I posted this on FB:
One of the clinic’s abortionists is James Scott Pendergraft, a man who has reportedly lost his medical license five times in Florida. A deal like this doesn't happen every day.
B.R.: I've decided that every time I see you post about abortion, I'm going to donate $5 to Planned Parenthood.
Me: You never cease to amuse me. Many more abortion posts to follow.
Me: Your attempt to silence me is unseemly.
B.R.: What makes you think I want to silence you? On the contrary. Planned Parenthood needs money, and I make a good deal of it. Personally I wish you'd post about constructive ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but you're free to post about whatever you like.
Me: I'm glad. Maybe they can afford to hire competent doctors for a change.
B.R.: Do you have any documentation to support the claim that Planned Parenthood hires incompetent doctors?
Me: I don't want to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I want to prevent unwanted murders.
B.R.: Sooooooo put your effort toward preventing unwanted pregnancies... If people who don't want to have babies don't get pregnant, there won't be abortions. Am I wrong?
Me: Again, I don't want to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
B.R.: Even though that would prevent abortions?
Me: Yes, incompetent.
Abortion verdict: Will judge reverse Orange Circuit Court $36.7 million failed abortion verdict?
Me: Yes, incompetent: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/14/nyregion/doctor-with-revoked-license-is-arrested-in-abortion-case.html
Me: Yes, incompetent: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130530/HEALTH/305300097/Delaware-AG-files-complaint-against-former-Planned-Parenthood-abortion-doctor
Me: incompetent. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/20/ireland-abortion-death.html
Me: Incompetent. http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2013/03/18/miracle-baby-born-after-botched-abortion
Me: One must conclude that prochoice people would prefer to endanger women via abortion than to admit their shop of horrors.
B.R.: Rich... All but ONE of these articles have ZERO to do with Planned Parenthood. I googled more about Liverlight, and if those claims are true, that dude should be booted from medicine forever, if not tried and convicted for endangering his patients. However, you've done very little to show me that Planned Parenthood makes a habit of hiring incompetent doctors. Please don't make erroneous generalizations and false claims. As for what "one must conclude", there's no "must" about it. You clearly focus on what you choose to focus on, and conclude whatever you like.
Still... why don't you want to prevent unwanted pregnancies?
Me: Yeah, I noticed how you narrowed the subject matter to PP. A manipulative tactic that is frankly beneath you.
B.R.: I "narrowed" it in my very first comment. It's not beneath me at all. I approve of Planned Parenthood. I can't speak as to the quality of care at other abortion clinics, though I'm sure you're right that some of them have sub-par or even dangerous quality standards.
Planned Parenthood is a reliable and trusted source of care for women. You attacked their overall standards, and when evidence was requested, you provided unrelated sources with the exception of one individual related claim. That's your manipulative tactic, not mine. I admitted that this one PP doctor, if proven unsound, should be removed from the health care system. No one's in favor of malpractice or unsafe standards. But that one case does not condemn the entire organization, any more than a single faulty branch of a business chain would condemn the entire brand.
When you post about abortion, I'm not going to donate to any abortion services provider besides Planned Parenthood, because they've earned my respect and trust as an organization. I see from your posts that you don't want American women to be at risk when getting abortions. If that's the case, then I recommend you recognize Planned Parenthood as a safer and more reliable resource than other providers.
But all this is just a distraction from the larger point, which you still have not addressed: if the goal is to reduce the amount of abortions in America, then it would be more productive to put one's energy into preventing unwanted pregnancies than to focus on those abortion services providers with bad reputations. If you won't recognize the logic of preventing abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies, and you won't explain your reasoning for denying such logic, you leave me in total mystery as to what your actual priorities are in this arena.
Me: My post was about abortion, you posted about PP. I attacked abortion clinics. You defended PP. Therefore, you are the one artificially narrowing the spectrum in order to justify the alleged benefits of an organization you support.
