« "This was an era of American greatness" | Main | Death Benefits, 2010 Edition »

Liars' Figures

The fight over federal funding for Planned Parenthood is getting interesting. First up, PP reports that, in the aftermath of the House Republicans' attempt to defund them, private donations are up 500%.

To which I say, good for them. I'm always in favor of Americans supporting the causes they believe in. In this case, I think it's even better that Planned Parenthood supporters are doing it out of their own pockets this time -- so maybe they can stop volunteering everyone's money. And if the donations are that much better, maybe Planned Parenthood can do without the federal subsidy.

Planned Parenthood is also fighting back on the PR front. They put out a "fact sheet" that says that abortion only represents 3% of the services they offer.

Others have looked at that report and pronounced it fishy. They say that Planned Parenthood is playing games with statistics -- they are bundling all visits related to an abortion as one "service," while un-bundling other types of visits to maximize the counts for non-abortion services.

I'll leave that up to others to analyze; I'll stick to what I do better -- raw numbers, statistics, and simple common sense.

according to PP's own fact sheet, they performed 324,008 abortions in 2010, which constituted 3% of the total 10,943,609 services they provide. Yup, that adds up. So far, so good.

Now, let's look at some of those other numbers.

Under "contraception," they list "Reversible Contraception Clients, Women" at 2,263,776 services, while "Reversible Contraception Clients, Men" at 109,823.

For men, there is exactly one "reversible contraception" method -- condoms. So on 109,823 occasions last year, they gave condoms to a guy who asked for them. Big deal there.

For the women, though, there are a lot of options in that area. PP provides a handy little breakdown of those options. "Non-prescription  Barrier" -- condoms again -- made up 17.3% of the total, and "No Method" another 10%. So 27% of that 2.26 million of "services" added up to "here, have some condoms" or nothing.

Now let's put some actual numbers in there in place of percentages. The original count of "Reversible Contraception Clients, Women" was 2,263,776. I just discounted 27.3% of that total, so let's multiply that 2,263,776 times 27.3%, and we just took 618,011 "services" off that count. Take away the 109,823 men's visits as well, and that 10.9 million count goes down to 10.2 million.

That's a good start.

Now, let's look at those abortion figures. Let's assume that each abortion is is coupled with a pregnancy test -- a fair assumption, I believe. Under Planned Parenthood rules, that test is  counted as "Other Women's Health Services." I say we bundle it with the abortion -- I think that it is a kind of important part of the process -- and knock off another 324,000 from that total. We're now down to 9.9 million services (9.891,767, for those using your own calculators.)

Let's take another look at another big number there: STI/STD Testing And Treatment.

STI Procedures, Women And Men: 3,272,264
HIV Testing Procedures, Women: 324,671
HIV Testing Procedures, Men: 95,562
HIV Testing Procedures, Gender Not Reported: 28,839
Total: 3,721,336
First up, last time I checked, HIV was an STI, so I suspect there's some double-counting there. Further, it's my understanding that clinics routinely test for several of the most common STIs all at once, so one test suffices for syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and a couple of others.

Since Planned Parenthood is into "bundling" in some cases, let's do the same here. One testing panel, one count. Further, a lot of these "treatments" involve a quick shot and a stern lecture, so we'll "bundle" those with the initial test. Just to pull a number out of my butt (which is NOT a symptom of an STI, wise guys), let's knock 25% off the total and I've just lopped another 930,334 off that bottom number.

Time for a quick summary:

Planned Parenthood's original claim of "services provided:" 10,943,609
Number discounted by applying "Jay Tea Logic:" 1,658,168
Adjusted number of services provided: 9,285,441

Adjusted percentage of abortions vs. total number of "services provided:" 3.49%.

And folks, that was just about half an hour of work on my part, while distracted and not even giving it my full attention.

I think it would be even more enlightening to see how abortion ranks in Planned Parenthood's financial standings. How much revenue the average abortion nets them, then multiply that out and see how much that makes up of their total budget.

But those numbers aren't listed in their fact sheet. Only the raw numbers, which literally equate one abortion with giving nothing to a visitor there to discuss contraception.

Planned Parenthood has some rather interesting ways of counting... but if they really want to keep their true numbers secret, they're going to have find some better liars.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41421.

Comments (108)

I am against abortion and d... (Below threshold)
retired military:

I am against abortion and dont think the federal govt (or any govt) has any business paying for them.

My feelings aside at the least abortions are not a nescessary medical procedure therefore they are optional.

Since we are running $14 trillion in debt it is obvious at least to me that all optional things should be cut from the budget. Planned parenthood is one of those optional things. Of coures the dems that receive election contributions from them would disagree. Election contributions are optional. No company should receive govt funding when it does election contributions.

PP also does adverstising. Why is the US govt funding going towards advertising? Again. Another reason why all OPTIONAL expenditures should be cut from a budget when we are so deeply in debt.

Have to start cutting somewhere. This seems lke a good place to start.

I am sure that almost all o... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I am sure that almost all of PP numbers are skewed. But even if just one baby was terminated by the organization would be too much. It amazes me how cavalier women and some men are on this subject. Equal to "taking out the trash". ww

Hmmmmmm....Aren't ... (Below threshold)

Hmmmmmm....

Aren't most of these service covered under ObamaCare?

Oooooooooh. I know. It's abortion that's not covered under ObamaCare.

Planned Abortionhoood performs an abortion every 95 seconds.

For what it's worth, there ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

For what it's worth, there are 'reversible' vasectomies. You get a valve installed...

Actually, a pair of 'em...

And just have the doctor get out an appropriate wrench to open the valves when it's time...

Of course, you COULD go the 'remote control' route. Just make sure you know where the remote is!

Number foo, not good. The P... (Below threshold)
Woop:

Number foo, not good. The PP numbers add up and are correct.

You can just throw away statistics and data because they don't add up they way you want them too. Isn't that what the liars on the right accused climate scientists of doing before you guys were proven wrong there too?

At least you got the title right!

BTw, if the donations are u... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

BTw, if the donations are up 500%, seems to me like it's something that doesn't need to be funded by government - as there's enough folks willing to pay for it.

I think that's a great model, by the way, for a lot of the non-core responsibilities that the government's glommed onto in the last few decades. That and a solid examination of "what results did we get for our money" might end up with a lot of things which don't seem to be paying their way defunded.

