AP: Pa. abortion doc killed 7 babies with scissors

[AzSkinsFan63]

LYNDEN, Washington -- A bill just introduced in my own state's legislature shows just how maddening the debate about abortion in the U.S. has become. Legally, America is an abortion-on-demand country. It has been so since the Supreme Court decreed it in 1973. Many people do not like this and have worked to change the law, but the brute fact remains. Yet unfettered abortion is not enough for some advocates of "choice."

Within this country's entirely pro-choice legal context and at great expense, millions of Americans have funded what are called crisis pregnancy centers. These are places that pregnant or might-be pregnant girls can come for pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, counseling, and support. These centers exist to help both mother-to-be and child. Crisis pregnancy centers often hook women up with free housing, prenatal care, and legal services. And they are reviled for their efforts.

Sometimes that revulsion takes legal form. This week, aptly named state senator Kevin Ranker reintroduced the Limited Service Pregnancy Center Accountability Act in the legislature in Olympia. He did so at the behest of various pro-choice groups, including NARAL, the ACLU, and especially Planned Parenthood. For years, pro-choice groups have attacked crisis pregnancy centers as "fake clinics" that offer women only "limited options" and don't offer abortion referrals. Clearly this must be curbed legally.

more....

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/21/abortion-on-demand-ranker-styl

[Larry]

pointing out, gbear, that I think you'd find near-unanimous approval for banning late term abortions. (In fact, from one article, it looks like where thius clinig was, they are illegal.)

And the impression I get is that those abortions are incredibly rare.

I think in the thread where that abortion doctor was killed, I think they said that he performed like one every other month. And he was one of only three doctors in the country that would do them at all.

[Predicto]

gbear,while i agree there is need for more adoption and reforming it ,we do not solve it by killing the unwanted ones do we?

"We" don't kill them. Individual women have the choice to control what happens in their bodies.

I just like to reemphazise that sometimes, before "we" decide what "we" want to do about their bodies.

[Popeman38]

What does that tell you?

That you need to learn what context is:

con·text [ kón tèkst ] (plural con·texts)

noun

Definition:

1. text surrounding word or passage: the words, phrases, or passages that come before and after a particular word or passage in a speech or piece of writing and help to explain its full meaning

Check your PM.

Want to accuse me of cherry picking material and ignoring context? Don't bring up a subject, have me respond to it, and then chew me out for mentioning the subject (while hiding the fact that I was responding to you.)

Read the definition of context. Then read my post again. Don't fixate on one line.

And I responded to what you posted.

You want to claim that "For every action there is a reaction." isn't an argument claiming that people who have sex deserve to be stuck with a kid they didn't want? Then please, explain to all of us what you did mean by that comment. Please, explain to us how you weren't referring to pregnancy as an undesirable consequence that people who have sex should be forced to go through.

Fill us in on the "context".

THAT YOU CAN REDUCE UNWANTED PREGNANCIES BY 99% IF THE CONSENTING ADULTS TOOK MITIGATING ACTION TO PREVENT PREGNANCY. Nowhere in my post did I mention wishing an unwanted pregnancy on the heathens I look down on for having premarital sex. HINT: I had a child out of wedlock with a woman. That would be hypocritical of me..

(Since you're apparently unable or unwilling to simply say that the argument I dislike, isn't one that you made, therefore I must be referring to someone else.)

(And then, while you're at it, you can apologize to me. For taking my statement out of context (I was responding to a topic that you had brought up), and trying to claim that I said something I didn't.)

(You know. If you're gonna climb up on a High Horse and accuse somebody of doing something evil, at least try not to do the thing you're (falsely) accusing somebody else of doing, in the same post as your accusation.)

Larry, you directly quoted me. You used my words to frame a response. You then went back to edit out my name. That doesn't change the fact you quoted me, ranted and then asked questions.

Never said it was.

(I'm certain that I'll be receiving an apology any minute. You being such a crusader against people trying to claim people said things they didn't, and all.)

You took the herpes line, isolated it, twisted it to a hypothetical hoping to provide a GOTCHA moment. :Surely you evil, hypocritical, self righteous people wouldn't deny someone a cure for herpes, if one even existed just to punish them for being promiscuous, would you?"

[Predicto]

LYNDEN, Washington -- A bill just introduced in my own state's legislature shows just how maddening the debate about abortion in the U.S. has become. Legally, America is an abortion-on-demand country. It has been so since the Supreme Court decreed it in 1973. Many people do not like this and have worked to change the law, but the brute fact remains. Yet unfettered abortion is not enough for some advocates of "choice."