If this was your thread, you could post any topic you want and reel me in. You have done just that more than once. Since it is mine, I reject your attempt to divert the topic to a subset of the general topic.
"Preventing unwanted pregnancies" is nothing more than a euphemism for free birth control, taxpayer subsidized abortions, and a plethora of government programs. It's never about the stated objective. As such, I have no interest in "preventing unwanted pregnancies." I reject the premise.
I really don't care how wonderful PP is. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another leftist organization suckling from the government teat, pretending to benefit women while advancing leftist causes. Breast exams and cervical examinations are nothing more than smokescreens to hide behind.
B.R.: You're rejecting so many facts, so much progress, and so many opportunities to reduce the number of abortions in this country, all in the name of what? Politically-focused negativity.
When I say "preventing unwanted pregnancies", I'm not talking about free birth control, taxpayer subsidized abortions, and a plethora of government programs, though the first one is actually pretty successful. Your words taste terrible in my mouth and I'd appreciate it if you stop putting them there. I was actually primarily thinking about sex education in public schools. But that's just MY first suggestion of solving a very very solvable problem. I'd be happy to discuss YOUR ideas on how American women and families could prevent unwanted pregnancies.
You could take even a minute to think of ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies that you DO approve of. But you won't! How can you claim to care about solving a problem when you reject every logical and realistic solution to do so???
Me: In addition, you did not threaten to give $5 every time I posted about PP, you threatened to do so every time I posted about abortion.
B.R.: Yep. I care about the health and safety of women.
Me: So any abortion chop shop is a good one.
Me: Listen, I know the rhetoric. I know that "preventing unwanted pregnancies" is a political phrase with a political agenda. That's the way it is used by the abortion lobby. I didn't see any evidence you were using it differently.
Apparently this means I "...reject every logical and realistic solution." EVERY. Do you see how you are manipulating the language to establish that only your solutions are the only logical and realistic ones?
B.R.: Alright, Rich. I don't work for a political lobby, as much as you treat me that way. But I'll bow to your preference for the sake of making my point.
Let's toss out all the solutions you and I have each listed. Let's really drop all the defensiveness about those words having inherent political meaning. Let's drop all the political meaning they evoke. Let's choose different words, words that mean virtually the same thing, but don't have a place in such deep neural pathways for either of us.
Lowering the amount of times that a girl or woman in America becomes pregnant without intending to.
Do you agree that it would lower the number of abortions in America if we (individually and/or collectively) found ways to lower the amount of times that a girl or woman in America becomes pregnant without intending to?
If not, why not?
If so, can you think of one or two ideas, efforts or solutions, individually or collectively, that you WOULD approve of, toward the goal of lowering the amount of times that a girl or woman in America becomes pregnant without intending to?
Me: I don't mean to offend you, but your use of language sometimes aggravates me. Too many people use language to manipulate and marginalize.
I'll concede that the Left actually wants fewer abortions, although the reasons for this aren't clear. Anyway. Let me answer by asking some questions. Was there a time in America when abortions were very low? What conditions contributed to that situation? Which of those conditions are absent today, and for what reason?
B.R.: It's alright, I understand having built-up expectations about canned phrases, but I'd like you to assume that there's substance to the terms I use, rather than assuming they're just campaign rhetoric or something. If you think I AM simply using empty language, please ask me to rephrase so you can see what I really mean. Or something.
I don't know the answers to those questions, sorry. Do you?
While I really want to return to constructiveness, I only want to continue this conversation if you'll answer the questions in my last Comment. Take however long you like.
Me: My questions are at the heart of what you are seeking. For many decades the abortion rate was very low, the rate of unwanted pregnancies was very low, and the rate of unwed mothers was very low.
E.S.: A woman's individual decision; not a man's, not another woman's, not ANYONE else's. Shut your pie holes unless you are the one who is pregnant.
B.R.: Rich - fine, if you're going to eschew, please explain and make your point. Why was the rate so low and how can this information actually answer my question?
