How about birth control?

that would have been my first guess, too.

planned parenthood = abortion clinic? Ah, i'm beginning to understand some POVs

i don't like abortion! it's cruel!

birth control works better! or wait til yer married for sex! that's good too!

But the fact that you had to think about the message is an accomplishment to the Planned Parenthood marketing people. It might be dumb, but they got you to think, which is something that a lot of people don't do.

"planned parenthood = abortion clinic?"

Yes.

Planned Parenthood offers sliding-scale fees for obstretrical and gynecological care, family-planning resources, counseling services (that really do cover all the options), and, yes, the A word. Women who need to save their pennies often go to PP for routine checkups because it is more affordable for them than going to private doctors would be. Most of PP's patients never use the facility for abortion services.

only = is what I meant.

Where's the "oh yeah, birth control duh" comment from ya?

"Most of PP's patients never use the facility for abortion services." That seems awful... maybe they should spread the word.

Natalie:

Are you suggesting that nuances actually exist... and all this time I was thinking everything was good/evil, black/white, with us/against us

Man... I've been confused all of my life.

- RBP

There are a lot of people in poverty who come from cultures where it is customary to have many children. The message of not having children beyond your means is a good message to pass along, in my opinion, since the American culture rightly frowns on not being able to properly provide for children.

Naughty, naughty, Mr. Tan.

Mr. RBP, you thought wrong, and despite your snide tone, I have never said that. Most things are indeed very nuanced and filled with shades of grey. But there are a few things that are very cut and dried and can not be compromised.

Easy Natalie:

My "snide" tone was directed for Al... who clearly thinks that nuances don't exist with respect to this topic. Your comment was very nuanced. My apologies.

- RBP

Mine as well.

Seems mostly just elitist to me - if it's placed in a poor neighborhood. Something to the effect of, "you're poor, you should be sterilized for the good of humanity."

Dave

Yes Dave, I never see Planned Parenthood advertising in wealthy (white) neighborhoods.

I also want to thank Miss Natalie for her judicious explanation on behalf of the defense.

You might possibly have read the sign wrong while dealing with traffic ..."I know what I can afford" was probably an ad for the sign space itself, in other words "sign for rent". The yet to be covered logo might have been left over from previous rental.

So are y'all saying that this should be understood as some kind of ad for discount birth control? How exactly does this quote apply? Honest, I'm not trying to be thick.

And no Bob, this was clearly a current Planned Parenthood ad.

Is this any worse than the billboards purporting to be messages direct from god which dot major cities?

Dave

Help me tease this message out. Are y'all saying that PP was abbreviating a message here that is supposed to mean something like, "Come on in for birth control, and we'll take whatever payment for it that you say you can afford to pay." Is that supposed to be the point?

Al - why you always picking on the liberal orgs...why not go pick on the NRA or something???

The message was directed at young people (especially young men) and has little to do w/money, actually. What it's referring to is, 'can you afford to fool around having unprotected sex w/your girlfriend(s)? Can you afford the consequences, including pregnancy, STDs, having to short cut your amibitions or dreams because you have to support kids you never wanted?' It was very poorly worded, BUT - as you pointed out, Al - it DID make you think. However, it's part of an ongoing campaign & apparently, those to whom it is directed (young people) are already aware of the phrase. It's only the old people who don't automatically get it. Also, in my area, it's also up in the more affluent neighborhoods. I see it on one of the main streets near a high school in a pretty well-off town, but yes, it DOES need to be pushed more in poor neighborhoods, because many, many studies have shown that better-educated, wealthier people tend not to have lots of kids to begin with; it's not part of their culture, for one thing, and for another, they're far more aware & educated about birth control, etc. It's the people who can least afford kids either emotionally or materially that tend to breed like crazy, mainly because they don't get the constant 'don't go there' messages from their elders & community that more affluent kids do, or in the case of some ethnic communities, because it's cultural: the more macho you are, the more kids you have, which is of course false; number of kids engendered - especially illegitimately - has nothing whatsoever to do with manhood. There was a big series about this in the W. Post not too long ago.

Anyway, that's the message & target audience, Al.

Nancy - I thought poor folks bred like that 'cause they didn't have a lot of toys to play with!

Uhhh... *ahem* depends on what kind of toys. Seriously, tho, according to all those who claim to know, and stats do bear it out, the problem is due to lack of education & peer/family pressure, and is definitely tied to the socioeconomic scale. The sad part is, that those who have the most kids, really can't 'afford' them in any sense of the word. They tend to be too young, too unstable or immature emotionally, & too poor to give either the kids or themselves the kind of lifestyle necessary to raise them in a non-traumatic environment. Anybody who would argue that a dirt-poor, uneducated environment with desperate, frustrated, half-educated, overyoung parents is not a bad place for kids is insane.

Good job Nancy and Ms. Davis. It IS a message to make kids think.

What can I afford?

Can I afford to mess up my life by getting pregnant?

Can I afford to mess up my life by getting my gilfriend pregnant?

Very good questions for kids to have in their heads.

I have a feeling that most of the folks who do the whole "abortion clinic" number are well off, have never needed a gyno exam, and can't see beyond their own BS talking points.

Bennett

I see that ad all the time when I go up to South Bend and I never thot of it as her saying a child might be too expensive.

Interesting.

If you look at the other types of billboards which are pointedly aimed at women, it does have much in common.