Woop, it's "number fu." And... (Below threshold)

Woop, it's "number fu." And you don't get to just say "they got it right, you don't."

I spelled out exactly what adjustments I made and why. I "showed my work." You wanna tell me where you disagree with my assumptions and conclusions? Point out my mistakes?

I'm going to assume not. You've never shown any signs of actual brainpower, just a gift for flinging your own shit that is positively simian.

J.

Jay, using you own math you... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Jay, using you own math you caclulated an additional 1/2 percent. And your calling them liars? Thats too funny.

Tina, until I can see their... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Tina, until I can see their methodology in compiling their "statistics" I am certainly not inclined to blindly believe their figures. Knowing what we know about the way they operate, you shouldn't either. But hey...

Tina, unlike PP, I "showed ... (Below threshold)

Tina, unlike PP, I "showed my work" and spelled out exactly what I did at every step. You wanna challenge any of it? Be my guest. I extend to you the same challenge I gave Woop -- find my mistakes and point them out, or STFU. It's really no great surprise that you're both willing to swallow PP's numbers at face value, so you don't really need to tell us that.

J.

And folks, that was just... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

And folks, that was just about half an hour of work on my part, while distracted and not even giving it my full attention.

After spending half an hour intent on discrediting planned parent hood statistics you were only able to come up with a negligble difference. Why did you even bother writing about it?

Jay, it aint worth challeng... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Jay, it aint worth challenging a 0.49% differnce. Either way abortions make up only a very tiny part of what Planned Parenthood is about.

Tina S, I spent a negligibl... (Below threshold)

Tina S, I spent a negligible amount of time, and came to the conclusion that PP had understated their figures by over 16%. That makes me wonder what some real work, by professionals with access to the source data, could come up with.

Too bad you're not intellectually curious enough to wonder about it, too.

J.

"Why did you even bother wr... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Why did you even bother writing about it?"

Uh, would that be to show - with just superficial work of just 30 minutes - the possibility that PP is cooking it's figures to justify why abortions are a "minor" part of PP's operations.

Reminds me of the local 'grocery' store fighting complaints from neighbors. Seems the 'grocery' stores primary income receipts were from LIQUOR SALES (72%). Store owners stated that only 4% of their shelf space was devoted to liquor.

"Tina S, I spent a negli... (Below threshold)
Woop:

"Tina S, I spent a negligible amount of time, and came to the conclusion that PP had understated their figures by over 16%."

And you did so by just throwing away dat and stats.

LOL. It's funny how the right whines like little babies about climate scientist fudging data and then you come up with this gross distortion of the facts by merely just throwing data away because you decided it doesn't count.

Somebody forgot flush......... (Below threshold)
914:

Somebody forgot flush......There's still some Wooop in the toilette.

Store owners stated that... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Store owners stated that only 4% of their shelf space was devoted to liquor.

But that was a busy 4%!

Just one fact to devastate ... (Below threshold)

Just one fact to devastate Woop's "throwing away dat (sic) and stats."

Planned Parenthood counted as "Reversible Contraception Clients" over 226,000 women that were given NO contraception whatsoever. That's straight from their own report, obvious to anyone who can read.

Whoops, I think I just figured out why Woop never makes sense, with that one little flawed assumption...

J.

Planned non Parenthood and ... (Below threshold)
914:

Planned non Parenthood and their pimps in D.C. really have a neat little scam going it appears.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if another perk of this is assigning the dearly departed fetuses names and registering them to vote Demoncrat.

Pearls of wisdom from the l... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

Pearls of wisdom from the left:

Obama's not a socialist. Abortion is only a tiny part of what Planned Parenthood does.
Global warming will kill us all.

How do you have a rational discussion with crazy people?

Let's see, conservatives kn... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Let's see, conservatives knew the climate control freaks were cooking the books and their own scientists came forward with that knowledge.

JT uses PP statistics and raise a legitimate point but the liberal thinkers here (just kidding on the last part) conflate the two. Only in their delusional world.

Tina S. is a firm "kill the damn baby" member. I wonder if her mother would have made the choice? ww

I think this a great start.... (Below threshold)
Howie:

I think this a great start. What I would like to see is the hours spent on each procedure they list; what consists of each procedure (does the pregancy tests, STD checks, etc. come with having an aborition); and what percent of money goes to each procedure.

I would think that providing "no service" and handing out condoms would cost very little (i.e. percent of the hourly wage for the employee, operating cost of the facility, and supplies, i.e. condoms) is much less than performing an aborition. Their 27% of services for condoms and nothing HAS to be less money than the 3% of aboritions.

Tina "Jay, it aint... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Tina

"Jay, it aint worth challenging a 0.49% differnce"

No just worth the time to mention it to Jay Tea to try to discount his post

Tina, unlike PP, I "show... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Tina, unlike PP, I "showed my work" and spelled out exactly what I did at every step.

The problem is all your work based on assumptions and pulling numbers out of your butt. Thats not real work. You haven't proven anything.

Tina-"The problem ... (Below threshold)
914:

Tina-

"The problem is all your work based on assumptions and pulling numbers out of your butt. Thats not real work. You haven't proven anything."


He proved that you will defend the indefensible.

Well, Tina S, lets see your... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Well, Tina S, lets see your work......

Not going to hold my breath.

"Isn't that what the liars ... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

"Isn't that what the liars on the right accused climate scientists of doing before you guys were proven wrong there too?"

Now Woop gets to show exactly where the climate scientists (who were cooking their figures) were proven correct.

C'mon, Woop - let's have some links!

Speaking as an accountant, ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Speaking as an accountant, Tina, intentionally mis-stating incomes and sources is not only a GAAP violation, which no auditor would certify, but in the case of public companies would be a federal crime. Therefore, PP's official books would have to use different definitions and state different contribution sources than their public release here.


So yes, Jay has proven a significant, and material, disparity.

DJ, the problem is that Jay... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

DJ, the problem is that Jay did not prove there was any mis-stating of incomes. If Jay's assumptions are true than perhaps they did misstate income. But all Jay did was make a bunch of assumptions without backing them up. Nothing was proven. It's like all Jay has to do is get you guys riled up and the thinking part of your brain shuts down.

