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.
27 -
Nancy
Jul 21, 2005 at 10:15 am
The message is as I rendered it, Todd, because I took the trouble of calling PP & discussing it w/them - & you obviously didn't.
28 -
imelda
Jul 21, 2005 at 10:18 am
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.
29 -
Bennett
Jul 21, 2005 at 10:28 am
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!!!
31 -
Bennett
Jul 21, 2005 at 10:39 am
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.
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.
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.
34 -
Nancy
Jul 21, 2005 at 11:04 am
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.
If I had known it was so easy to become a hatemonger, I would have signed up long ago!
37 -
Nancy
Jul 21, 2005 at 11:22 am
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.
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.
42 -
Nancy
Jul 21, 2005 at 12:28 pm
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
62 -
Anthony Grande
Jul 22, 2005 at 1:15 am
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.
66 -
Nancy
Jul 22, 2005 at 9:00 am
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'.
67 -
Nancy
Jul 22, 2005 at 9:17 am
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.
69 -
Nancy
Jul 22, 2005 at 10:04 am
You hit it on the nailhead, bhw.
70 -
JR
Jul 22, 2005 at 10:08 am
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?
71 -
PseudoErsatz
Jul 22, 2005 at 1:19 pm
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
73 -
JR
Jul 22, 2005 at 2:00 pm
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.
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.
75 -
Nancy
Jul 22, 2005 at 2:15 pm
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?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - todd
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.
27 - Nancy
The message is as I rendered it, Todd, because I took the trouble of calling PP & discussing it w/them - & you obviously didn't.
28 - imelda
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.
29 - Bennett
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.
30 - Andy
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!!!
31 - Bennett
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?
32 - Andy
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...
33 - bhw
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.
34 - Nancy
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.
35 - Randy Kirk
Does anyone really have a stat on what percentage of PP's income comes from abortions?
36 - todd
Heh, hatemonger?
If I had known it was so easy to become a hatemonger, I would have signed up long ago!
37 - Nancy
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.
38 - Randy Kirk
Before anyone judges me, read my wife's story in my book "A Generation Betrayed." Its usually available on Amazon.
39 - todd
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.
40 - Steve S
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.
41 - Steve S
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.
42 - Nancy
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.
43 - Dave Nalle
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
44 - Nancy
I think you're right, Dave.
45 - Al Barger
Hold on, now this is a little change up Dave. You're saying that PP does NOT in fact actually perform abortions?
46 - Randy Kirk
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.
47 - Temple Stark
Planned Parenthood services, include abortions
48 - Steve S
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.
49 - todd
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.
50 - Dave Nalle
>>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
51 - bhw
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.
52 - Al Barger
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?
53 - Randy Kirk
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.
54 - rbp0554
>>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
55 - bhw
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?
56 - Natalie Davis
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.
57 - bhw
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.
58 - bhw
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.
59 - Randy Kirk
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.
60 - Al Barger
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.
61 - Natalie Davis
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.
62 - Anthony Grande
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.
63 - Al Barger
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.
64 - bhw
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.
65 - bhw
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.
66 - Nancy
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'.
67 - Nancy
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?
68 - bhw
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.
69 - Nancy
You hit it on the nailhead, bhw.
70 - JR
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?
71 - PseudoErsatz
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.
72 - Dave Nalle
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
73 - JR
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.
74 - bhw
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.
75 - Nancy
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?