Within this country's entirely pro-choice legal context and at great expense, millions of Americans have funded what are called crisis pregnancy centers. These are places that pregnant or might-be pregnant girls can come for pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, counseling, and support. These centers exist to help both mother-to-be and child. Crisis pregnancy centers often hook women up with free housing, prenatal care, and legal services. And they are reviled for their efforts.

Sometimes that revulsion takes legal form. This week, aptly named state senator Kevin Ranker reintroduced the Limited Service Pregnancy Center Accountability Act in the legislature in Olympia. He did so at the behest of various pro-choice groups, including NARAL, the ACLU, and especially Planned Parenthood. For years, pro-choice groups have attacked crisis pregnancy centers as "fake clinics" that offer women only "limited options" and don't offer abortion referrals. Clearly this must be curbed legally.

more....

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/21/abortion-on-demand-ranker-styl

As I understand it, the problem with those pro-life clinics is that they mislead girls, not only as to what their actual legal and medical choices are, but also who is sponsoring the clinic.

In other words, its more of a case of false advertising than anything else.

[gbear]

TWA,

I think before you start saying there should be none, you have to make an avenue for the choices.

Feel free to contradict any of this logic:

People are going to have sex.

A certain percentage of people will take chances a certain percentage of the time be it because of hormones, unbridaled passion or stupidity.

This will result in a certain number of unwanted pregnancies. Currently from this thread that seems to be about2 million a year. With roughly 300 million people in the U.S., that doesn't sound crazy.

From this point on, there are 2 options. a)Have the baby. Society will take care of him/her or b)have an abortion.

As I see it there are practical limits to option a. I live them. Many many more people need to live them if this is to be the happy solution we seek. That leaves 2 options to cover the massive residual number of unintended pregnancies. Either stop having unprotected sex or allow abortion. This is one of those things where the three things must add. As much as I try to make one variable larger (foster & addopt), it isn't happening. I was the RA who made sure every bathroom on my halls had condoms in the bathroom, and I always had my own emergency refills for the bowl when my door got knocked on in the middle of a Saturday night. I've tried the protection method to lower demand, but I think barring some new ideas we are at an impass there as well.

That leads to the question of do we regulate and make sure the processes are safe. Would this doc have been able to carry on this long with regular inspections on how he was doing this rather than in effect driving it underground. I hate that I think this is kind of the modern clothes hanger abortion story.

[Larry]

A bill just introduced in my own state's legislature . . .

OTOH, I've heard "opposition reports" about places like that.

People claiming things like "We went in there for advice on birth control. They separated us, and locked my girlfriend in a room for four hours while they showed her pictures of dumpsters full of babies, had someone dressed as an evil doctor 'demonstrate' repeatedly stabbing a plastic baby doll with a pair of scissors, screamed 'murderer' at her, and things of that nature, before she managed to fight her way out the door."

I assume that the descriptions are, shall we say, exaggerated.

OTOH, I'd say that half of the billboards (here in Florida, billboards are a Constitutionally-protected right) between my house and Disney are from a "pregnancy center". And the kind of agenda they're pushing, and the amount of slant they're putting on things, isn't exactly subtle.

Still. Should it be illegal? I certainly don't think so. Heck, I think that giving people a "talk me out of having an abortion" place, where they can voluntarily go, to gain more information, is a great idea. I'm almost always a fan of people having more information, and thinking their options over. Especially decisions of this magnitude.

(Although I do think that "truth in advertising" should require them to accurately label themselves. And I don't have a problem with the law requiring them to tell the truth.) )

[Predicto]

.You took the herpes line, isolated it, twisted it to a hypothetical hoping to provide a GOTCHA moment. :Surely you evil, hypocritical, self righteous people wouldn't deny someone a cure for herpes, if one even existed just to punish them for being promiscuous, would you?"

I understand why you are angry at Larry, but he was making a legitimate point (maybe it wasn't fair to draw you into the discussion the way he did.)

Herpes may not be a good example anyway. Here is a better one. Many conservatives oppose vaccinating young girls against the Human Papillomana Virus, which can cause cervical cancer in women. They argue that vaccinating for a disease that you can only get through sex will encourage more girls to engage in early sexual activity.

The only way this argument makes any sense is if you see fear of cancer as a additional deterrent to sex, along with the already existing fear of pregnancy and fear of HIV and so forth. To put it bluntly, they would rather have some girls die of cancer in the future than be protected against a disease that they can only get by being sinful.

To me, Larry's point is well taken, even if you weren't really the person he should have been talking to.