Tina: "Jay did not prov... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Tina: "Jay did not prove there was any mis-stating of incomes"

Yes he did, Tina. Go back and have someone who graduated from high school read it to you.

Just as additional reasons ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Just as additional reasons how I know Jay is correct, Tina, I worked in healthcare as an auditor for 5 years. I was very familiar with ICD-9 codes and medical billing. Separating bundled medical tests for billing purposes is prima facia fraud. That is, if Planned Parenthood billed anyone for STI tests and treatment in the same way they presented in the media release, they would be liable to suit and prosecution from both state and federal authorities. I seriously doubt that PP actually billed that way, but the media presentation is undeniably false and misleading.

The only valid point for discussion is their motive for this dishonesty.

DJ, I gotta stick up for Ti... (Below threshold)

DJ, I gotta stick up for Tina just one tiny bit. I proved a mis-stating of statistics, not incomes.

I ain't said nothing about their income, 'cuz I know my limitations. I'll leave that up to folks who do know that kind of stuff -- like you.

But I'm pretty damned good at looking at these kinds of reports, spotting the weasel words, and finding the BS there.

My secret? I look for the asterisks and footnotes and fine print FIRST. Read them, then go back and see how they're applied after -- that usually gives it away.

J.

Nope, Tina's still full of ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Nope, Tina's still full of woop-poop, Jay. Since PP was discussing medical treatments, that ties to their accounts.

You mentioned that you start with asterisks and loopholes, but the IRS and forensic auditors start with income sources. Revenue recognition, source identification, root cost analysis, these are all fancy terms which all come back to how you explain your money, taken in and spent. Since PP was trying to explain away abortion as a significant source of revenue or costs, the veracity of their statistics is material to their financial statements. Disparity between the descriptions in their tax statements and their public media releases would be considered a 'red flag', and could provoke a federal audit, especially since PP receives federal funding. The choice of splitting bundled medical procedures is especially unwise, as it's an obviously deceptive behavior, and while not directly connected to the organization's tax filing, a reasonable mind could wonder 'what else are they lying about?' and launch an audit on that basis. That reasoning is actually fairly common in tax enforcement.

That's what makes me laugh.... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

That's what makes me laugh.. 3% of the services. A real # or not, it tells you nothing about the cost or profits tied to that 3%.
my mortgage payment is only 5% of the bills I pay most months... but it not 5% of the money going to those bills.
Just as my paycheck is 1/3 of the income sources supporting my household, it is not 1/3 of the income. :)

So the issue for the libera... (Below threshold)
John:

So the issue for the liberals is .49% variance in Jay's number not the fact that a country that is broke and borrowing money like a drunken sailor is paying for abortions? Is that how our tax dollars should be spent? Are you all interested in taking on a tax increase to sustain that spending? I could care less if a woman wants an abortion, I just don't think it should be on the tax payers dime.

DJ"Tina's still fu... (Below threshold)
retired military:

DJ

"Tina's still full of woop-poop, Jay"

Well that is the greatest understatement since Noah said "it looks like rain"

You can take the woop out o... (Below threshold)
914:

You can take the woop out of the poop, but you can't take the poop out of the woop.

What "profits" are you refe... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

What "profits" are you referring to, SCSI?

Planned Parenthood does a hell of a lot of work preventing unwanted pregnancies. This leads to fewer abortions.

John: yes, a country experiencing fiscal difficulties should absolutely take legal steps towards limiting the growth of the population when unemployment is already unsustainably high and the safety net is strained to the point of collapse. An abortion costs taxpayers less than a person on social assistance or in prison. Not all terminated pregnancies would otherwise result in a dysfunctional member of society, of course, but statistically speaking it's more likely.

"a country experiencing ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

"a country experiencing fiscal difficulties should absolutely take legal steps towards limiting the growth of the population when unemployment is already unsustainably high and the safety net is strained to the point of collapse. Executing all convicted criminals and drug users costs taxpayers less than a person on social assistance or in prison. Not all executed prisoners are actually guilty of their crimes or a real threat to society of society, of course, but statistically speaking it's more likely".

Does that help illuminate the moral failure of the 'abortion does good' argument?

Unserious questions don't d... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Unserious questions don't deserve serious answers, but anyway: no, because it's a violation of the law and of inviolable human rights.

Abortion is legal; executing drug dealers is not. Drug dealers are person; fetuses are not. A 17-year-old girl is not a fit single mother, and, if her child is born into poverty, the chances of that child being an unproductive--or counter-productive--member of society are vastly greater. Cyclical poverty and all that.

Ensuring that the economically destitute have access to modern reproductive technologies and safe, legal abortions is in no way analogous to executing petty criminals to save tax dollars. Even if your attempt at a Swiftian reductio ad absurdum was germane and/or interesting, one could counter in all seriousness that executions actually cost a lot more than putting people in jail for the rest of their lives.

Hype: 'Executing murder... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Hype: 'Executing murderers is 'murder', while killing babies is OK.' (paraphrased)

Hate, lies, and hypocrisy: Liberalism in a nutshell.

We already knew that, though.

Planned Parenthood does ... (Below threshold)

Planned Parenthood does a hell of a lot of work preventing unwanted pregnancies. This leads to fewer abortions.

Good theory, hyper. Sadly, like so many theories, it's utterly crushed by reality. Reality such as in my companion piece:

That number shows an increase of 34,358 more abortions in four years, or a percentage increase of 11.86%. In the same time, the US population rose from 298,431,771 to 309,050,816 -- a percentage increase of 3.56%. So the abortion rate rose at roughly 3.3 times the rate of population.

The relevant numbers are 289,650 in 2006, 324,008 last year.

Abortion numbers from Planned Parenthood's own reports (who seem to change their format every year), and the US Census Bureau.

J.

Hype: "Drug dealers are... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Hype: "Drug dealers are person; fetuses are not"

Drug dealers are criminals, fetuses are innocents.

If you cannot grasp this simple fact, then you have no soul.

Abortion isn't murder, DJ. ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Abortion isn't murder, DJ. I hope that someday you might find that portal to an alternate reality where men are forever entitled to tell women what they can and cannot do with their wombs, but short of moving to some backwater Third World hell-hole--or Ireland--you'll have to live with the fact that abortion is legal.

Jay Tea, that's neither here nor there. The number of abortions could have gone up 10,000% and that would not make an iota of difference as to whether Planned Parenthood should continue doing what it does--which is, chiefly, contraception, and secondarily, abortion.