Evidently women identify with a strong looking (not necessarily hot) model.

Also, women seem to want things which bring them peace, unclutter their lives, and make things easier. At least judging from the billboards I see targeted at them.

Perhaps PP is really saying, You know you need an abortion, but, you are wondering, "Can I afford to kill my baby? I have the rent, the phone bill, the electric bill and plus I still need to buy some foundation and some eyeliner"

Well, we at PP know you have a hectic lifestle with numerous challenges and you don't need one more hassle right now. Just come on in and we will work something out so you can kill your baby convienantly and will a minimum amount of worry and fuss, with payment options that understand your particular situation.

I think that is more likely the message of the billboard.

The message is as I rendered it, Todd, because I took the trouble of calling PP & discussing it w/them - & you obviously didn't.

Wow Todd, I am astonished that someone with your outlook on life is actually capable of reading & writing. Too bad we can't wave a magic wand, get you two toddlers, a uterus, a minimum wage job at some sweat shop and your very own "Todd" for a mate. Then you'd understand what hell is & the value of birth control.

Imelda - Spot on! How sad that there are people out there (mainly men I believe) who have an inner need to twist things into their ugliest and most hate-filled form.

Society would be better off without these hate mongers.

am I reading this right? because someone cannot discern the meaning of a very ambiguous advertisement makes them hate mongers?

Talk about a broad brush!!!

Andy - Perhaps. But those who say things like"

"Can I afford to kill my baby? I have the rent, the phone bill, the electric bill and plus I still need to buy some foundation and some eyeliner" are indeed spreading hate for Planned Parenthood's employees, their clientelle, and an organization that provides real and necessary benifits to our society.

No?

I actually took the ad to mean...I know I can't afford a baby...at least, that's how I would interpret such an ad if I saw it...and I would base that assumption on what I know and don't know about PP.

I think many people in this country believe the same thing I do about PP...that it's an abortion mill...I do realize that this is not entirely correct...but that's always been my impression of this particular organization.

I am pro-choice btw...

PP is not an abortion mill, although it does do abortions. But as others have said, the vast majority of its work is doing ob/gyn exams, counseling women on birth control, and then dispensing birth control.

I went to PP when I was in college. I just wanted to go in, pick up a prescription for the pill, and leave. But they wouldn't do that. I had to go for an hour of counseling on birth control and avoiding STDs and then get an exam before they would prescribe the pill for me. And that's the right way to handle it.

PP is a responsible organization that tries to teach women how to take care of themselves and avoid unwanted pregnancies and STDs. I see the billboard as a reminder to young women, especially, that THEY are in control of their bodies and their lives.

The vast bulk of Planned Parenthood's work, as pointed out above, is directed to empowering women (for the most part, altho they counsel & help men, too) on handling to the maximum possible extent their own health, sexuality, and reproductive lives. That includes Ob/Gyn exams, disease prevention, safety procedures, standard personal health procedures & info, ob/gyn problems such as endometriosis, as well as preventive birth control methods, abortion if necessary, pregnancy wellness, childbirth classes, child rearing classes, education on baby care, child care, nutrition, etc. etc. etc. Only a tiny percentage of what they do is at all connected with pregnancy termination. A large percentage is dedicated to women's wellness AND healthy pregnancies for those who want to have kids. The ONLY reason PP is related to abortion so largely in people's minds is because of the efforts of hate groups like Operation Rescue and similar extremists who have done their best to smear what is a good & useful program & group, because it will not march to their religious maniac orders.

Does anyone really have a stat on what percentage of PP's income comes from abortions?

Heh, hatemonger?

If I had known it was so easy to become a hatemonger, I would have signed up long ago!

The kind of male mind that objects to women deciding what their sexual & reproductive fates should be is these days characteristic of the neanderthals of the taliban. The pathology of such a male attitude is equally infected.

Before anyone judges me, read my wife's story in my book "A Generation Betrayed." Its usually available on Amazon.

It was hard for me to completely understand what you were saying, Nancy, because you used so many big words, but you seemed to be calling anyone who disagrees with you an insane subhuman Islamic fundamentalist.

I must inform you that anyone who disagrees with me is a statist, fascist, neocon warmonger commie socialist. And probably a dirty intellectual too.

Be that as it may, I figured I would get the female opinion over here and asked my mom what she thot the billboard meant.

As described, she thot the billboard was "weird" and thot it referred to a woman not being able to afford to raise a child. So perhaps, Al is onto something.

In any case, seems like PP needs to clarify its marketing.

Randy, I'm guessing your wife had a bad experience. My mom did too when she was very young. Although she was over 18, she was 'taken' to get an abortion because she couldn't afford a child. This was waaaaaay back in the day. She didn't have much say in the matter and she lived with regret the rest of her life. But abortions were done back then when kids got pregnant without being married, etc. and it was all the bad experiences in dark alleys that pushed for the legalization of it. How can pro-lifers forget the past?

But her whole life, she was pro-choice. What was wrong was the removal of her own choice. Just because your wife may have had a bad experience with abortion, doesn't mean all women should lose the right of control over their own bodies.

when you give a person the power of choice (over their own bodies in this case), you have to accept that sometimes people will make the right choice, but sometimes people will make the wrong choice. You can't give society the right to make choices and then get upset when they don't make YOUR choices each and every time.

