No one said anything about eliminating PP, though it wouldn’t be a bad idea… PP’s mainstay is abortion, that’s where most of their money comes from.
Sphagnum - 03:08am on 08/08/2005
’the organization aborted 138 babies for every adoption referral to an outside agency’
Remember that the next time anyone says that no one is really ‘pro abortion’
ICallMasICM - 05:08am on 08/08/2005
I don’t want to eliminate Planned Parenthood, just abortion. If Planned Parenthood could exist with the abortion part of their business I’d be ok with it. I just don’t think they could, since they’re pretty much all about abortions.
Rob - 02:08pm on 08/08/2005
since they’re pretty much all about abortions.
200k abortions, how many clients? more than thirty times that...NOT all about abortions.
keep it simple - 04:08pm on 08/08/2005
More than a third of their revenue is from abortion. Follow the money, simple/carl/whatever…
Sphagnum - 05:08pm on 08/08/2005
Good Post Likwid!
Seth Yantiss - 09:08pm on 08/08/2005
Look, the point of compromise is going to come out at the embryonic/fetal shift. The right is not going to abandon their position of pro-life, the left is not going to abandon their position of pro-choice. Eventually, after the right pulls one way and the left pulls the other, it’s going to end up being legal until 8-11 weeks, except for when the health of the mother is concerned, incest, extraordinary circumstances. The basic fact of human biological development is that there are several stages, from fertilized egg right on through to death. At those earliest stages, we are merely the raw material for human beings. And as I’ve argued in another post, I believe there are serious reasons for having an abortion that are not related to those extraordinary circumstances. But that’s not a decision that you can sleep on for 8 months.
As proponents of both sides will always hold their most extreme positions, I think the most reasonable compromise is to keep abortions legal through that embryonic phase, but only legal for health, etc., after that. It seems to me the best compromise, something with which no one will be happy.
moderninstances - 09:08pm on 08/08/2005
As proponents of both sides will always hold their most extreme positions...
You know what is amazing to me? That advocating for life is considered “extreme” by people like you.
Your other points were very well made.
likwidshoe - 10:08pm on 08/08/2005
You know what is amazing to me? That advocating for life is considered “extreme” by people like you.
“Extreme” in the sense that the ends of the spectrum are “abortions should be illegal” and “abortions should be legal.” Those are the two poles, and my point is that proponents of both sides are unlikely to abandon their core position. Perhaps there’s a better word for it than extreme. At some point a compromise is inevitable, and it seems to me that the embryonic/fetal shift is the most reasonable place. Now, this is not going to make proponents of the extremes (abortion should be illegal no matter what, abortion should be legal no matter what) unsatisfied, as it continues to be legal, which will make hard-core pro-lifers unhappy, but the embryonic/fetal point is fairly early in the prenancy, which will make the hard-core pro-choicers unhappy.
moderninstances - 04:08am on 08/09/2005
I’m pro-abortion-rights, but I would really like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. As a politician (or as a voter), I would vote to keep abortions legal, using my morals as a guide. But as judge, with the Constitution as my guide, I can’t find anything in there saying abortion is a Constitutional right.
So even though overturning Roe might lead to a decrease in abortion-rights (in some areas), I still think it would be the most fair solution to the problem.
My knowledge of what would happen after Roe is overturned is weak in one area: Would state legislators get to decide, or would all the state’s citizens get to vote on it?
No one said anything about eliminating PP, though it wouldn’t be a bad idea… PP’s mainstay is abortion, that’s where most of their money comes from.
’the organization aborted 138 babies for every adoption referral to an outside agency’
Remember that the next time anyone says that no one is really ‘pro abortion’
I don’t want to eliminate Planned Parenthood, just abortion. If Planned Parenthood could exist with the abortion part of their business I’d be ok with it. I just don’t think they could, since they’re pretty much all about abortions.
since they’re pretty much all about abortions.
200k abortions, how many clients? more than thirty times that...NOT all about abortions.
More than a third of their revenue is from abortion. Follow the money, simple/carl/whatever…
Good Post Likwid!
Look, the point of compromise is going to come out at the embryonic/fetal shift. The right is not going to abandon their position of pro-life, the left is not going to abandon their position of pro-choice. Eventually, after the right pulls one way and the left pulls the other, it’s going to end up being legal until 8-11 weeks, except for when the health of the mother is concerned, incest, extraordinary circumstances. The basic fact of human biological development is that there are several stages, from fertilized egg right on through to death. At those earliest stages, we are merely the raw material for human beings. And as I’ve argued in another post, I believe there are serious reasons for having an abortion that are not related to those extraordinary circumstances. But that’s not a decision that you can sleep on for 8 months.
As proponents of both sides will always hold their most extreme positions, I think the most reasonable compromise is to keep abortions legal through that embryonic phase, but only legal for health, etc., after that. It seems to me the best compromise, something with which no one will be happy.
As proponents of both sides will always hold their most extreme positions...
You know what is amazing to me? That advocating for life is considered “extreme” by people like you.
Your other points were very well made.
“Extreme” in the sense that the ends of the spectrum are “abortions should be illegal” and “abortions should be legal.” Those are the two poles, and my point is that proponents of both sides are unlikely to abandon their core position. Perhaps there’s a better word for it than extreme. At some point a compromise is inevitable, and it seems to me that the embryonic/fetal shift is the most reasonable place. Now, this is not going to make proponents of the extremes (abortion should be illegal no matter what, abortion should be legal no matter what) unsatisfied, as it continues to be legal, which will make hard-core pro-lifers unhappy, but the embryonic/fetal point is fairly early in the prenancy, which will make the hard-core pro-choicers unhappy.
I’m pro-abortion-rights, but I would really like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. As a politician (or as a voter), I would vote to keep abortions legal, using my morals as a guide. But as judge, with the Constitution as my guide, I can’t find anything in there saying abortion is a Constitutional right.
So even though overturning Roe might lead to a decrease in abortion-rights (in some areas), I still think it would be the most fair solution to the problem.
My knowledge of what would happen after Roe is overturned is weak in one area: Would state legislators get to decide, or would all the state’s citizens get to vote on it?