You sure love that word, hy... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

You sure love that word, hype - "Legal". Problem is, "legal" does not equal "right":

In Germany 1942, it was legal to kill people for being Jewish.

In Russia 1962, it was legal to send someone to prison for being gay.

I could go on, but even you - soul-dead as you obviously are, should begin to get that slow, nagging concern that doing the right thing might matter at some point.

Whether abortion is murder may be argued as a legal point, but it's definitely the deliberate killing of an innocent. You can pretend that's not true, but you can't make it right by trying to play around the truth.

What you're advocating here... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

What you're advocating here, Hyper, is called eugenics. Are you aware of that?

I appreciate you being honest and open about that though. I wish more leftists were. Instead they use outrageous lies, like calling it "choice" or "reproductive rights", or "women's health care".

Sorry, should have been mor... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Sorry, should have been more clear: Planned Parenthood's work in the area of contraceptions reduces the number of abortions. That means that if there are more abortions this year than last, there would have been EVEN MORE if PP were denied federal funds.

If you don't like abortion, a) don't have one, and b) support Planned Parenthood.

Hype: "Planned Parentho... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Hype: "Planned Parenthood's work in the area of contraceptions reduces the number of abortions"

The technical term for that statement is "lie".

"Planned Parenthood shou... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

"Planned Parenthood should continue doing what it does--which is, chiefly, contraception, and secondarily, abortion.

And McDonalds should continue doing what it does, which is, cheifly, building recreation areas for children, and secondarily, selling burgers.

"If you don't like abort... (Below threshold)
Clarity:

"If you don't like abortion, a) don't have one, and b) don't let your tax money pay for them."


fify. You're welcome.

"Legal" does not equal "rig... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

"Legal" does not equal "right". No shit.

Women, however, are persons, and personhood entails a certain inviolability. Fetuses are not persons, in the eyes of the law nor in the courts of contemporary bioethicists. How about you try and make the argument that the State has jurisdiction over the inside of a woman's uterus, DJ? OMG WHY DO YOU HATE WOMEN YOU MONSTER?! (See how stupid and childish it is to resort to shrill emotional appeals on this topic?)

PBunynan, I'm not advocating for abortion. I'm saying that a corollary of denying women their reproductive freedom will result in more children born into horrendous social circumstances. I don't think that abortion services should be marketed to any particular demographic, and find that practice to be repugnant and something akin to eugenics; what I believe is that poor people should have guaranteed access to the same reproductive services as those who can afford private medical coverage. And yes, I think you should have to pay for that right to be upheld.

hyper, stop hyperventilatin... (Below threshold)

hyper, stop hyperventilating.

I didn't say "make abortion illegal."

I didn't say "shut down Planned Parenthood."

I didn't even say "defund Planned Parenthood." (Although I will cop to believing in that one.)

I simply pointed out "this is what they are doing, partly with our money."

The inference being, "maybe we should find better things to do with our money."

So you can chill your hysteria.

J.

DJ, in order for your accus... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

DJ, in order for your accusation in comment #48--that I'm a liar--to hold any water, you would have to know for a fact that if Planned Parenthood's contraceptive services were discontinued, the number of abortions would decrease.

You don't know that. Now I'm not going to call you a liar, but I won't hesitate to point out that you're being obstinate and condescending.

If PP were to stop offering contraceptive services, there would be more unwanted pregnancies. That is a fact. And it's also a fact that one or more of those unwanted pregnancies would be aborted. So to say that PP's contraceptive services reduces the number of abortions is in fact accurate, so long as we're willing to accept (and I think we ought to) that if PP were to no longer provide abortions, women would go elsewhere.

Ah. Hyperliar insists he's... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Ah. Hyperliar insists he's right, I see. A few problems still get in your way, boyo:

1. Killing fetuses is still killing an innocent - I never say you couldn't do it, but if you do, be honest enough to face what you are really doing. No fetus in history has ever been guilty of so much as an unkind word, let alone crime or violence. Killing a fetus kills an innocent being.

2. I never demanded control over anyone's body - I simply refuse to pay for a moral wrong with my tax dollars.

3. A fetus is a person - oh yes, I hear you screaming in outrage already, but I and my wife heard and felt our daughter react to our touch and voices while she was in the womb - and no human fetus that was born ever turned out to be anything but human. Killing a human fetus is killing a human being.

4. The law is not a moral defense - Rosa Parks broke the law when she refused to move to the back of the bus. Frederick Douglass broke the law when he escaped from slavery. The Founding Fathers of the United States broke the law when they rebelled against King George the Third and Parliament. And so on, and so on. Sometimes the law is wrong, and while I may be compelled to obey the law, I am NEVER obliged to applaud injustice.

Abortion may be legal. But you cannot defend it morally. If Planned Parenthood were a group that took no tax money, I would not approve of them but would have no reason to want them shut down. They would be, in my mind, no worse than casinos, strip clubs, or union halls. But it's something else to demand I give tax money to something evil and wrong.

"Fetuses are not persons"<b... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"Fetuses are not persons"

Even though previously (a few months back) Hyper stated that there was good reasons to argue otherwise.


"OMG WHY DO YOU HATE WOMEN YOU MONSTER"

Says the man who has no problems killing a million unborn children a year.

"I'm not advocating for abortion"

Excuse me why I clean the coke I spit all over my screen when I read this.


"I don't think that abortion services should be marketed to any particular demographic, and find that practice to be repugnant and something akin to eugenics"

But never ever ever try to cut funding to Planned Parenthood who spends millions marketing and providing election campaign donations to dems for the sole purpose of keeping the abortions coming.

"Fetuses are not persons, in the eyes of the law "

But if you cause a pregnant women to miscarry you can get charged with at least manslaughter in some states.


Liar H: "If PP were to ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Liar H: "If PP were to stop offering contraceptive services, there would be more unwanted pregnancies. That is a fact."

No Hype, that's just your opinion. PP is and never was the only place where contraception was available, and the ONLY available data - ironically supplied in part by PP itself - shows abortions rising far above the pace of population growth. Abortion is an industry, and as such it not only provides a product but also markets it. As long as PP and similar groups make money off abortions, they will continue to sell them to their clients - the very women you feebly pretend to care so much for.