Thank you Steve S. You clarified what I should have said in comment 37. Randy, I hadn't even seen your comment at the time I posted mine, so I wasn't aiming at you, & obviously wasn't expressing myself very well.

Actually, I believe that in order to keep federal funding Planned Parenthood had to stop doing abortions some years back. They now refer people to private abortion clinics and make no money from doing so. Which IMO is a much better way to handle the situation.

Dave

I think you're right, Dave.

Hold on, now this is a little change up Dave. You're saying that PP does NOT in fact actually perform abortions?

How many abortions happen to girls whose choice would be to carry the baby or adopt it out, but the abortion choice is forced upon them by their parents, the boyfriend or husband, or the school leadership.

How many abortions would be avoided (assuming we can all say that it is a sad thing to happen) if every girl or woman in the situation were given complete information about the pro's and con's and a true choice.

Planned Parenthood services, include abortions

How many abortions happen to girls whose choice would be to carry the baby or adopt it out, but the abortion choice is forced upon them by their parents, the boyfriend or husband, or the school leadership

Randy, if you read my comment 40, my mom had an abortion forced upon her. This was back in the 40's and involved driving her across state lines even.

This was well before Roe v. Wade. Outlawing abortions will not remove the 'forced abortions' that happen to young girls because those have been happening since the beginning of mankind. All it will do is move the forced abortions back into the dark alleys.

Better to find another way to combat abortions performed against the mother's will, rather than choosing a method (outright ban on all abortions) proven to not work.

Randy, no one in America is forced to have abortions.

Abortion is a choice.

This isn't China, yet, after all.

Actually I don't think even China gives abortions at gunpoint, which is what I would consider, "forced".

I doubt whether you could find a country where there is more information about what types of actions make women pregnant.

The media has done their part in educating the youth in America, everyone from 50 Cents to Sex in the City to the Clinton Era Republicans should get a Sex Ed award from somebody.

So I would assume that in most cases, abortion is a form of birth control, and not something that only desperate women caught unawares are "forced" to consider.

>>Hold on, now this is a little change up Dave. You're saying that PP does NOT in fact actually perform abortions?<<

I'll see if I can get some hard facts, Al. But I believe that in researching the Roberts nomination I came accross a reference to him being involved in issuing a legal opinion in the creation of a bill which would have removed federal funding from PP if they continued to perform abortions. I think it may be a state by state deal, but my impression is that in-house abortions are the exception if they happen at all with PP these days.

Dave

How many abortions happen to girls whose choice would be to carry the baby or adopt it out, but the abortion choice is forced upon them by their parents, the boyfriend or husband, or the school leadership.

First, I've never heard of a school being able to force a girl into having an abortion. So I'm not sure what that comment is about. And in today's society, husbands and boyfriends have no legal right to force a girl/woman into having a procedure she doesn't want, which doesn't mean that they can't impose their will on them in reality. But those men are basically abusive and aren't exactly going to respect the girl's views on anything, never mind whether or not to bring a child into the world.

Lastly, the parents: you can't have it both ways, Randy. If you're pro-life, you probably don't want girls to get an abortion without their parents' permission. Translation: you hope the parents won't allow the abortion, aka, that they will take away the girl's choice. So if you're going to put the decision in the parents' hands, you have to accept that some parents won't make a decision that respects their daughter's choice, regardless of what that choice is. You can't argue for parental consent in order to block abortions if you're not willing to argue for parental consent to choose abortions.

I think taking the choice away from the underage girl is the wrong thing, no matter what the girl wants to do. You probably only think it's wrong to take away her choice if she was going to choose to carry the pregnancy to term.

Really, BHW? A 13 year old can't legally get their ear pierced without parental consent, but you think they should have a right to kill a baby regardless of what ANYONE else thinks, even the parents?

Sorry to use the word force, but you all surely are just playing word games. Please tell me who wins in a power struggle between the typical 20 something male and his pregnant teen wife?

Todd, you completely missed my point about education. I'm talking educating about the negative consequences of abortion, and the real choices that are available.

I am perfectly prepared to let parents influence a person to make a decision that prefers conserving living beings. I do not like parents influencing a decision that includes death. It does create something of a conundrum.

PS Back alley abortions. Sure, the happened, but the incidence of death or injury was almost nill. The stats were pumped up to push the legislation. Even PP agrees that the did so.

I was shocked to read a while back that folks have been aborting babies for 1000's of years. The Catholic church has actually had various standards over those years.

I might not outlaw abortion, I'm not sure. But I would regulate it. I have been witness to way to much harm and hurt that comes with post traumatic syndrome related to abortion.

>>PS Back alley abortions. Sure, the happened, but the incidence of death or injury was almost nill.<<

Randy:

This sounds like bullshit to me.

- RBP

Really, BHW? A 13 year old can't legally get their ear pierced without parental consent, but you think they should have a right to kill a baby regardless of what ANYONE else thinks, even the parents?

Al, nobody has a right to kill babies -- those are the ones who have been born.

I think that 13-year-olds should have the final say in what happens to their bodies when it comes to pregnancy and abortion. I don't think parents should force a child to carry to term OR to have an abortion. Pregnancy is far different from and has much more serious ramifications than ear piercing. So, sure, notify the parents. But leave the decision about whether or not to become a parent to the person who is pregnant.

