pregnancy that threatens the mother's life. Neither clinic in this state — like nearly half of all Planned Parenthood centers — performs abortions. What the Louisiana Planned Parenthood clinics did do last year was administer nearly 20,000 tests for sexually transmitted infections, as well as provide gynecological exams, contraceptive care, cancer screenings and other wellness services for nearly 10,000 mostly low-income patients.
"You can't just cut Planned Parenthood off one day and expect everyone across the city to absorb the patients," Dr. Taylor said. "There needs to be time to build the capacity."
With the calls to stop funding for Planned Parenthood, a visit to New Orleans and Baton Rouge suggests that it would not be as easy to do without the nonprofit centers as some Republicans and their anti-abortion allies say. Other states would face similar problems.
(Calmes↱)
That's all the anti-abortion crowd is asking. Because, you know: Planned Parenthood! Abortion!
Additionally, the same NYT article points out:
Also, since most funds that Planned Parenthood receives from taxpayers are reimbursements for tending to Medicaid beneficiaries, experts in health policy say lawmakers cannot simply take money from the organization and redirect it to other facilities.
"Somebody says, 'Oh, we'll just move $500 million over.' First of all, most of that is Medicaid, so you can't just move it over," said Sara Rosenbaum, a professor at George Washington University's School of Public Health and Health Services, which recently released results of a three-year study of community health services and family planning nationwide.
Ms. Rosenbaum called it "an absurd claim" that other health providers could replace Planned Parenthood, especially in the South and the Midwest.
"Somebody says, 'Oh, we'll just move $500 million over.' First of all, most of that is Medicaid, so you can't just move it over," said Sara Rosenbaum, a professor at George Washington University's School of Public Health and Health Services, which recently released results of a three-year study of community health services and family planning nationwide.
Ms. Rosenbaum called it "an absurd claim" that other health providers could replace Planned Parenthood, especially in the South and the Midwest.
The push against Planned Parenthood is one of those things that leaves me wondering if the anti-abortion advocates actually give a damn about the damage they would do if given their way.
____________________
Notes:
Calmes, Jackie. "Louisiana Lays Bare Difficulty in Push to Cut Planned Parenthood Funding". The New York Times. 1 Sesptember 2015. NYTimes.com. 2 September 2015. http://nyti.ms/1Uodnsr
that is correct: i [personally] didn't mention it, it is a definition as linked, as you can see
also note, it is also tied together in the rest of the post that you are apparently ignoring: why?
actually, they are.
urging is about pushing a position, as noted in the comment/post, but "informing" is about giving different choices and information about a situation, which was my point and demonstrated quite clearly in my post (if you would please re-read it)
it is not about putting forward facts, or even the number of said facts that someone is not aware of: that is irrelevant.
the point is that when you argue your perspective (or urge to accept a decision based upon your knowledge or experience) then there is no way it can be unbiased... it is always biased if you are urging a point. which was my point in the post!
informing someone of a decision should not be about bias or urging, it should be about information which can be understood and is not biased towards a specific perspective. it should simply be a presentation of factual information for the receiver to make a choice based upon their own judgement, as they are ultimately responsible for the decision, not someone else (a key point for later)
it is a form of anecdotal information, thus it is biased.
exposure to differing opinions is like exposure to used toilet paper, and equally as hazardous... mostly because of the subjective nature of opinion or perspectives
just because you are elder or parental doesn't mean you have all the facts or know every detail about the situation, which is [again] part of my point
exposure to facts is about information. there is a difference between urging and informing, as noted in my other post, and the biggest difference is that: when you inform, you do NOT select a perspective to push as a choice
Even a Dr pushing abortion because the baby will likely kill a woman is not "informing" at that point, but "urging"
No, my specific argument is that urging can be considered Coercion.
IMHO- if you take the definitions and descriptions given in my post, and you extrapolate it, then coercion can be considered anti-choice because it uses influence or other powers to insure a decision that may not be the desire of the individual - Hence the term coercion
well, just to be perfectly clear:
1- i did NOT make that claim (but i will answer below)
2- i think i made it perfectly clear how urging is coercion, but a nicer way of saying it
3- i never claimed it reduced the total number of choices
urging/coercion is not about reducing the total number of choices:
it can be, however, about specifically detailing a perspective that is biased and then using influence to create a negative feedback which would force the chooser to decide your argument while not truly considering all options. so you can have an unlimited number of choices, but refuse to consider them because of the coercive influence
so... technically speaking (this is important) it CAN be considered a limitation of choice when a choice against the coercing/urging influence creates a negative feedback for various reasons... from guilt to delusional belief in authority. so, you "urge" a position that you think a child should take, and said child knows that deciding against your perspective would bring derision, guilt, or some other negative feeling... so, you can actually argue that, considering your coercion, then you are, technically, limiting the choices of an individual by promoting your own choice.
again, just to be clear: it doesn't reduce the overall number of choices, but it can, depending on the type of coercion, reduce the number of possible selections a person can make if said coercion is powerful. Especially if the decision is selected simply to appease the other person (urging/coercing) and not because of the FACTS available, which is why i pointed out the differences between urging/coercion and informing.
I think that i have made an pretty fair argument for the point you asked to clarify
I think i did just that above
so, WRT limiting choices:
making choices is not always about the number of choices you have available... it is about the number of choices you feel you can make without negatively affecting your life or circumstances (and sometimes said choice is the "lesser of evils"- so like i said: coercion can make you feel that you are limited, despite the number of available choices)
i also think that is readily apparent, but what do i know... perhaps others also felt this way?
uhhhmmmmm..... !!??? wat?
this is like saying "why do we own fire extinguishers when we employ firefighters"
Also note: there are no "precautions" available for rape or other criminal acts, so that whole point is questionable...the rest of your post was a little "out there" IMHO
Congratulations. You've met Wellwisher.
The Ball Like the Whole of the World
It's a version of, "All things being equal", a presupposition that everything works the way it's supposed to when observable reality informs otherwise; as a rhetorical device, this is exactly the sort of argument it is intended for.
To wit, you mentioned rape, and I've mentioned reproductive coercion↗, which are the sort of complications that can create the need that would, hypothetically, be preempted, all things being equal.
You know, if every woman rigorously used perfectly effective birth control and every man behaved exactly appropriately in sexual conduct.
Despite the observable fact that such idylls are merely idylls.
It is hardly a kind assessment, but most people just give our neighbor a pass; it's true I think of certain Python sketches, in this context, and also this story British comedian and historian Mark Steel tells about reading to a tea club a poem about what cosmic justice should visit upon Margaret Thatcher, and amid the tumbleweed silence in its wake an elderly woman managed to offer, "Thank you, dear, isn't that lovely?"
And, in truth, Sciforums history shows that we tend to endure this sort of behavior, despite our claims regarding respect for the scientific method, rational argument, and so forth, in no small part because cracking down creates all manner of concern about stifling discourse.
In the United States we say the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Similarly, it seems curious that we should find so concentrated among our more politically conservative bloc such expressions as to demonstrate the dangers of diversity. Turns out it was a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Truck Captain Stumpy said:
It's a version of, "All things being equal", a presupposition that everything works the way it's supposed to when observable reality informs otherwise; as a rhetorical device, this is exactly the sort of argument it is intended for.
To wit, you mentioned rape, and I've mentioned reproductive coercion↗, which are the sort of complications that can create the need that would, hypothetically, be preempted, all things being equal.
You know, if every woman rigorously used perfectly effective birth control and every man behaved exactly appropriately in sexual conduct.
Despite the observable fact that such idylls are merely idylls.
It is hardly a kind assessment, but most people just give our neighbor a pass; it's true I think of certain Python sketches, in this context, and also this story British comedian and historian Mark Steel tells about reading to a tea club a poem about what cosmic justice should visit upon Margaret Thatcher, and amid the tumbleweed silence in its wake an elderly woman managed to offer, "Thank you, dear, isn't that lovely?"
And, in truth, Sciforums history shows that we tend to endure this sort of behavior, despite our claims regarding respect for the scientific method, rational argument, and so forth, in no small part because cracking down creates all manner of concern about stifling discourse.
In the United States we say the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Similarly, it seems curious that we should find so concentrated among our more politically conservative bloc such expressions as to demonstrate the dangers of diversity. Turns out it was a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Let's clearly separate the two issues that tali89 is attempting to conflate here. And let's drop the general in favour of the particular, since that is where this bee in his bonnet started.
Issue 1: If a father urges his daughter to have an abortion, is that anti-choice?
Issue 2: does a father arguing in favour of an abortion reduce the choices available to his daughter, whom he is saying should have an abortion?
Let's revisit once more the meaning of the verb "to urge".
dictionary.com says:
1. to push or force along; impel with force or vigor
2. to drive with incitement to speed or effort
3. to press, push, or hasten (the course, activities, etc.)