Hyper" How about y... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Hyper

" How about you try and make the argument that the State has jurisdiction over the inside of a woman's uterus, DJ?"

Well if a woman takes drugs then it is illegal,so the state is telling her what to do with her body.

Well if a woman cuts off her arm then the state will take action against her so the state is telling here whaat to do with her body.

Well if a woman attempts suicide then the state will take action against her so the state is telling here whaat to do with her body.

Well if a woman is a prostitute (outside of certain parts of Nevada) she will get arrested so then the state will take action against her so the state is telling here whaat to do with her body.

Well if a woman walks around naked outside in most areas of the country she will get arrested so then the state will take action against her so the state is telling here whaat to do with her body.


HyperYou are from ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Hyper

You are from Canada. Just exactly why do you care if abortion is legal in the US or not? And why are you sharing your ideas here where umm noone really wants to read them.

From their most recent repo... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

From their most recent report (2007-2008) Planned Parenthood stated 12% of their clients received abortion services. Elsewhere in their report they stated 3 million clients were served here in the United States.

Hum! Let me see, 12% of 3,000,000? Why, that's a mere 360,000 future people (if the left can talk about a "fetus" or a "blob of cells" I can refer to a future human) destroyed. That's right, destroyed!

Now, shall we talk about the meaning of the term "health of the mother"? I'm conservatarian, I still believe that any decision, if one is to be made, rests with the mother and the father with the support of their clergy. But I know that Planned Parenthood does not operate within those strictures. I have a problem with that.

"DJ, in order for your accu... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"DJ, in order for your accusation in comment #48--that I'm a liar--to hold any water, you would have to know for a fact that if Planned Parenthood's contraceptive services were discontinued, the number of abortions would decrease.

"

Whereas Hyper has absolutely no problem asserting the opposite is a fact.

He holds DJ to a standard he cannot fulfill himself. THis is natural and common for folks on theleft.


A simple solution would be ... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

A simple solution would be for the Republicans to leave that money in the budget, but put a restriction on it-- that it cannot go to any organization that performs abortions, only to organizations that only provide those other "woman's health care" services.

If they Dems oppose that (which they surely will) then that would once and for all prove they've been lying all along.

"I don't think that abor... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

"I don't think that abortion services should be marketed to any particular demographic, and find that practice to be repugnant and something akin to eugenics"

And yet over 70% of abortions in this country are performed on African American babies. The only Planned Parenthood offices in the 3 counties in which I work are in predominantly African American neighborhoods.

How foolish of me to think that they're "marketing to a particular demographic". Yeah, right Hyper, Planned Parenthood is not into eugenics. It's all just a coincidence.

Killing fetuses is still ki... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Killing fetuses is still killing an innocent if and only if one can make the case that a fetus is a person in the meta-ethical sense of the word, otherwise that's incoherent. Guilt and innocence cannot be proscribed to non-persons.

As for not wanting the state to claim jurisdiction over a woman's uterus, you are in fact making that claim if you think that fetuses are "innocent", which would imply that they are "persons", which would imply that in your view abortion is, in fact, something that the state ought to actively prevent.

Fetuses are not persons. They are human, sure, but persons are the objects of our moral consideration, and they don't meet the criteria. It would be strange if you didn't have an overwhelming emotional response to feeling your unborn child react to your words, but personhood is a higher threshold than 'resembling a baby, capable of invoking joy'.

Having divergent moral convictions from your own doesn't make someone a liar. I know you know that, so obviously you're just electing to be an obtuse asshole for the sake of it. That's cool, I've been there. Can't have a good day every day.

RM: a few things:

-Yes, there are good reasons to think of a fetus as a person, but I find reasons to the contrary more compelling--i.e., persons are, or have been, autonomous.

-There are good moral and legal reasons to distinguish between a woman terminating an unwanted pregnancy, and someone killing someone's unborn baby.

-I'm not advocating for abortion. Ideally, the number of abortions performed would be zero. Realistically, there will be many more than that, and insofar as it's legal and worthwhile in most cases, I think poor people should have access to it (and so taxpayers should incur the cost).

-If PP donates to the Democratic Party--and I'm sure they do, and I don't care one way or the other--they do so because the GOP would cut their funding. What, is that meant to be a revelation or something?

Well PBunyan, the Planned P... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Well PBunyan, the Planned Parenthood website offers a downloadable .pdf titled "Margaret Sanger — 20th Century Hero".

Yes, the chances of single ... (Below threshold)
Howie:

Yes, the chances of single mother having a child whose father leaves increases the chance of that the child being an unproductive adult.

Just look at President Obama.

Planned Parenthood's Missio... (Below threshold)
Howie:

Planned Parenthood's Mission Statement: can someone tell me how aborition equates in this?

Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Mission Statement: A Reason for Being

Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual's income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence. We believe that respect and value for diversity in all aspects of our organization are essential to our well-being. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual's right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life and strong family relationships.

Based on these beliefs, and reflecting the diverse communities within which we operate, the mission of Planned Parenthood is

to provide comprehensive reproductive and complementary health care services in settings which preserve and protect the essential privacy and rights of each individual

to advocate public policies which guarantee these rights and ensure access to such services

to provide educational programs which enhance understanding of individual and societal implications of human sexuality

to promote research and the advancement of technology in reproductive health care and encourage understanding of their inherent bioethical, behavioral, and social implications

Easy, Howie.<blockquo... (Below threshold)
Woop:

Easy, Howie.

to provide comprehensive reproductive and complementary health care services in settings which preserve and protect the essential privacy and rights of each individual
RM: let me get this straigh... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

RM: let me get this straight: you would prefer to read a blog where everybody holds the same beliefs as you? You would prefer to not read anything contrary to your own opinion? That's called conceptual circle-jerking and it's insular and boring. It's why I don't waste time in comment threads on liberal blogs.

And I will assume that you aren't so narrow-minded as to have a problem with someone from another country offering you a perspective that you might not otherwise get? If someone from Germany tells me something about the way municipal politics works in Toronto, it's helpful in ensuring that my views are more informed. Anyone who takes offense at an "outsider" offering them their opinion is incredibly insecure in their beliefs and values.