But my point was that Randy doesn't really believe in parental rights or oppose parents forcing an unwanted choice upon their child. He believes in parental rights if parents want to prevent an abortion. He doesn't mind if pregnancy, childbirth, and parenthood are forced upon the child.

When parents choose things Randy doesn't like, suddenly they should not really have the right to choose for their child. As long as he likes the parents' choice, and even if the child doesn't, he's fine with parents forcing their will upon their child.

This is the same hypocrisy we heard during the Schiavo case. Conservatives who screamed about the sanctity of marriage when arguing against gay marriage suddenly believed that a marriage didn't create a strong enough bond between two people to let them make life and death decisions for each other.

Once again, they only like giving rights to people when those people make the choices they like. When they make unpopular choices, suddenly those rights need to go away.

So which is it: do parents have the right to make pregnancy/abortion decisions for their under-age daughters, or don't they?

According to the law, they do. And I believe that is the correct thing, whether or not I approve of the decision that my daughter would make. The spouse and I have discussed it and we agree: Whatever our daughter's choice in this sort of situation, she is our kid, and we would stand behind her and give her all the support and love we have.

BTW, some abortion facts to ponder:

Sixty percent of women who had abortions in 2000 had incomes of less than twice the poverty level --below $28,000 per year for a family of three, for example. This is in part because "low-income women have lower access to family planning services" such as contraception and counseling provided by health departments, independent clinics or Planned Parenthood, Finer said.

Which would be why PP targets them in their billboards, no?

Almost 90 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester -- during the first 12 weeks after the first day of the woman's last menstrual period -- with most performed before nine weeks. Because of newer surgical and medical techniques, the proportion of abortions performed at six weeks or earlier has almost doubled in the past decade.

Less than 1 percent of abortions are done after 24 weeks.

Also:

Six in 10 women who had abortions in 2002 were mothers. "Despite the common belief, women who have abortions and those who have children are not two separate groups," said Finer.

Lots more interesting stuff in the article, too.

According to the law, they do.

Right. But Randy would like to make that conditional so that only parents choosing to carry the pregnancy to term have the right.

bhw,
I currently have the parental right to influence my children to do a lot of things. I don't have parental rights to tell my kid to do dope, drive 130 mph, etc. So yes, I would like society to only allow parents to persuade their kids to do things that are for their benefit.

Do you know that this whole debate would go away if abortions were truly limited to the first 90 days with parental notification, and appropriate patient information? The two sides seem polarized, but about 75% of the population would be thrilled with that resolution.

BHW, right here is where I'm calling bullshit: "nobody has a right to kill babies -- those are the ones who have been born." You're making up an intellectual distinction that doesn't much correspond to reality to back up the pro-choice position you take.

You might argue that a zygote isn't really a baby yet. But as the pro-life bumperstickers rightly proclaim, "Abortion stops a beating heart." By the time you're getting even six or eight weeks in, you're getting blood vessels and nerves and a brain developing.

After a certain point- and this comes fairly early on- you're just lying to yourself if you pretend that's not a little baby. It's not a mere blob the day before Mom goes into labor, and then 24 hours later the blob magically becomes a human.

Again, I'm loathe to empower government to prevail upon women with what they have going on up inside them. There are difficult circumstances and decisions to make.

But don't be denying the humanity of a human fetus. That's just wrong.

Mr. Kirk: "I would like society to only allow parents to persuade their kids to do things that are for their benefit."

And who gets to decide what is for their benefit? The parents? Or you?

Doing heroin is illegal. Getting an abortion is not.

I am sorry, but this is what you liberals are all about. Limit the minority population. This billboard is trying to elimanate or reduce the poor population. It makes me sick.

If they can't afford it then they shouldn't get pregnant. Practice abstinence, use pills, use a condom, but please do not kill the defenseless baby, no matter his status in society you murderous, hypocritical, rascist, rich pigs.

I do not entirely know what to think about parental consent and notification laws. I'm loathe to give anyone else control over these most intimate personal decisions. Still, I'm not thrilled with giving a 13 year old the power of life and death over another human, the one growing inside her. There just doesn't seem to be any GOOD answer there, just some that are less bad.

I'm definitely with Miss Natalie here, though: "And who gets to decide what is for their benefit? The parents? Or you?" I'd trust parents 100 to 1 over even the supposedly best intentioned government officials for being likely to really know and understand the situation, and to really have the best interest of the girl at heart.

So yes, I would like society to only allow parents to persuade their kids to do things that are for their benefit.

Except that your particular stance on this issue doesn't define what's good for the rest of the country. That's the problem with legislating personal behavior to the n'th degree. We shouldn't restrict some people's behavior just because they make choices we may not like, especially when those choices have no direct impact on YOU. That's not exactly a description of freedom.

You're making up an intellectual distinction that doesn't much correspond to reality to back up the pro-choice position you take.

No I'm not, Al. I'm pointing out your emotional rhetoric.

You might argue that a zygote isn't really a baby yet. But as the pro-life bumperstickers rightly proclaim, "Abortion stops a beating heart." By the time you're getting even six or eight weeks in, you're getting blood vessels and nerves and a brain developing.

And yet it is still not a baby. It's a fetus with the potential to become a baby.

Look, I've had two children. I know exactly how the fetus develops inside the woman's body. And I remain firmly pro-choide and in favor of abortion rights for women.

But don't be denying the humanity of a human fetus. That's just wrong.