[Popeman38]

As I understand it, the problem with those pro-life clinics is that they mislead girls, not only as to what their actual legal and medical choices are, but also who is sponsoring the clinic.

In other words, its more of a case of false advertising than anything else.

This is, unfortunately, very true. However, Planned Parenthood is not exactly the organization to be throwing stones. There have been plenty of controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood.

---------- Post added January-21st-2011 at 02:22 PM ----------

I understand why you are angry at Larry, but he was making a legitimate point (maybe it wasn't fair to draw you into the discussion the way he did.)

Herpes may not be a good example anyway. Here is a better one. Many conservatives oppose vaccinating young girls against the Human Papillomana Virus, which can cause cervical cancer in women. They argue that vaccinating for a disease that you can only get through sex will encourage more girls to engage in early sexual activity.

The only way this argument makes any sense is if you see fear of cancer as a additional deterrent to sex, along with the already existing fear of pregnancy and fear of HIV and so forth. To put it bluntly, they would rather have some girls die of cancer in the future than be protected against a disease that they can only get by being sinful.

To me, Larry's point is well taken, even if you weren't really the person he should have been talking to.

And they are morons. Just as those who refuse to vaccinate out of fear of mercury poisoning. Kids shouldn't fear sex. They should be, however, well informed on the potential ramifications. There are a whole lot of bad stuff that can happen to you just from having sex. I listed a few of them. If we were to take a more holistic approach to education at home, and not be afraid to talk about "taboo" subjects, the unwanted pregnancy rate, and by a direct correlation the abortion rate, could be dramatically reduced. Instead, we dither and dather about POLITICS and sue the wonderfully broad brush to paint one as either a pro-choice enlightened being or a pro-life, misogynistic, cro magnon man.

[Larry]

[People contemplating sex] should be, however, well informed on the potential ramifications. There are a whole lot of bad stuff that can happen to you just from having sex. I listed a few of them. If we were to take a more holistic approach to education at home, and not be afraid to talk about "taboo" subjects, the unwanted pregnancy rate, and by a direct correlation the abortion rate, could be dramatically reduced. Instead, we dither and dather about POLITICS and sue the wonderfully broad brush to paint one as either a pro-choice enlightened being or a pro-life, misogynistic, cro magnon man.

Agree wholeheartedly. Like the founder of my alma mater said, Knowledge is Good. [/movie reference]

Frankly, I've long imagined that if I were teaching the sex ed class, one of my lessons would be "sex always has consequences". There's a lot of folks who seem to think that if nobody gets pregnant or AIDS, then they "got away with it". It's not true.

A condom, for example, may prevent pregnancy. That doesn't mean it doesn't have consequences.

[twa]

"We" don't kill them. Individual women have the choice to control what happens in their bodies.

I just like to reemphazise that sometimes, before "we" decide what "we" want to do about their bodies.

As I noted earlier it is not just their bodies anymore,and even if it were we regulate self mutilation.

"We" certainly set the laws and license and regulate those that do actually kill don't we?

We are complicit in allowing a life to be taken in the same manner executions are done

(to Gbear) btw...I never said there should be none....I'm rather open to taking life for good cause,some say too open.

[Predicto]

As I noted earlier it is not just their bodies anymore,and even if it were we regulate self mutilation.

"We" certainly set the laws and license and regulate those that do actually kill don't we?

We are complicit in allowing a life to be taken in the same manner executions are done

.

Yes, of course. All of those things are true.

I'm just objecting to the idea of a discussion about what "we" should do about abortion without taking into account the individual rights and autonomy of the women involved. It is too easy to fall into an abstract discussion without recognizing the individuals for whom the issue isn't abstract at all.

A famous woman's activist once said: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." Overstated, for sure, but there is more than an element of truth to it also.

[twa]

I'm just objecting to the idea of a discussion about what "we" should do about abortion without taking into account the individual rights and autonomy of the women involved. It is too easy to fall into an abstract discussion without recognizing the individuals for whom the issue isn't abstract at all.

There should be a issue of competing rights in abortion...unfortunately only one side has much of a voice to present their case.

I wonder if in the future they will say

A famous woman's activist once said: It's just a clump of cells ......with the same disdain we hold for those that said blacks weren't human

[Larry]

There should be a issue of competing rights in abortion...unfortunately only one side has much of a voice to present their case.

Yeah, it's disgusting how one side of this debate just doesn't have any voices at all

[Predicto]

There should be a issue of competing rights in abortion...unfortunately only one side has much of a voice to present their case.

Some would argue that this is the natural result of one side being actual persons with functioning minds and free will, and the other side only being empty vessels with the potential to someday have those qualities. But that takes us back to square one of the discussion, doesn't it.

I wonder if in the future they will say

A famous woman's activist once said: It's just a clump of cells ......with the same disdain we hold for those that said blacks weren't human

Perhaps. But I doubt it. I'm all for analogies, but that one feels really weak to me. It's only a step removed from the Nazi analogies that we were discussing in another thread, the ones that never work either. If you are going to tell half of the population (and the majority of women) that they are no better than old style racists, you are not going to make much headway with them.

And I say this with the utmost respect for the sincere beliefs of pro-life people, as I've said before.

[twa]

Some would argue that this is the natural result of one side being actual persons with functioning minds and free will, and the other side only being empty vessels with the potential to someday have those qualities. But that takes us back to square one of the discussion, doesn't it.

Potential is a funny thing...Eliminating it not so much

Perhaps. But I doubt it. I'm all for analogies, but that one feels really weak to me. It's only a step removed from the Nazi analogies that we were discussing in another thread, the ones that never work either. If you are going to tell half of the population (and the majority of women) that they are no better than old style racists, you are not going to make much headway with them.

And I say this with the utmost respect for the sincere beliefs of pro-life people, as I've said before.

Oh I doubt half the population(and the majority of women) truly believe it is just a clump of cells

[Predicto]

I wish we could solve this problem in this thread twa.

Like I said before, this is the most vexing social and moral issue of our time, and there are no easy answers (unless you refuse to acknowledge the legitimate arguments and concerns of the other side and demonise them instead ... then simple sloganeering becomes all to easy).

[AzSkinsFan63]

Still. Should it be illegal? I certainly don't think so. Heck, I think that giving people a "talk me out of having an abortion" place, where they can voluntarily go, to gain more information, is a great idea. I'm almost always a fan of people having more information, and thinking their options over. Especially decisions of this magnitude.

(Although I do think that "truth in advertising" should require them to accurately label themselves. And I don't have a problem with the law requiring them to tell the truth.) )

This bill is set up for a lawsuit that will destroy those centers...

[DjTj]

There should be a issue of competing rights in abortion...unfortunately only one side has much of a voice to present their case.

I wonder if in the future they will say

A famous woman's activist once said: It's just a clump of cells ......with the same disdain we hold for those that said blacks weren't human

I think it's more likely that they will say, "Why would anyone ever need an abortion? I only get pregnant if I take this pill." I fully expect medical technology to advance to the point where accidental pregnancy is a thing of the past.

[twa]

Open frank discourse and education can do wonders...if you believe in humans higher reasoning.

Or we can always have a war.

[Predicto]

This bill is set up for a lawsuit that will destroy those centers...

How will it destroy them? By making them illegal, or by simply making them acknowledge up front what they are all about?

If it is the latter, and they are rendered ineffective because they can't fool people anymore, I'm not so worried. If its the former, then I agree with you.

[twa]

I think it's more likely that they will say, "Why would anyone ever need an abortion? I only get pregnant if I take this pill." I fully expect medical technology to advance to the point where accidental pregnancy is a thing of the past.

Funny that contraceptive advances haven't made more of a dent in abortion rates....must be the human element.

[DjTj]

Funny that contraceptive advances haven't made more of a dent in abortion rates....must be the human element.

There has been a steady decline though. In 1990, the abortion rate was 27.4 per 1,000 women. And it was down to 19.6 in 2008. That's really the result of technological progress.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41008558/ns/health-womens_health/

Note that it goes up a little during a recession. That's because pills cost money.

Contraception gets cheaper and easier over time. I believe the free market will get us all the way there eventually.

[NoCalMike]

Most of the time when contraception fails it is because the people aren't using it properly. Like when a condom is being used and it "accidently" comes off, or when a girl is on the pill and she "forgets" to take a pill, and then also "forgets" to mention it to her boyfriend/husband.

I am pretty sure statistics show that when contraceptives are used, and used properly, the chances of pregnancy are very slim, although yes of course there is also still that risk.

[AzSkinsFan63]

How will it destroy them? By making them illegal, or by simply making them acknowledge up front what they are all about?

If it is the latter, and they are rendered ineffective because they can't fool people anymore, I'm not so worried. If its the former, then I agree with you.

The bill is designed to allow for lawsuits against the care centers..(I didn't know I could get an abortion and now look what they did to me) All it takes is an accusation and then litigation.

please descibe how they are fooling people?