DJ: abortions are increasing because poverty and the gap between rich and poor are also on the rise. Blame Obama, blame Bush, blame Goldman Sachs--I don't care--but it's not as though PP are going door to door, offering to kill fetuses. Demand is on the rise because the circumstances that promulgate abortion are worsening. Republican congressmonsters have decided that America is fucked--that "the greatest country on Earth" is doomed--if they don't really put the screws to the underclass. And so there will be many more abortions in the future.

And do elaborate what you mean by "making money" off of abortions. If you mean that the doctors, nurses and admin staff in their clinics are paid for what they do: well, duh.

Howie: if you're holding up an example of one person from a single parent household defying the odds to go on and enjoy a wildly successful life as evidence that poverty does not begat poverty, then you are to be ignored.

Hyper: "Fetuses are not... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Hyper: "Fetuses are not persons. They are human, sure, but persons are the objects of our moral consideration, and they don't meet the criteria"

Himmler, Stalin, Mao and Jack the Ripper doubtless thought along similar lines. Simply substitute "Jews", "business owners", "intellectuals", or "prostitutes" for "fetus" as the focus demographic.

Hyper, you are apparently a... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Hyper, you are apparently an expert on the topic: what defines a person as opposed to a human?

Hyper"let me get t... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Hyper

"let me get this straight: you would prefer to read a blog where everybody holds the same beliefs as you"

Oh I dont mind other people's opinions. It is just the rabidness which you defend abortion in this country when it isnt umm your country.

I dont go to canadian blogs and bloviate about how I think their health care sucks ass. Nor do I pounce on every post on a canadian blog dealing with health care and state unequiviocally that the Canadian health care system is responsible for deaths and health care should only be done without the govt intruding.

Jews and Ukrainians and gay... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Jews and Ukrainians and gays and those with Trisomy 21 are persons. Foetuses are not. They are human, by virtue of identical genetic content, but persons are moral agents. Assigning the same rights or moral considerations to fetuses because they are the same species as us is lazy and shallow. Your position may have something to do with when a 'soul' is instantiated in the world, but I don't think there is such a thing as souls and the law (and bioethics) is indifferent to the concept.

Comparing pro-choice individuals to historical monsters and notorious psychopaths shows that you aren't really making an effort to have a serious discussion. That sort of rhetoric will only serve to make people who are uncommitted in this debate (if there are any people such as that) palpably uncomfortable with your pro-life position, by virtue of being associated with people who make such laughable comparisons.

Also hyper I see your champ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Also hyper I see your championing of all things abortion as disturbing morally. Not that I am trying to push my morals on you but saying that your morals seem lacking at least in this area. Your insistance that unborn children arent human beings is just IMO astonishing especially since you stated in another thread a few months back that there was good reason to believe they were.
You willingness to allow others to maim themselves if they want to is also indicative of something I dont want to even think about.

And your feeling that it should be legal for doctors to kill newborns under certain circumstances is again very disturbing at least to me.
To put it bluntly I find you a highly disturbed individual who has a fascination with abortion and ensuring that it is fully available to anyone , anytime, anywhere no matter what.

Hyperliar: "Comparing p... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Hyperliar: "Comparing pro-choice individuals to historical monsters and notorious psychopaths shows that you aren't really making an effort to have a serious discussion"

Let's be clear. I never said a person was a monster for being 'pro-choice'. I simply observed that your stated opinion is in direct alignment with the known views of some of history's most monstrous psychopaths.

Deal with it.

"That sort of rhetoric will... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"That sort of rhetoric will only serve to make people who are uncommitted in this debate (if there are any people such as that) palpably uncomfortable with your pro-life position, by virtue of being associated with people who make such laughable comparisons.

"

Yet you have no problem at all with the killing of 30 million unborn children since roe v wade. Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini would be proud.

SCSI: a person is an entity... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

SCSI: a person is an entity that has the capacity for rationally engaging with their environment and with other minds.

I'll save retired_military the trouble of pointing out that yes, this does mean that babies aren't persons. I wouldn't suggest, though, that killing babies and infants ought to be permitted. There are lots of things that are legally protected that lack the capacity for rational action: paintings and sculptures; endangered fish; protected forests...

Complex and muddy, to be sure, but if moral philosophy was easy Aristotle would have gotten it all right and nobody would have had to write anything further on the subject.

RM: you would be welcome to do that if you wanted to, and you would be derided, as I frequently am. Nobody is stopping you. It's actually fun, if you have a combative personality.

"I wouldn't suggest, though... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"I wouldn't suggest, though, that killing babies and infants ought to be permitted. "

You have done that on this board. And you were stating that about newborns and notn unborn.

In a way, I have to thank H... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

In a way, I have to thank Hyperbolist, his lies, dishonesty and hatred included. His behavior in this thread very aptly illustrates the mindset and vicious ambitions of the Left.

All too often, we forget that there would have been no Hitler, save for millions of people willing to embrace the devil himself to get a few of their most cherished hatreds set into action. There would have been no Lenin, save that millions of people were eager to go beyond righting wrongs, and to take vengeance on anyone they saw as privileged and siucecssful. There would have been no Manson, save for his followers and yes, we now see the true malice of the Left for what it is, that a racist institution can murder literally millions of children just for convenience, and the perverted belief that if they had been allowed to live, they would not have been useful or prodcutive people. They were, as Hyperbolist insists, 'not really people'.

And yet these same people will heartily declare that we are racists for catching them out in their lies and infamy. The demand a 'right' to kill for convenience, and to steal from anyone able to succeed through their own initiative and effort.

The facade falls.

DJ"They were, as H... (Below threshold)
retired military:

DJ

"They were, as Hyperbolist insists, 'not really people'.

"

Hyper has stated on this board in the past that there were good reason to believe that unborns are people. As such that makes his words even more horrid.

I bet he also is against the death penalty.

The innocent die but guilty dont deserve to.

Also Hyper you realize that... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Also Hyper you realize that the "They arent people" argument is also the main excuse to justify slavery and racism even in the world today.

Hyper: "a person is an e... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Hyper: "a person is an entity that has the capacity for rationally engaging with their environment and with other minds"

Ah. Then you count the autistic as non-people, and anyone with Alzheimer's also to not be a person. People in comas are not persons, and - well, that list gets long indeed!

But please, keep insisting you are not a fan of Eugenics. The irony is rich and strong.

"...his lies..."At... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

"...his lies..."