4. to impel, constrain, or move to some action
5. to endeavor to induce or persuade, as by entreaties; entreat or exhort earnestly
6. to press (something) upon the attention
7. to insist on, allege, or assert with earnestness
8. to exert a driving or impelling force; give an impulse to haste or action
9. to make entreaties or earnest recommendations
10. to press arguments or allegations, as against a person, action, or cause
I have listed a number of meanings here. The bolded ones are the ones that apply to the abortion situation we are discussing; other meanings of "urge" are different kinds of usage (for example, compare "I urge caution in this situation" with "I urge you to have an abortion").
Other dictionaries define "to urge" along the same lines. Example definitions: "to solicit or entreat", "to strongly advise or try to persuade someone to do a particular thing", or (from what I regard as my personally most authoritative dictionary of English) "to try earnestly or persistently to persuade (someone) to do something".
Given all these definitions, I think it is fair to say that when a father urges his daughter to have an abortion he is trying earnestly or persistently to persuade her to have an abortion.
Let's deal with issue 2 first, since it's the easy one, and because it's a red herring introduced by tali89 that did not come up in the original discussion. Does the father's arguing in favour of an abortion reduce the choices available to his daughter? Answer: no. Clearly she retains the possibility of choosing either to have an abortion or not to have one.
One brief note on issue 2. Notice how tali89 asks whether it "reduce the choices". This is either unintentionally or deliberately obfuscatory, because "reducing the choices" might mean "reducing the number of choices" or it might mean "reducing the quality of the choices". I have assumed that tali89 was referring merely to the number of choices. If that is incorrect, and he was in fact referring to the quality of the choices available - in terms of the relative attractiveness of each possible course of action and so on - then I would argue that the father's urging does indeed "reduce the choices". But let's deal with that in the context of issue 1.
And now issue 1, which is the real issue of contention and the one that tali89 has already been walked though several times, though not quite this painstakingly. Is the father's urging his daughter to have an abortion anti-choice?
Since we are talking about abortion here, we note that the term "pro-choice" has a specific meaning in this particular context. In the context of abortion, "pro-choice" means that a woman who is pregnant has a free choice to decide whether to have an abortion or not. "Anti-choice" in the context of the current discussion therefore would mean that the women does not have a free choice. That could be because the right to choose is taken away from her (e.g. by law) or because she is pressured in one way or another to make a choice one way or the other. Most often, the pressure comes from proponents of the so-called "pro-life" position, who try to exert social pressure on women not to have abortions even where they are legal. On the other hand, it would be very rare for a "pro-choice" proponent to try to exert pressure on a woman to have an abortion because this goes against the whole idea of "pro-choice" as defined.
Now, the father in the given example is earnestly or persistently trying to persuade his daughter to have an abortion. Is he exerting a social pressure on his daughter or not? Well, it depends on the relationship. Hypothetically speaking, it could be that, in this particular case, the daughter is largely estranged from the father and gives his opinions little or no weight. In that case, whatever he says is unlikely to sway her decision and she may shrug off his earnest and persistent attempts at persuasion.
However, we are told that this daughter has a good relationship with her father, and so has taken time to sit down with her father and listen to his persistent attempts to persuade her to have an abortion. Therefore, unless there is good reason to assume otherwise (which there isn't, as far as we know), it seems that this father is in a position of some influence over his daughter emotionally or in terms of power imbalance or in some other social sense. Thus, the daughter is likely, as a result of the father's persistent entreaties, to feel emotional and social pressure to comply with the father's wishes and to have the abortion. The practical outcome of this is that it reduces her freedom of choice, even if it does not reduce the number of choices available (which are, after all, only two).
The pro-choice position is that the daughter should have a free choice to decide what is best for her in this situation. If she is doing so under duress (emotion, social, implied threat, etc.), then her choice is no longer truly free. Thus we conclude that the father's urging is anti-choice.
I trust this puts an end to this particular debate.
Last edited:
LOL Nope it does not.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antichoice
Says you. Could be that people around you dont actually tell you what they think/really do in the privacy of these family issues because they dont want your opinion. Maybe they are looking for real advice and not some available-anywhere-so-politically-correct-that-the-pro-lifers-cant-complain "you have to decide for yourself" response.
Any grown woman who sits down with her father to discuss a situation such as this has a valued relationship with that parent and implys (by the simple fact grandpa is asked about this) that the input is important to her. Duress would be Grandpa saying If you dont get an abortion I will sever our relationship. Explaining the reasons for urging the abortion is not duress, it is an honest exchange of potential drawbacks if the pregnancy is continued from grandpas point of view. A point of view that includes the actual experience of being a parent and the impacts/demands/requirements on life parenthood presents.
Capracus has intimate knowledge of his childs life circumstance that I do not know. I dont understand how those who feel Cap is wrong havent realized there may be some underlying reason he would URGE his grown daughter that at this time in life its not in her long term best interest to become a parent.
He has the insight on this particular example that none of us do. Ya know, Reality of the situation. Where those trying to present his position as wrong seem to be reading from a script written for a perfect world.
Hmm. I will urge my sons not to have sex before they are sure they want to be with someone for the long term. Doesn't mean I am anti-sex (or anti-choice about sex.)
James R
Yep. that is pretty much how i saw it too
Very well said.
i am not going to hold my breath... but it should be clear by now.
milkweed
ok... curious as to why the link: after all, James said
so, as the link you [ milkweed ] gave stated
that is what James stated, right?
when you continue, it doesn't actually clear it up, either
so a person says one thing and does another... this is simply hypocrisy on their part. not the issue
the issue is the right to make a choice. actions speak louder than words, IMHO
that was not implied or inferred by Cap either... it was said that Cap would "urge", not inform, for starters... [quoted below]
also note, the act of asking for an opinion is requesting information in the form of opinion, so it is known by the recipient to be biased by personal choices, decisions as well as experiences, so it is different than the point of "urging" unsolicited, per the post being discussed, starting way back here
This then degenerated (and was piggybacked by Tali) into the argument about urging, forcing and the difference between having a choice and coercion
The comment, as it stood, did not indicate any decisions to inform the child, nor did it indicate specifically that the daughter asked for opinion; it was a blank statement that "If my 23 year old daughter were to become pregnant, I would urge her to abort" which suggested a person attempting to influence a decision, which, as demonstrated above, is coercion.
1- yes, Cap gave indications of knowledge
2- see above re: explanation about Cap's specific comment
3- this doesn't indicate full knowledge, only that , per Cap's limited knowledge, that (s)he could urge for abortion
4- there was no indication of request for information or opinion (major point)
personal assumption based upon no evidence.
I know better than to assume there is even a semi-perfect world. the delusion of "perfection" is far too subjective
personally, i was responding to a very specific point based upon the evidence i was given and that Cap (and Tali) provided. Also, i happen to know from experience, as well as observation, that no person knows another (and their business, life and experiences) as well as they think. You can make predictions, but those would have to be constrained with error margins, and even then, there is a likelihood of failure.
Tiassa
If you don't mind a bit of goofiness:
i wouldn't keep urging, but i would tape it and critique it on-line
LMFAO
but seriously: for the subject discussed by you two
i have, do, and continue to share to my children/grandchildren/local youths a position of free choice, but of responsibility for one's actions
I would/will (personally) suggest making a list of Pro's and Con's, select the path most desirable based upon their current knowledge and plans for the future, and then act upon it... and that said choice will be their decision, but also their sole responsibility.
but that is heavily influenced by being raised without the same rights, freedoms and choices that most free people (especially in the US) take for granted, too.
Nope. Will you tell your sons you are just fine with them having unprotected sex at any age? (To avoid "following them into the bedroom" of course)
it is not about belief
and Cap didn't specifically leave his comment to me either
i am addressing something you specifically posted ... i didn't see a rule stating that it was required to be specifically addressed to opine about anything... nor is that in line with the whole reasoning behind a forum, especially a thread that is opened to the public to comment upon (or, as in this case, opened to forum members without discrimination or control of posting ability)
is there some rule that i should be aware of that states i can't post unless specifically addressed?
if there is, please link it
THANKS
Let me put it another way then.
I am not interested in discussing this issue with you at all. The entire topic I mean. Thats why I havent addressed you in your previous posts. Nor have you addressed me in ample previous postings.
And this one was not directed at you.
as i stated above:
so... what's your point?
are you trying to say that i can't discuss what is publicly posted here in the thread because you are not talking to me?
[EDIT: or because i've not been more prolific in posting to you historically? ]
How is my post to you any different than your post to billvon in gun control? (#86 page 5)
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gun-control.152289/page-5#post-3325920
IMHO
I think what i posted was cogent, as well as informative and answered your post.
it doesn't really matter if it was you directing it to me: it was relevant to the topic
isn't that what the forum is for?
I'm not trying to urinate on your merry-go-round. i am simply interacting