Defend Planned Parenthood Saturday Feb. 11

[JonWylie]

Yes it does.

12%in the right column is EXACTLY the number I quoted.

But that represents an entire category of health concerns, which include;

1. Fearing for the baby's health because I don't wanna give up drinking lots of booze.

2. Fearing for the baby's health because I don't want to stop doing drugs.

etc.


It's unclear from guttmacher's reports exactly what percentage are actual "Mother's health / life may be at risk", but surveys done at clinics suggests it's about 2.7%. [As I also stated].


You should really read the entire report before slandering someone for being correct.

You provided the source, and the source doesn't back up what you said. First it was 99%, then it was 97.3%, and now it's that other sources support you, but not the one you provided. You got defensive and tried to deflect to others comments simply because I asked for a source on the number, which you still haven't provided.

All I wanted was a source to back up the claim of "It's not healthcare 99% of the time" and I'm happy to look at anything you have to provide, because that number seems very high from the literature that I've seen.

If it's a debate about what constitutes healthcare, that's a whole different conversation, but I simply want to source your statement. Further, the study cited allows for multiple responses from individuals as to reasons for having an abortion, so it's really difficult for it to support your original statement.

Based off the study, you could say a majority don't have an abortion for health concerns, or that it's not a leading reason, or even that it is one of the smallest percentages of reasons [[although it's not the smallest). But not healthcare 99% of the time is not factually supported.

[Rocket]

"Reproductive Rights" are under attack, and asks me to send them money.

Shouldn't it say my "Termination Rights" are under attack?

Isn't it crazy how deceitful the Left is? They can hardly type a single sentence without a lie.

Especially in the titles of things. As you noticed, they mis-label 'killing others' as 'Their own right to reproduce'. How could one honestly get killing someone mixed up with creating someone?

i guess you can do that when you have no morals and don't feel shame.

For decades people WITH morals thought they would shame the Left into doing the correct thing. But they were naive. What they failed to realize was, the Left does not feel shame.

[Jimaz]

Doubling down on your incorrect statement with citations that don't even back it up, crazy...

110-118_Finer.qxp [[guttmacher.org)

The first thing that pops up when I click on your link is "Page Not Found"....

It's a PDF file, not a webpage. In case that helps.

[Rocket]

You provided the source, and the source doesn't back up what you said. First it was 99%, then it was 97.3%,

It definitely takes effort to find what you're looking for. You have to really WANT it.

I'll take one last crack at it.


The 12% category of "Health" for example includes the mother's health, and that of others. It also includes mental health, drug and alcohol use, etc. There isn't one line item labeled "Reasonable concern for the mother's health if she carries the child to term".

More importantly, few if any of the women studied gave just one reason. Often there are many reasons. Ex, I'm still in school, can't afford it, boyfriend broke up, I like to drink and use drugs a lot, and because of that, the baby's health would suffer.

For these and other reasons, distilling out an exact percentage for JUST the mothers health is tough.

The example above would then be included under "health", and 3 other categories, none of which are actually health risks to the mother. There's also no reason to suspect that HER health is the primary reason. Certainly as she didn't even mention it in the above hypothetical example.

So would that example above count as "Protecting the health of the mother" as pro-abortionists would argue? Is it as high as 12%? Lets dive deeper.




Here's a study of 1,209 women at clinics from 2004.
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/...e-perspectives


If we look in Par 3 under "Data Analysis", we see "Of the 1,209 respondents, 4% gave no reasons and were excluded from most analyses. "

OK, so 1,205 women gave one or more reasons for having an abortion.

Are you with me so far?

Then at the bottom of Par 4, under Reasons for Abortion we find "Nine women cited health concerns for themselves, possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or both as a reason for terminating the pregnancy."


So, 9 of 1,205 gives us what? 3/4 of one percent? That means 99.25% did it for reasons other than their own, or even their fetus's health.

And really, the fetus's health is probably most of that. The maternal death rate in the USA runs around 0.0004 most years. [32 / 100,000], not that there aren't less than lethal health concerns that might warrant it.

So perhaps I should have said that 99.5% of them aren't healthcare? 99.8% perhaps? But as I can't find a percentage breakdown in that final category, I can't tell if it's 99.5% or 99.8% that aren't healthcare for the mother. Best we can tell, it's some number greater than 99.25%.

So 99% is close enough.

[JonWylie]

It definitely take effort to find what you're looking for. You have to really WANT it.

I'll take one last crack at it.


The category of "Health" for example includes the mother's health, and that of others. It also includes mental health, drug and alcohol use, etc.

More importantly, few if any of the women studied gave just one reason. Often there are many reasons. I'm still in school, can't afford it, boyfriend broke up, I like to drink and use drugs a lot, and the baby's health would suffer, etc.

The example above would be included under "health" and 3 other categories, none of which are actually health risks to the mother. There's also no reason to suspect that HER health is the primary reason. Certainly as she didn't even mention it in the above hypothetical example.

So does that count as "Protecting the health of the mother" as pro-abortionists would argue? Is it as high as 12%? Lets dive deeper.




Here's a study of 1,209 women at clinics from 2004.
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/...e-perspectives


If we look in Par 3 under "Data Analysis", we see "Of the 1,209 respondents, 4% gave no reasons and were excluded from most analyses. "

OK, so 1,205 women gave one or more reasons for having an abortion.

Are you with me so far?

Then at the bottom of Par 4, under Reasons for Abortion we find "Nine women cited health concerns for themselves, possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or both as a reason for terminating the pregnancy."


So, 9 of 1,205 gives us what? 3/4 of one percent? That means 99.25% did it for reasons other than their own, or their fetus's health.

And really, the fetus's health is probably most of that. The maternal death rate in the USA runs around 0.0004 most years. [32 / 100,000]

So really, I probably should have said that 99.5% of them aren't healthcare. But as I can't find a percentage breakdown in that final category, I can't tell if it's 99.5% or 99.8% that aren't healthcare, and I'm out of time, so I'll just stick with the 99% number [>99.25% technically].

I appreciate the time you took to break this down. However, as I read it, you're missing a critical part of the methodology which states "In 2004, a structured survey was completed by 1,209 abortion patients at 11 large providers, and in-depth interviews were conducted with 38 women at four sites."

The portion you cite referring to the 9 women is only referencing those who participated in the "in-depth interview", which was 38 total women across 4 sites.

It would be incorrect to use the percentage of those 9 women against the 1,209 total participants in the study, because not all participants were given in depth interviews. It would be more accurate to compare those 9 responses against the 38 women who did in fact do the in-depth interview, not just the structured survey of all 1,209 women, as outlined in the methodology.

[Gistok]

I don't like abortion... but decisions shouldn't exclude the woman involved.

I was just watching the late great George Carlin's take on abortion... and his 30 year old take on it is amazingly spot on even today. Once a baby is born... well George says it best...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Vtj7FS79crY

[Henry Whalley]

I don't like abortion...

Agreed, nobody likes it. Nobody does it for fun AFAIK.

[oladub]

Tucker Carlson made the point in his Alberta speech that when government restricts your ability to defend yourself, allows fentanyl to flood the country, encourages fewer children, threatens to take away children from parents who oppose gender therapy for their child, makes suicide easier as in Canada, brings in a huge replacement population to work for less and restricts free speech that opposes the above, then maybe that government is telling you that it wants to get rid of you.

Then it occurred to me that maybe this isn't just the basket of deplorable white working class people that is being targeted. Maybe American blacks are being edged out too.

[Henry Whalley]

[QUOTE=oladub;641074]...the basket of deplorable white working class people that is being targeted[QUOTE]

That hardly qualifies as a thought JSYK.
Rules for the Ruling Class | The New Yorker

[Zacha341]

It is an issue. Many blacks are questioning abortion-on-demand and other values and 'rights' we're demanded to affirm impacting our communities without ever quoting or even following Carlson.

As I detailed in my post #76:

"Apposition to the abortion-on-demand side cannot be solely ascribed to white-men, right-wing, q-non-non thing, tucker carlson, trump etc.

Some black people are VOICING THIS CHALLENGE on our OWN TERMS.

Detroiter's don't need the right wing to speak on what we see happening. TO US. ...We're starting to say NO."

To ascribe our apposition as being right-winged inspired or white adjacent mirrors the civil rights time frames: 'they're communist inspired' [they can't think for themselves].

Our voice continues to be negated if we don't fall in line.

I guess questioning Detroiters are now Carlstoned/Q-noned and deplorable....

But again the name calling is the least of our worries.

We've been called worse.

Tucker Carlson made the point in his Alberta speech that when government restricts your ability to defend yourself, allows fentanyl to flood the country, encourages fewer children, threatens to take away children from parents who oppose gender therapy for their child, makes suicide easier as in Canada, brings in a huge replacement population to work for less and restricts free speech that opposes the above, then maybe that government is telling you that it wants to get rid of you.

Then it occurred to me that maybe this isn't just the basket of deplorable white working class people that is being targeted. Maybe American blacks are being edged out too.

[southen]

I think what is hilarious is to decry groups being lumped together then going on and speaking for an entire group. Did I miss something where the decision to get an abortion wasn't done by the individual and those impacted by it? Are groups being forced into this medical procedure en masse and I just missed it?

Since those on the right in this thread love to paint the removal of tissue as murder and that abortion is "on-demand" have any of you actually talking to anyone about the experience of going through this? The doctor's visits, the going through options, the ultrasound showing what is going on, the pain of the decision. This whole thread wreaks of men deciding what is best for women without ever talking to someone who has gone through it.

Freedom! Unless you don't like it. Save the children! Until they are born and need support. Pro life! Unless of course that means curbing any sort of gun violence or providing affordable healthcare. Free and easily accessible elections! Unless of course your guy loses then of course it was stolen and blood in the streets is appropriate.

Don't like something? Don't do it. The second they start forcing abortions on people I will be right beside you saying that is wrong. That isn't happening though. It is a decision largely based on religious dogma, you know, that sharia law crap I have been hearing for decades now is coming to America, only problem is the calls are coming from inside your own house.

I will have to check out that Tucker guy though. Is he at all related to that clown that went to Russia to tout how great Putin is?

[Jimaz]

Extra points to whoever first champions the life of a teratoma. Some people do!

[Zacha341]

Well just for the record a. I'm a woman, and a mother b. I've tried to be careful to use the words 'some' or 'more' when referring to black people on the subject - not ALL c. I've talked to many women and teens re. their abortion experiences d. I encourage people to research and talk to other Detroiters etc. about the subject/ outcomes. e. Per my advocation I help support, and affirm children and families socially and educationally.

I give as I can to a local Crisis Pregnancy center that helps mothers and their children during their pregnancies up thru two years old.

I bring up the racial emphasis as abortion's impacted our community at high levels. I don't think many are still debating this. Thankfully due to science we're somewhat beyond the dismissive 'clump-of-cells' rhetoric. I wonder if VP Harris will make a Detroit stop to show us the positives of abortion-on-demand? She might get some protestors - not wearing red MAGA hats. Much of Europe has restrictions but I guess we're much smarter!

[southen]

Crisis pregnancy centers that I have read about that don't actually perform healthcare and can be run out of vans and promote anti-abortion agendas? You give to a place that performs pseudo-science and pseudo-healthcare with an agenda. Planned Parenthood provides ALL of the information one needs to make a decision, not just resources that fit an agenda.

You never actually mentioned if you had spoken to individuals that have gotten an abortion. You also haven't explained how this isn't the choice of an individual or provided evidence that groups are being forced into a procedure. It is clear through your advocacy and opinion that you simply don't like it and that is enough of a reason for you to make sure nobody else can get one.

"Clump of cells" seems relevant because anti-abortion folks want to call something a child or person despite the fact that most abortions happen before a fetus can survive outside of the womb and is still entirely dependent on the mother for everything. Personally if my partner and I were struggling with a decision and the fetus got to the point of viability outside of the womb I would strongly advocate for options beyond abortion, but you can't have that conversation or find common ground when your answer is simply 'NO'.

[Zacha341]

^ I edited my comment adding that I have spoken to women and teens about abortion. Read my earlier posts where I talk about the former construct that abortion be safe and rare [instead of an inshrined article-of-faith sacrament as it's going in the US]. As I stated many people could accept the safe and rare option applied early in pregnancy.

I think everyone will have it their way ultimately.

For the mother desiring to keep her child you'll never read an invite stating welcome to 'my fetus shower'. Nope. For others the life-dependent status is the sole qualifier for who's affirmed/lives.

[southen]

I think everyone will have it there way ultimately.

Unless you live in a state that decides you cannot have one and you don't have the means to travel 1-2 states over to receive the care you need. Or how about the states that want to penalize you, possibly jail you, even if you can leave and get the care? Instead you are forcing people, many of whom are already in poverty, to bear children regardless of reason or stage of pregnancy. Youre reinforcing the cycle of poverty because once the child arrives, those on the right refuse to fund anything to help a parent. So no, not everyone will have it their way. Many will have it YOUR way and have to suffer the consequences.

[Zacha341]

Not my way. It is a choice to affirm or not. Which does not necessarily lead to poverty -- lest a few of us MAY NOT HAVE MADE IT at the times our parents [or mother] were struggling. You dig?

Is black life valued only if the rich can have kids? How about the those within the two-child minimum? Or maybe if the child birth scores a certain ESG? Or IQ [Sanger's idea]. Where's THIS HEADED?

We REALLY need to listen/ hear ourselves!

Where is the hope?

There are those who 'were' abortion-minded who went on to have their children -- their economics and social changing for the better, excellent in some cases. It varies. HOW DID THEY BREAK THE CYCLE OF POVERTY?

What is their story? Useless, false, or a lie?

This is why it's so crucial to talk to those who experienced HAVING children despite challenges. Not just the abortion side.

And who has determined that not anyone helps? How do you know? On the other hand are Pregnancy Crisis centers only run/ funded by the 'eh right-winged, maga, religious folk?

Yes, it's far easy to 'other' and 'them' ideas and options to negate them.

You're reinforcing the cycle of poverty because once the child arrives, those on the right refuse to fund anything to help a parent. So no, not everyone will have it their way. Many will have it YOUR way and have to suffer the consequences.

[Richard]

Unless you live in a state that decides you cannot have one and you don't have the means to travel 1-2 states over to receive the care you need. Or how about the states that want to penalize you, possibly jail you, even if you can leave and get the care? Instead you are forcing people, many of whom are already in poverty, to bear children regardless of reason or stage of pregnancy. Youre reinforcing the cycle of poverty because once the child arrives, those on the right refuse to fund anything to help a parent. So no, not everyone will have it their way. Many will have it YOUR way and have to suffer the consequences.

Over 22 Trillion has spent on the war on poverty in 60 years without reducing the level of poverty how exactly does that translate into those on the right refuse to do anything to help a parent?

They made OTC birth control easily available so there are options,like personal responsibility to not get pregnant in the first place.

In the county I am in only 23 % of those in poverty or low income and qualify,actually signed up for no cost healthcare where they would have received no cost birth control,but they did not.

And the county I live in is anything but right wing.

[Warrenite84]

So at any point during the pregnancy it can be removed and live on its own, correct? Or is it that its a clump of genetic material with little resemblance to a human, until a certain point?

Why don't pregnant women count as two in the census? Why can't they claim a dependent on taxes before the birth? Why is it that people on the right only care about it while it is inside of the mother and not outside?

Notice that Rocket, in his list that mother's give for not having a baby, never acknowledges what those women were, that the child once born would not be able to thrive in the home it was entering. That these women didn't think they could provide what was necessary for a child to thrive. You want these women to give birth regardless of the world the children are entering.

Is that your reasoning that a pre born baby has no value if it cannot live on its own? How about people in nursing homes? They cannot live on their own. By your logic, should they be eliminated too? Same for people with disabilities?

People on the right care for children before and after birth. The first orphanages and adoption centers were established by people who valued life.

[Gistok]

People on the right care for children before and after birth.

Computer says nooooo....

I just did 2 searches... I'm sure there are many more topics on child health that predominantly opposed by "people on the right"....

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gop-s...b07bd6950cd49d

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/1...erage-00132282

I can provide other programs that show that once children are born... there is a big falloff in interest in child health care in conservative states that are pro-life.

Why is that?

[Richard]

^ because you’re computer is programmed to your search style and only wants to show you what it thinks you want to see,in a biased kind way.

Florida is probably considered a conservative state and there are no counties that do not offer child health care if you cannot afford it .

The government was never intended to be your nanny.

[Gistok]

^ because you’re computer is programmed to your search style and only wants to show you what it thinks you want to see,in a biased kind way.

Exactly... which we have all noticed that in some of your legendary long cut and pastes. The search engines placate to our whims and fancies.

[ABetterDetroit]

Well just for the record a. I'm a woman, and a mother b. I've tried to be careful to use the words 'some' or 'more' when referring to black people on the subject - not ALL c. I've talked to many women and teens re. their abortion experiences d. I encourage people to research and talk to other Detroiters etc. about the subject/ outcomes. e. Per my advocation I help support, and affirm children and families socially and educationally.

I give as I can to a local Crisis Pregnancy center that helps mothers and their children during their pregnancies up thru two years old.

I bring up the racial emphasis as abortion's impacted our community at high levels. I don't think many are still debating this. Thankfully due to science we're somewhat beyond the dismissive 'clump-of-cells' rhetoric. I wonder if VP Harris will make a Detroit stop to show us the positives of abortion-on-demand? She might get some protestors - not wearing red MAGA hats. Much of Europe has restrictions but I guess we're much smarter!

I would be very surprised if VP Harris did not come to Detroit during the campaign.

What is fascinating though is your personal experience with your peers and your shared feelings that the MAGA party will give you a larger political voice. Do you feel that ‘Making America Great Again’ like it was sometime in the past will be much better for black women? I respect your experiences and opinions based on them so I am curious on when exactly it was ‘Great’ for you and other Detroit black women?

[southen]

Is that your reasoning that a pre born baby has no value if it cannot live on its own? How about people in nursing homes? They cannot live on their own. By your logic, should they be eliminated too? Same for people with disabilities?

People on the right care for children before and after birth. The first orphanages and adoption centers were established by people who valued life.

Lmao no my point is that it’s not actually a person yet. A lot more has to happen before you get to the existing human with disabilities stage, no? Since we now count genetic material as people am I committing genocide every time I ejaculate? Surely a period or miscarriage is murder or maybe just manslaughter?

[Henry Whalley]

kids Medicaid

A lifesaving therapy for children with a rare disease is now the world’s most expensive drug, raising questions about access [[yahoo.com)