At what point does using a word incorrectly, over and over again, make you a liar? It's boring and tiresome, guy.

Respecting women's rights to exert autonomous control of their own bodies is not about convenience. That is a lie.

Using the word "murder" in the context of abortion: not a "lie", but a failure to misunderstand the meaning of certain English words. But you're an accountant, not a bioethicist or moral philosopher or philologist. It's not really your jurisdiction, so you're in a sense blameless.

Love the throw-away comment at the end about taxation. Focus, Drummond!

So hyper by your definition... (Below threshold)
retired military:

So hyper by your definition of murder, if someone killed a slave back precivil war than they arent murdering them because it was legal. Is that correct?

Oh and Hyper""I wo... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Oh and Hyper

""I wouldn't suggest, though, that killing babies and infants ought to be permitted. ""

As I have pointed out. That is a complete and utter lie as you have done so on this board. Unless of course you are going to us Clinton's "IS defense" in that you may have done it in the past but you arent doing it now.

Ah hyper. If they wrapped ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Ah hyper. If they wrapped you in copper wire, you could light Toronto on even the darkest nights

#84some non-persons ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

#84
some non-persons are more non-persons than others.

Enlighten us Hyper, which human non-persons may be dispatched and which may not?

Usually I keep clear of abo... (Below threshold)
Evil Otto:

Usually I keep clear of abortion threads, but this one is fascinating. Watching Hyper argue about who is a person and who is not is seriously disturbing. Note how casually he dismisses not just fetuses, but those he acknowledges are human. I suppose you will whine about Godwin's Law and all that, but Hyper: you would make a very, very good Nazi. You've got the first part of the philosophy down: not all humans are persons, and killing them is not murder. "Useless eaters." "Life unworthy of life."

SCSI: a person is an entity that has the capacity for rationally engaging with their environment and with other minds.

Interesting definition. Convenient, too. So someone with severe mental retardation is not a person? In my line of work, I've seen children so disabled that they barely reacted to stimulus. Is killing them murder? If their parents decided they were tired of the burden, can they put a pillow over their child's face and then get off with, say, six months probation for animal cruelty?

I'll save retired_military the trouble of pointing out that yes, this does mean that babies aren't persons.

(shudder) Well, you're consistent in your beliefs, I'll give you that. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. -Ralph Waldo Emerson

I wouldn't suggest, though, that killing babies and infants ought to be permitted. There are lots of things that are legally protected that lack the capacity for rational action: paintings and sculptures; endangered fish; protected forests...

There are far more things that do not have legal protection... if I take my microwave and destroy it, there is no legal consequence. If I go to the local stream and catch a non-protected fish, there is no legal protection for the fish. So why should a baby receive such protections? If aborting a fetus is not killing a person and should have no legal restrictions, and a baby is also not a person, then why should the baby receive any legal protection at all? It's not like there's a shortage of them. And since rational thought emerges only after years of growth, can I pro-rate the penalty if I murder a child? Perhaps there should be a lesser penalty is I were to kill a two-year-old than if I murder an adult.

Seriously, I want an answer: why should a baby receive any legal protection?

Do you see where this leads, you sick f*ck? By all means, keep arguing this point, but we're going to force you further and further down a road that no sane human being... err, person, would want to walk. You're going to forced to defend more and more monstrous ideas in order to remain consistent.

Complex and muddy, to be sure,

Not to mention stupid, reprehensible, and evil.

but if moral philosophy was easy Aristotle would have gotten it all right and nobody would have had to write anything further on the subject.

To understand moral philosophy, Hyper, one must have morals. You do not. Here, in a nutshell, is why:

YOU DO NOT GET TO DECIDE WHO IS A PERSON AND WHO IS NOT.

You walked into a trap the moment you decided to argue that point, because you are forced to either contradict your own beliefs about abortion, or stay consistent with them but champion ideas so monstrous that people with actual morals turn away in disgust. Like Global Thermonuclear War, the only winning move is not to play.

I was wondering how long be... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

I was wondering how long before someone played Admiral Akbar for Hyper...

"to provide comprehensive r... (Below threshold)
Howie:

"to provide comprehensive reproductive and complementary health care services in settings which preserve and protect the essential privacy and rights of each individual"

How does this equate to aborition. You are really streching their mission statement.

Hyperbole,

You just made my argument for NOT wanting aborition. Thanks.

"I don’t know what you mean... (Below threshold)
Evil Otto:

"I don’t know what you mean by 'person,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don’t— till I tell you. I meant ‘a person is an entity that has the capacity for rationally engaging with their environment and with other minds!' "
"But 'person' doesn’t mean that" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master —that’s all."

"I meant ‘a person is an en... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"I meant ‘a person is an entity that has the capacity for rationally engaging with their environment and with other minds"

By this definition dogs are persons, horses are persons, any number of lower semiintelligent life forms are considered persons by Hyper's definition.

As far as going down the road so montrous (as evil Otto puts it) Hyper has already done that and he continues down that road.

Also as I pointed out.... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Also as I pointed out.

People deciding who is and who is not considered a person is the basis is the justification for slavery, racism, and a whole host of humanity's ills. Fundamental Islamist dont think of Jews as people. For thousands of years people have thought that blacks were not people (some still do today).

RM: You nailed it.... (Below threshold)
Evil Otto:

RM:

You nailed it.

Over the last few years, I've been doing a LOT of reading on the Holocaust and other human atrocities. There's one factor they ALL have in common: first, the group to be murdered must be viewed as less than human. This is a basic human psychological defense mechanism... virtually no one thinks of themselves as "evil," virtually no one sets out to commit atrocities thinking that their victims are equal human beings. They must become the "other." Not human. Then, and only then, can the real work of slaughter begin.

This is exactly what this sick f*ck Hyperbolist is doing: he knows he can't defend abortion if he views a fetus as a person, so he decides it isn't one. Since he's committed to abortion not just in the early stages when the fetus is a mass of cells but later, when it is nearly viable or even viable, he also defines a late-term "fetus" as not human. But, since there's no real difference between a fetus one week from delivery and a baby one week after, he must also define the baby as not human. So he makes up a definition: "a person is an entity that has the capacity for rationally engaging with their environment and with other minds." I've seen variations of this in dictionaries, but it is always several definitions down (if it appears at all) and noted to be a philosophical definition, not a primary one. The primary definition of "person" is always some variation of "human."