Me: Sis, free speech is for everyone. Especially when it's about the important issues of the day.
Me: B.R., you were asking how o lower the number of abortions. We had lower abortions before. Don't you think it's worth exploring how to do again what was done before?
R.K.: E.S., you make the decision but, admit your KILLING a BABY. Don't sugar coat it using nice words like "choice". Look at the pic's of these poor babies, don't call them a blob of cells. Blobs don't have fingers, toes, eyes and ears. Make your "choice if you choose. Kill your baby and live with it.
B.R.: Rich - yeah, sure, so please, lead the way. Share your knowledge. C'mon. Make your point.
B.R.: R.K. - one delineation that truly matters in this discussion is the developmental line that divides fetus from human being. In my beliefs, and potentially in Eileen's, that line is drawn when the baby can survive outside the womb. Before that time, it is not yet a human being, and therefore not murder. Sad, traumatic, challenging to live with, and hopefully avoidable - but not murder. It is not a fruit, it is a seed. I see from your comment that you draw the "human being" line much earlier in the fetus' development, which is of course your right to believe. It's a tender and beautiful belief, but not one that all people share. I hope that this vital distinction helps you understand why pro-choice citizens don't feel the weight of murder when it comes to abortions - because to us, it is not an independent life form. It's not yet a person. It's still an internal process of the woman's body, and only that woman gets to decide what to do with her body.
Me: When life begins is not an individually selected opinion, it is a matter of medical science. Therefore, your criteria are arbitrary. "Surviving outside the womb" has no precedent in science or law for that matter.
Regarding your last sentence, "only that woman gets to decide what to do with her body," that is false on its face. No one anywhere has carte blanche power to do such a thing. There are helmet laws, anti-suicide laws, and anti-prostitution laws. One cannot sell one's organs. There are hundreds of things a person cannot do with their own body.
But none of this has to do with medical facilities, i.e., abortion chop shops, that are unsanitary, dangerous, and operated by incompetent doctors.
Me: If the goal is really to reduce unwanted pregnancies, we would have to have to abandon the hook-up culture, sex without consequences, and the casual view we have towards life. We would have to begin to value propagation in the context of families, and curtail no-fault divorce. We would need to reverse the destructive trend of single parent childbirth, especially in minority communities which are being devastated by poverty, disease, and lack of hope.
Many of the problems of society have manifested as a result of social engineering experiments in the name of compassion, the fall-out of 1960s radicals now holding the reins of power. Ironically, these people, who so hated "The Man," are "The Man" themselves.
B.R.: Rich - I want to hear more about these solutions: how do we encourage or enforce the abandonment of hook-up culture? what will take its place?
How do we reduce single parent childbirth?
My mind goes straight to governmental solutions, so rather than assume that's what you mean (haha), I'd like to know the HOW behind your ideas. I think we can find some common ground.
R.K.: B.R., please define "survive outside the womb". If I take a newborn put it in a box and "see if it survives" it would not. Your definition of survival assumes independent living (I assume) NO baby can survive without support. In or out of the womb. I just don't get the logic I wish it made sense to me, it would be so much easier. Look at the photos Rich posed. Your telling me these are not people? We can legally kill our kids. It's our right. Just call it what it is.
B.R.: Randie: thanks for asking. I mean that the fetus has become a human being once it has physically developed enough that it can sustain vital functions after being removed and disconnected from the womb. Not as in "independent from needing assistance from others"...haha even I'm not at that point! Does that make more sense?
Me: Randie, in other words, it's human whenever I decide it is.
B.R.: Um...we each decide when it is. Your definition is no better or more correct than mine.
Me: I have not offered a definition. I did say, "When life begins is not an individually selected opinion, it is a matter of medical science. Therefore, your criteria are arbitrary. "Surviving outside the womb" has no precedent in science or law for that matter."
That is without question better and more correct.
B.R.: Rich - fine, if you're going to eschew, please explain and make your point. Why was the rate so low and how can this information actually answer my question?
Me: Sis, free speech is for everyone. Especially when it's about the important issues of the day.
Me: B.R., you were asking how o lower the number of abortions. We had lower abortions before. Don't you think it's worth exploring how to do again what was done before?
R.K.: E.S., you make the decision but, admit your KILLING a BABY. Don't sugar coat it using nice words like "choice". Look at the pic's of these poor babies, don't call them a blob of cells. Blobs don't have fingers, toes, eyes and ears. Make your "choice if you choose. Kill your baby and live with it.
B.R.: Rich - yeah, sure, so please, lead the way. Share your knowledge. C'mon. Make your point.
B.R.: R.K. - one delineation that truly matters in this discussion is the developmental line that divides fetus from human being. In my beliefs, and potentially in Eileen's, that line is drawn when the baby can survive outside the womb. Before that time, it is not yet a human being, and therefore not murder. Sad, traumatic, challenging to live with, and hopefully avoidable - but not murder. It is not a fruit, it is a seed. I see from your comment that you draw the "human being" line much earlier in the fetus' development, which is of course your right to believe. It's a tender and beautiful belief, but not one that all people share. I hope that this vital distinction helps you understand why pro-choice citizens don't feel the weight of murder when it comes to abortions - because to us, it is not an independent life form. It's not yet a person. It's still an internal process of the woman's body, and only that woman gets to decide what to do with her body.
Me: When life begins is not an individually selected opinion, it is a matter of medical science. Therefore, your criteria are arbitrary. "Surviving outside the womb" has no precedent in science or law for that matter.
Regarding your last sentence, "only that woman gets to decide what to do with her body," that is false on its face. No one anywhere has carte blanche power to do such a thing. There are helmet laws, anti-suicide laws, and anti-prostitution laws. One cannot sell one's organs. There are hundreds of things a person cannot do with their own body.
But none of this has to do with medical facilities, i.e., abortion chop shops, that are unsanitary, dangerous, and operated by incompetent doctors.
Me: If the goal is really to reduce unwanted pregnancies, we would have to have to abandon the hook-up culture, sex without consequences, and the casual view we have towards life. We would have to begin to value propagation in the context of families, and curtail no-fault divorce. We would need to reverse the destructive trend of single parent childbirth, especially in minority communities which are being devastated by poverty, disease, and lack of hope.
Many of the problems of society have manifested as a result of social engineering experiments in the name of compassion, the fall-out of 1960s radicals now holding the reins of power. Ironically, these people, who so hated "The Man," are "The Man" themselves.
B.R.: Rich - I want to hear more about these solutions: how do we encourage or enforce the abandonment of hook-up culture? what will take its place?
How do we reduce single parent childbirth?
My mind goes straight to governmental solutions, so rather than assume that's what you mean (haha), I'd like to know the HOW behind your ideas. I think we can find some common ground.
R.K.: B.R., please define "survive outside the womb". If I take a newborn put it in a box and "see if it survives" it would not. Your definition of survival assumes independent living (I assume) NO baby can survive without support. In or out of the womb. I just don't get the logic I wish it made sense to me, it would be so much easier. Look at the photos Rich posed. Your telling me these are not people? We can legally kill our kids. It's our right. Just call it what it is.
B.R.: Randie: thanks for asking. I mean that the fetus has become a human being once it has physically developed enough that it can sustain vital functions after being removed and disconnected from the womb. Not as in "independent from needing assistance from others"...haha even I'm not at that point! Does that make more sense?
Me: Randie, in other words, it's human whenever I decide it is.
B.R.: Um...we each decide when it is. Your definition is no better or more correct than mine.
Me: I have not offered a definition. I did say, "When life begins is not an individually selected opinion, it is a matter of medical science. Therefore, your criteria are arbitrary. "Surviving outside the womb" has no precedent in science or law for that matter."
That is without question better and more correct.
No comments:
Post a Comment