Again, I'm distinguishing between your emotional rhetoric and reality. Women who get abortions aren't baby killers.

I am sorry, but this is what you liberals are all about. Limit the minority population. This billboard is trying to elimanate or reduce the poor population. It makes me sick.

Anthony, try to follow along with the grownups. We liberals like to help poor people not be poor for the rest of their lives by giving them access to family planning services. These services help them make good choices about their reproductive lives.

If they can't afford it then they shouldn't get pregnant.

Oh, but Anthony, THIS WOULD ELIMINATE OR REDUCE THE POOR POPULATION.

You make me sick.

It always amuses me in a kind of nasty way, that those who bitch the loudest about having to fork over so much money for taxes for social programs to help the poor, are also those who bitch the loudest about not wanting those same poor to have access to birth control or family planning - especially the women. Hypocrisy, thy name is 'pro-life'.

Furthermore, most of the above bitching & whining & ranting I notice is being carried on by those who are absolutely immune from EVER having be be pregnant, carry, deliver, and get stuck w/a kid they don't want: men. Which renders all their bitching, whining, & ranting moot. No man, until & unless he is capable of having an embryo transferred to his body from a woman's, so he can carry & deliver it if he insists on it coming to term, has anything to say about how any woman decides to use her body. Nothing, nada, never. You no play-a da game, you no mak-a da rules. Comprende?

Nancy, even then they'd have to have consciously *chosen* to get pregnant. I'll wait for their input when they can get pregnant accidentally or by being raped.

You hit it on the nailhead, bhw.

Al Barger: Still, I'm not thrilled with giving a 13 year old the power of life and death over another human, the one growing inside her.

But you'd let her raise another human, and inflict him/her on the rest of the world?

Unfortunately, the "default" image of PP is one of broker of abortion services, and their "default" client is a woman. Both defaults are unfortunate, as PP could be so much more. This example fails to mention the other person involved in an incident of unplanned parenthood--the man--and until it starts confronting them about their responsibility in the matter, PP's ability to impact and serve society will remain where it is--static.

I just wish the choice in "Pro-choice" was practiced prior to the pregnancy, as in, "I'll choose not to have sex." Pro-choice apologists will of course bring up the (statistically rare--in regards to abortions due to) victims of rape and incest, but the law already has accommodated those; PP could refine this message more to help society by not only encouraging non-abortion birth control methods, but by also encouraging victims of rape and incest to report their incident to the law. If PP can ultimately refer women to abortion providers based on a personal assessment on "what they can afford", then they should also be able to help victims of rape and incest make a decision to improve their living conditions by ridding their environment of men who treat all women as sexual conquest objects or things to control and intimidate, rather than as human beings. PP needs to create a "marketing" campaign that directs similar messages towards all men--not just poor--reminding them of their societal role as protector and provider of all women and children--not users and abusers of same. PP could use the old-fashioned notion of "shame" to spread a message that states that men who use women for sexual conquest or men who abandon women and children to governmental safety nets are not to be held in any kind of esteem. Or, if this concept to just not palatable, then a campaign of a positive sort, which upholds the ideals of fatherhood, responsibility and self-control as superior to that of treating women as objects, children as inconvenient, and selfish, egocentric pleasure-based living as hollow and of no contribution to society.

But one quickly sees that we are ultimately referring to a "morality", and as can be seen quite frequently on BlogCritics, morality is a subject of which it is impossible to have a tolerant conversation.

Nancy, regardless of whether men can actually bear the baby, we are held legally financially responsible, and therefore ought to have a say in the disposition of the pregnancy. Any woman who wants to carry a baby to term contrary to the wishes of the father should be legally required to absolve him of all parental and financial responsibility.

Dave

Dave Nalle: Any woman who wants to carry a baby to term contrary to the wishes of the father should be legally required to absolve him of all parental and financial responsibility.

Yep. Although, perhaps he should have to pay a flat fee to cover some of the costs of the pregnancy (or its termination). And he would forfeit all visitation rights.

And he would forfeit all visitation rights.

Not just visitation rights, but all rights.

But doing as Dave suggests actually puts the man in control of the situation. Since he was 50% of the equation in creating the pregnancy, he should have 50% of responsibility if that pregnancy comes to term, even if he doesn't want it. It's too easy to allow men to walk away by saying, "Hey, it's not my fault, I wanted her to have an abortion." I can imagine a lot of men saying that after the fact and after they realize how much time and money it costs to raise a child.

I tend to agree w/you Dave, & yet, if a girl/woman doesn't believe in abortion, & decides to have & keep the kid, well...he had his fun, too. Should he just get off scott-free? I, personally, think any woman who insists on keeping a child when there is no father/partner to help raise it, is a fool. Kids just don't do as well without fathers as they do with 'em. But it isn't my body. If I want people to keep their laws/religion off my bod, I have to keep mine off theirs, don't I?

Again BHW, you're simply straight up factually wrong here: "Women who get abortions aren't baby killers." That's not mere "emotional rhetoric" from me. That's a simple recognition of fact. If you have a live baby growing in you, and you do away with it, then you have killed it. There's no cute rhetorical brush that you can apply that will make it otherwise. For me to say that an abortion "kills a baby" is not inflammatory rhetoric. It is the killing of a baby that is inflammatory.

You might have special horrible circumstances that make it understandable why you would find an abortion necessary. Just don't pretend that you're not really killing a baby when you do it, cause you most certainly are.

oh really?

is an ambryo a 'baby' from the beginning?

and where is that 'fact' written down?

and, if not, at what point does it become a baby?

and who gets to decide?

If you have a live baby growing in you, and you do away with it, then you have killed it. There's no cute rhetorical brush that you can apply that will make it otherwise.

It's not a baby, it's an embryo or a fetus. It's a potential baby. I can understand people's objection to late-term abortions, but I disagree completely that any abortion is the killing of a baby.

No, it's an 'ambryo'. Whatever the hell that is. Maybe it's an ambidextrous embryo.

Dave

yow...now i'm getting left-hand-only dyslexia!

I think it's a fetus only if you don't want it.

>>It's not a baby, it's an embryo or a fetus. It's a potential baby.<<

Maybe it isn't a baby yet, but it is still alive, it breaths and eats and you kill it like would kill a rodent. You consider it a pest and kill it. It is still murder, baby or not.

Don't want a baby? Use a condom, don't have sex, use pills, but please don't kill it, cherish it. Maybe the "embryo" will grow up to be another Martin Luther King or another Alex Rodriguez or maybe even a scientists who cures cancer.

>>Oh, but Anthony, THIS WOULD ELIMINATE OR REDUCE THE POOR POPULATION.<< by bhw

I rather see them not get pregnant instead of killing the baby.

"I think it's a fetus only if you don't want it." Right on, Rodney. That's exactly on target.

"I disagree completely that any abortion is the killing of a baby."

Yeah, but that's no good. Everybody gets to have their own opinions, but you don't get your own facts.

Monsieur Saleski, again, I can understand saying that the fertilized egg is not really a person yet. However, by the time that the choice has grown a circulatory system with heart beating, blood pumping, and a central nervous system that's a baby.

That's not a question of me arbitrarily declaring it so. Head and arms, nerves and blood vessels. It ain't a lump of coal. It ain't a tree. It's a little human baby. It just IS.

And maybe it will grow up to be another Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin or Mao Tse-Tung, hey? They don't all grow up to be saints, and some would have been 'way better off aborted, FYI. Stop romanticizing babies and/or humans. There is nothing so great or special about our species except we're real good at trashing everything in sight.

I think it's a fetus only if you don't want it.

The medical community calls it a fetus. That's the proper definition. Mine were fetuses (feti?), too, at one time. I planned and wanted them. Didn't make them not fetuses.

Everybody gets to have their own opinions, but you don't get your own facts.

Al, you're the one making up "facts." It's not a baby, babe. It's on its way to being one, though.

Here you go, Al, from Merriam-Webster online:

Main Entry: fe-tus
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful -- more at FEMININE
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth (emphasis mine)

So I'd say you were the one making up definitions.

Literally speaking, it's a fetus, but so what? These are just word games, really. If you want a baby, you think of it as a baby. You refer to the fetus as a baby and you think of it as a deveoping human being with a personality, a character and so forth.

bhw: But doing as Dave suggests actually puts the man in control of the situation. Since he was 50% of the equation in creating the pregnancy, he should have 50% of responsibility if that pregnancy comes to term, even if he doesn't want it.

No. That essentially puts the woman in control of the man's finances for the next 20-odd years.

It's too easy to allow men to walk away by saying, "Hey, it's not my fault, I wanted her to have an abortion." I can imagine a lot of men saying that after the fact and after they realize how much time and money it costs to raise a child.

Yeah, that's a problem, though certainly not a new one. That's more complex, and probably should go to court. But if the man establishes before the birth that he isn't willing to raise a child, he ought to have a way to opt out, just as the woman does. He should have to share at least the costs of an abortion. If the woman has a problem with abortion, they can share the cost of carrying to term, after which she can put the baby up for adoption or raise it on her own finances. The man of course forfeits all rights, it's as if he put his child up for adoption.

JR, I basically agree with you. The only problem is that when you have two people making a decision, one person has to have a little more say than the other; otherwise, you have a stalemate. So, of course, I'd give the extra 1% of say to the woman, since her body is involved.

The biggest problem to me is that we already have a fairly large problem with young men spreading their seed without wanting to face any of the consequences of their actions. Allowing them to "call" abortion -- when they're not the one who has to undergo the procedure -- basically takes all meaningful responsibility away from them.

Sometimes life isn't fair. But I also don't think it's fair for men to have sex and be able to put all the responsibility on the woman.

Nancy: And maybe it will grow up to be another Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin or Mao Tse-Tung, hey?

I've read that Saddam Hussein's mother wanted to have an abortion but some asshole talked her out of it.

Everybody in this rant session is real concerned about the mom and her rights. Is anyone concerned about the mom and her future? Oh, its tough raising a baby on your own. I have many friends and co-workers who are doing it. My oldest daughter (adopted) was the daughter of a single mom until she was 11. She turned out great.

But what about 5 years, ten years, twenty years after an abortion. It is so common for women to still be emotionally scarred by the death of the pre born human. Some, who are never able to have any children after the abortion end up with even greater hurt and regret.

This decision is a big one for a woman. I think the abortion advocates would like to make it appear as simple as mole removal. It ain't. Sometimes the rhetoric even begins to sound pro-abortion. Including those who are truly closet eugenicists.

bhw: The biggest problem to me is that we already have a fairly large problem with young men spreading their seed without wanting to face any of the consequences of their actions. Allowing them to "call" abortion -- when they're not the one who has to undergo the procedure -- basically takes all meaningful responsibility away from them.

The same argument can be used to take the right to an abortion away from the woman. Why should it apply only to men?

And men have been running away from that responsibility all along; in the past the woman didn't even have the option of a legal abortion. It's only now that we're really starting to crack down on deadbeat dads.

It is also possible for a woman to be emotionally scarred after giving a baby up for adoption, Randy. There are no easy choices, but I would argue that the best way to make any choice is to be fully-informed about all of one's alternatives.

Randy Kirk: It is so common for women to still be emotionally scarred by the death of the pre born human.

That's because Operation Rescue and like-minded religious nuts go to such great lengths to fetishize fetuses. A woman need not feel any more guilty having an abortion than I do clipping my toenails. All that emotional scarring is YOUR fault.

Sometimes the rhetoric even begins to sound pro-abortion. Including those who are truly closet eugenicists.

Yeah, way to tone down the rhetoric.

Yeah JR, you're lying to yourself right here: "That's because Operation Rescue and like-minded religious nuts go to such great lengths to fetishize fetuses. A woman need not feel any more guilty having an abortion than I do clipping my toenails." Your toenails don't have consciousness. Your toenails can't feel pain. You know better.

Likewise BHW and Miss Angel are arguing like Pharisees over the definition of "fetus" and "baby." Whatever the technical merits of arguing over the dictionary definition of fetus vs baby, it's all toward the end of un-truth. That is, that THING growing inside a pregnant woman is a person, certainly after 6-8 weeks. It has people parts, blood is flowing, it feels pain.

No amount of sophistry about dictionary definitions will change those facts.

Fingernails and babies. Hmmm

>>There is nothing so great or special about our species except we're real good at trashing everything in sight.<< by Nancy

I guess in that case it is o.k. to take a gun and kill anyone I want to, just like hunter's kill deer? After all what makes us better than rodents, fleas or deer?

In this day and age there is no way another Hitler, Stalin or Pul Pot can rise to extreme power. Look what happened to Saddam.

Maybe someday they will sell pesticides to kill "embryos" over the counter just like they sell roach spray or rat pellets. Hopefully when Hell freezes over.

The pro-choice position is dependant upon refusing to acknowledge that it is a baby at any point that is getting sucked out, or poisened, or however they kill them.

Another assault on language to hide the doing of what is unpalatable to a large segment of the population. Like calling a law that takes away your rights a Patriot Act.

Notice the anger and wrath unleashed by pro-choicers when you refuse to use the sanitized words they use to deny reality.

Another thing the pro-choice people do is take very very rare events and act as if they are the norm, crying wildly that 12 year old who get raped by their fathers with aids will be forced to bear quadraplegic fetuses with downs syndrome
who will grow up and force everyone to raise taxes, but not before they lead miserable lives and kill everybody in the process.

And if the poor and minorities are indeed getting 60% of all abortions, then PP's founder must be smiling in her grave, as this was her expressed desire and purpose.

I have lived in "da hood" before and every "poor" neighborhood can support ALOT of drug dealers and stores which seem to mainly sell malt liquor, blunts, and cigarettes. So I feel for the poor, but I know for a fact its bad choices and misallocation of time and money that keeps people THAT poor.

The whole thing is founded upon such wild, hysterical premises.

ON the other hand, the pro-life (the ones in the big, more radical organizations) people come off as being total wing nuts and seem to be utterly repellent.

I know women who have had abortions and who regret it horribly, and yet they don't scream and shout at people and demonize them.

They work gently and earnestly in ministries in churches that try to help girls do the right thing, and actually HELP them financially and emotionally.

This seems to me anyways, to be a much better thing to spend your resources on rather than intimidating women going into abortion clinics. Or wasting your political capital on dead horses, no pun intended, like Terry Schiavo.

But dealing with nervous, scared girls in trouble takes patience, gentleness and humility. Its alot more fun, I would imagine, to yell cuss words at them.

Al Barger: Your toenails don't have consciousness.

Oh, so a fetus has consciousness now? And I suppose you can prove this too by repeating it emphatically.

The basic FACTS are that pro-choicers want the person most closely involved - the woman - to have access to a variety of choices. Options. Hers. Not anyone else's decision. So-called 'pro-lifers' on the other hand, do NOT want women - or anyone else - to have any choice except what THEY (the pro-lifers) have decided is acceptable; exactly on the same level as fundamentalist cretins like the Taliban. The fundamental hypocrisy of 'pro-lifers' is blatant: they scream about saving the lives of unborn babies - but I don't see many of them adopting these unwanted babies. Once those babies are born, their attitude changes to, "you got pregnant, you live with it". Their attitude to those already born is callous beyond belief, to the point where a good many of them support (even if not willing to carry out) murder of the already-born in support of their fanatical cause. If pro-lifers were actually pro-life, they'd be out there trying to get congress to approve preventive birth control measures, i.e. funding for pharmaceuticals that would ensure prevention of conception either before or within 48 hours of sex, before the egg implants. But they don't, and they won't. If pro-lifers were truly pro-life, they'd be out there trying to ensure that all the kids already here and born had good homes. But they don't. Their interest stops at birth of the fetus. And despite the posturing of those among them who use it as a cover to try to justify their concern for the woman involved, if pro-lifers were truly pro-life, they'd less concerned with their private religious agenda (which is what this is) and more concerned about the effects of demonizing the procedure & those women who choose to resort to it. But they don't. So in the end, pro-lifers are shown to be the flaming religious maniac hypocrits they are. Their own actions & attitudes to the already born, and their own words, condemn & convict them. They are anti-women, anti-freedom, and anti-American. They believe only in creating a Taliban state, run along the laws they mandate.

But in the end, it all gets down to the basics: who actually ends up the ultimate person whose life is most affected: the woman. Therefore it is the business of NO ONE else than herself, what she does with her body. Not her doctor, not her husband or boyfriend, not her parents, not her neighbors, not the fucking religious leaders or congress or the asshole president of the united states. It's HER body, it's HER choice, it's HER decision. Not yours. Not ever. Not for any reason whatsoever. Period.

You could say the same thing about the pro-choice position, that its hypocritical to only care about a womens right to choose abortion, not about her right to choose to opt out of taxation or Social Security, or to choose what kind of drugs you wish to take, or what wages and conditions you are willing to work under.

You could say, under that line of reasoning, that pro-choice people don't care what happens to a woman after she has her abortion, that they just throw her to the wolves of a society that limits her choices to only those that the elites have deemed appropriate.

I actually agree with you about the pro-lifers, they would in fact bring about a taliban style gov't if they could.

The religous right doesn't believe that God can change people, they don't have any faith in His ability to get people to voluntarily choose to stop doing bad things and start doing right things.

As if God needed a majority on the Supreme Court to take the idea of abortion out of people's hearts and minds.

And that he was so weak and non existant that he was dependant upon our craven polticians to being about his plans.

He is after all, the first Libertarian.

The pro lifers had their way until Roe. We didn't have a taliban society. What a crock.

Visit the homes for unwed mom's. Find out what happens there. You will find a loving environment that tries to help sustain life, and then HELPS the woman find adoptive parents.

THERE IS A HUGE WAITING LIST for babies.

Go to an abortion clinic. I have many personal friends who have told about the process. It is cold, uncaring, clinical.

We didn't have a federal Gov't as powerful and far reaching, even in 1973, either.

And the assaults on federalism and liberty via the Civil Rights Act of 1965 had only begun to make to trickle down.

You would have been considered a nut if you had predicted national seat belt laws, throwing people in jail for trading music, and national ID cards in 1973.

Zealous Religous people always kill their enemies and detractors when they get political power, if you can name one case in which this HASN'T happened throughout history, I would be pleased to hear about it.

After all, the Pilgrims left Europe partly because they couldn't kill heretics and witches like they wanted to.

Gee Todd, maybe we're actually on the same side here. I hate seat belt laws (even though it helped me get in the habit), I don't think anyone should be thrown in jail for trading music (although I would fine the heck out of them for setting up systems to steal from creative talent), and I certainly don't want a national ID program (but we've had one for over 50 years...344-54-3944.

There is no way to disprove your case regarding zealotry. The sentence still reads perfectly if you take out religious. However, I would point to the US, England, and most of the Western European nations as examples where Christian governments which were sometimes actual theocracies, had really good track records compared to irreligious countries around the globe.

Uh, if you are referring to the RC hegemony of Europe, known as the DARK AGES for a very good reason, I would have lived under the Ottomans anyday

England under Cromwell or Berne under the Reformers, same deal, those guys were loons, and the repression in Jesus name made it that more intolerable and heinous.

Even jews did better under the Muslim rule than under the Xtian rule, for the most part, anyways.

Um, Randy I hope that isn't your SS number. If so, do you want it edited out?

Your choice (ironically)

C'mon Temple. I'm trusting to a fault, but not that big a fault.

Sure, Todd. You can think those things.

>>The basic FACTS are that pro-choicers want the person most closely involved - the woman - to have access to a variety of choices.<<

The basic FACTS are that pro-lifers DO give the women a variety of choices, like pills, not sleeping around or making sure partner is using condom.

Todd, how in the world does the Patriot Act take your rights away. Alls they want to do is look at library records of suspected terrorists. That way they can't look at how to make bombs and such. I would not give a f*** if someone in the FBI looked at my library books that are usually about history or organized crime. The only people who should offended by this is the terrorists who check out suspicious books. What do you check out Todd? Why are you soooo offende? I highly don't you are a suspected terrorist on the FBI list so don't worry if anyone is going to look at your porn books or whatever it is you check out.

As a right winger, I think the library thing is questionable choice of benefit vs reduction in liberty. However, I also think the left is making a mountain out of a molehill in order to score political points or raise money in their email campaigns.

The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood is in the abortion business. Over 60% of thier revenue comes from abortion. They claim to provide "counseling for all potions." This is complete bullshit. Planned parenthood will do anything to geta woman to have an abortion so they can make money. This has been proven many times in cases where Planned parenthood has provided abortions for very young girls 13-14 without informing the parents or the authorities as most state laws require. If planned parenthood did this they might lose out on that sweet sweet profit that comes from ending an innocent babies life. Planned parent commits infanticide for profit. They are disgusting and anyone who defends them with this they provide options bullshit is a dumbass. May they all rot in hell for eternity with Bill and Hillary.

Makes me want to give up chocolate-chip cookies.

Natalie, there's always Mrs. Fields...