What we're left with is, at the degraded core of his being, Hyper understands that what he is saying is evil and wrong. He's desperately trying to defend evil, and he knows it. He could have avoided the whole problem by accepting some limits on abortion... for example by arguing that a cluster of cells is not a person but that a near-term fetus is. We might not agree with him, but at least he could argue the point without being forced to say more and more ridiculous and evil things. The problem is, if he makes that argument then he knows that he would be forced to concede at least on partial-birth abortion and similar procedures.

He can't do it. He WON'T do it. He's an absolutist, a fanatic. So he's forced to argue that even a baby is not a person. And once he's decided that, then a baby is worthy of no more protection than an animal.

Our society has de... (Below threshold)
Woop:

Our society has decided that, Otto. Our laws condone it.

You're the outlier - the freak - not hyper.

"a person is an entity that... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"a person is an entity that has the capacity for rationally engaging with their environment and with other minds"
"

Woop according to Hyper neither you nor he are persons.

Also Woop 70 years ago our laws said that blacks and whites couldnt drink from the same water fountain, or intermarary.

150 years ago slavery was legal.

In short you are a day later and a dollar short (as usual) on the legality issue as it was handled above.

I don't care what you think... (Below threshold)
Evil Otto:

I don't care what you think, Woop.

You're wasting your time wi... (Below threshold)
Evil Otto:

You're wasting your time with Woop, RM. Hyper, though his ideas are vile, is at least capable of forming them and arguing them. Woop is nothing but an attention-seeking troll.

OttoI honestly don... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Otto

I honestly dont see why Woop is not banned. He adds absolutely nothing to the conversation at all. All he does is come into a thread, crap all over it, doesnt even wipe and then moves on.

Hyper, though vile at least has more than 2 sentences in this posts. Although I will cheer gladly when both join Lee Ward as being permabanned.

As for other liberals.... (Below threshold)
retired military:

As for other liberals.

Jim X and Bruce Henry can form coherent thoughts.

Tina S. usually does another 2 liner post as she drives by.

"I don't care what you t... (Below threshold)
Woop:

"I don't care what you think, Woop. "

And you obviously don't care what our society had decided is ok and what the laws permit.

No wonder you hang out here. You're a bona fide idiot.

Still don't care what you t... (Below threshold)
Evil Otto:

Still don't care what you think, Woop.

Evil Otto, you owe Woop an ... (Below threshold)

Evil Otto, you owe Woop an apology. How DARE you say "I don't care what you think?"

Woop is incapable of thinking, and to imply that he can is horribly insensitive.

Try to show SOME class, will ya, Otto?

Woop, on behalf of Otto, please accept our apologies. We'll try not to bring up your... condition again.

J.

Well I found out why Hyper ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Well I found out why Hyper stopped commenting on this thread.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/04/13/man-engulfed-in-flames-at-san-francisco-porn-shop/

Also Woop

"And you obviously don't care what our society had decided is ok and what the laws permit"

So if you had lived 150 years ago you would have had no trouble with slavery, or the murder of black slaves?

If you had lived 60 years ago then you would have had no trouble with the Jim crow laws and the fact that abortion was illegal in most states.

If a law is passed that says it is legal for all people possing with a name of woop are to be killed on sight would you have a problem with that law?

"vile"And I'm</... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

"vile"

And I'm the one who openly refers to himself as one prone to bouts of hyperbole.

The word "person" is conceptually loaded and in the context of meta-ethics--the context of this discussion--it doesn't mean what you generally use it to mean. Persons--not humans--can rationally engage with one another and with their environment. They have the capacity for linguistic (conceptual) reasoning. Don't know what this means? Well, shit: call the Canadian vile and get on with your day! I couldn't give a flying fuck if you don't understand what I'm talking about because you're not on the Supreme Court!

When I stop commenting on a thread, it's because I've gone home to cook dinner with my girlfriend. Last night was feta & sweet potato risotto with warm spinach & beet salad. Tonight, we're going for Korean BBQ. Sorry I couldn't offer any more free 2nd year bioethics lessons today, I was on conference calls or in meetings ad nauseum.

And I'm the one who open... (Below threshold)
Evil Otto:

And I'm the one who openly refers to himself as one prone to bouts of hyperbole.

You're the one claiming babies aren't persons. That's vile. You're the one who classifies some humans as persons and others as not-persons. That's vile. Still, if "vile" ticks you off, I've got others... how about "evil?" Would you prefer that? "Sick f*ck?" No, I've used that one already?

Heh, you're losing it, Hyper. I must have really ticked you off. You couldn't be bothered to answer any questions, or even defend your point of view in any meaningful way. Instead, you chose to basically repeat arguments you've already made (and which I rejected) and randomly talk about food Oh, please, tell me more about what you had for dinner instead. I care. Deeply.

Now, care to try again? I asked you several questions, and you dodged them all. Why should babies receive any special legal protections? Are people with severe cognitive disabilities human, and if not, should it be legal (or illegal with reduced penalties) to kill them?

If your girlfriend gets pre... (Below threshold)
retired military:

If your girlfriend gets pregnant (if she will even let you touch her) along about the 7th month tell her that the baby isnt a person and it wouldnt matter one whit if she got an abortion or not.

And you were a little bit touchy about that SF porn story Hyper. Did I hit a little bit close to home?

The bit about me abandoning... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

The bit about me abandoning these scintillating conversations wasn't directed at you, Otto. Narcissistic twat.

Anyway, you're asking the wrong question. It's not why babies get special legal protection, but why foetuses do not. Foetuses do not receive the protection you think they deserve because they are not autonomous beings, let alone persons. (Babies are not persons, but they are autonomous in a way that foetuses are not.)

RM: I don't know what porn story you're referring to. I don't keep index cards of every point you've failed to make. The bracketed part of the first sentence in your last comment suggests to me that you are not in fact a retired member of the armed forces, but actually a developmentally stunted high school student.

If my girlfriend were pregnant and wanted an abortion, she could go get one and I'd respect that. If she were pregnant and wanted to keep the baby, I'd respect that. For somebody who isn't a creepy freak who thinks that the state has some jurisdiction over a woman's womb, it really is just that simple.

HyperYou miss the ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Hyper

You miss the point completely. Not suprising.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy