Planned Parenthood and Ick - Selling Baby Parts

[william.scherk]

In the same report, Planned Parenthood said that in the year that ended on Sept. 30, 2012 it did 327,166 abortions.

That's about 900 per day.

7% of abortions are done for health related reasons... the other 93% are abortions of convenience.

source on that one Greg - mine is directly from Planned Parenthood's publications.

I'm wondering if the PP statistics are broken down into gestational age -- and if the number of abortions are broken down into numbers of 'abortion pill' and clinical (surgical) terminations.

(responding to my own question, the answer appears to be no. At least in the PP 2013-2014 annual report, there is no distinction between abortion procedures by gestational age, and no mention of an 'abortion pill' ... the statistic from the latest annual report is 327,653 "abortion procedures." I think this probably leaves out induced/pharmacological abortions.

The Guttmacher Institute publishes detailed statistical breakdowns for pregnancy terminations. Here's a surprising to me set of numbers on induced abortion:

Early medication abortions have increased from 6% of all abortions in 2001 to 23% in 2011, even while the overall number of abortions continued to decline. Data from the CDC show abortions shifting earlier within the first trimester, likely due, in part, to the availability of medication abortion services.

)

Edited July 29, 2015 by william.scherk

[moralist]

source on that one Greg - mine is directly from Planned Parenthood's publications.

It was just a question and answer.

Here's Operation Rescue 2011:

• Some 1.06 million abortions were performed in 2011, down from 1.21 million abortions in 2008, a decline of 13%.

• Women who have never been married account for one-third of abortions in America.

• Less than 1% of all abortions take place because of rape and/or incest.

Women give an average of 3.7 reasons why they are seeking an abortion including the following:

• 21% Inadequate finances

• 21% Not ready for responsibility

• 16% Woman’s life would be changed too much

• 12% Problems with relationships, unmarried

• 11% Too young and/or immature

• 8% Children are grown; she has all she wants

• 3% Baby has possible health problems

• <1% Pregnancy caused by rape/incest

• 4% Other

http://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america/

92% convenience abortions.

Greg

[Selene]

Ah good ole Maggie, she had such a way with words...

Sanger, “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Feb. 1919: We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health. The eugenist also believes that a woman should bear as many healthy children as possible as a duty to the state. …

We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother.

Musical words about a woman's duty to ze state...

A....

[Brant Gaede]

Ah good ole Maggie, she had such a way with words...

Sanger, “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Feb. 1919: We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health. The eugenist also believes that a woman should bear as many healthy children as possible as a duty to the state. …

We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother.

Musical words about a woman's duty to ze state...

A....

I think Sanger--I have visited the neighborhood of the Tucson home she occupied for many years a while back (not sure if I actually looked at her house [Joe Bonanno lived three blocks away])--was part of the Progressive movement. Teddy Roosevelt was pretty much a progressive and Woodrow Wilson too. In the teens they were the country's number one war mongers. Progressives are really sublimated fascists. To hide they called themselves liberals after the nineteen teens--I think. Then, when they wore out "liberal" and gave that term enough general dis-respectment from the American culture at large, they switched back to "progressive." I have much more respect for many of the environmentalists and those that still call themselves "liberals." I would put John Dewey into that fascist-progressive camp too. They are all rule-the-world-for-we-know-what's-best-for-you top-downers.

It's okay to be a top-downer if you're one in order to kick the fascist asses that are upstairs while the bottom-uppers kick Brown Shirt asses downstairs. It's about freedom. Fighting for freedom.

--Brant

[tmj]

The one thing on this issue I know for certain, is that I am vehemently opposed to undemanded pregnancy terminations.(see what I did there? )

Our first born , our daughter ,was born with concurrent abnormalities. Two 'defects' not necessarily medically 'linked'. These conditions were undetected prior to birth. Had we been aware of the situation during my wife's pregnancy , I cannot say for certain what we would have done. For one, the obvious, at the time we simply were not aware so it's a retroactive fiction to say we would reacted differently. And secondly there is no way to know if at the time we would have agreed on what my wife's decision would have been. I do know that we did what we could as far as prenatal testing to help ensure the 'viability' of my wife's second pregnancy, our son. I am glad for the fact that we live in a culture with technologies that availed her of a choice, of course if we didn't ...well still a fiction, because we do.

[Jules Troy]

What I find ironic and a little twisted(especially in Canada) is we have no problem with snuffing out the life of an unborn innocent life but are unwilling to snuff out the life of a piece of shit that really deserves it. (Like Clifford Olson)

[Brant Gaede]

The one thing on this issue I know for certain, is that I am vehemently opposed to undemanded pregnancy terminations.(see what I did there? )

Our first born , our daughter ,was born with concurrent abnormalities. Two 'defects' not necessarily medically 'linked'. These conditions were undetected prior to birth. Had we been aware of the situation during my wife's pregnancy , I cannot say for certain what we would have done. For one, the obvious, at the time we simply were not aware so it's a retroactive fiction to say we would reacted differently. And secondly there is no way to know if at the time we would have agreed on what my wife's decision would have been. I do know that we did what we could as far as prenatal testing to help ensure the 'viability' of my wife's second pregnancy, our son. I am glad for the fact that we live in a culture with technologies that availed her of a choice, of course if we didn't ...well still a fiction, because we do.

This is difficult. Your unborn daughter at the beginning of pregnancy is also the unknown person. There are billions of people that are unknown to billions of people as adults. Let's say the pregnancy was aborted early, but not by her. The body tends to spontaneously abort a fetus that has problems--that isn't "right." Both you and your wife have suffered a loss. Now, if the abortion is medically induced there is also loss combined with responsibility. The spontaneous abortion I mention is generally considered a tragedy by those involved. The induced abortion, let's say out of convenience, for two months into the pregnancy I doubt--but I could be wrong--one would be aware of any abnormalities, is not also a tragedy because it was a convenience? That's the rub. For me that choice--I'm not a woman--would be a tragedy compounded. It was tragedy enough for my liberal mother who tried to induce an abortion for her first child (1930s)--no harm done and no abortion--only to get a beautiful daughter. Just that one weak attempt became a source of some lifelong guilt. She also, in spite of her "progressivism" (she never called herself a progressive), simply had the position thereafter that if you do the sex you do the time.

Now, a few months later, testing reveals however, you're dealing with abnormalities. At this time, though, the fetus is less unknown and is more of a person. This makes abortion as a choice more of a tragedy--for everyone. Let us do a fantasy: let's say this testing is infallible. But let us also say what is revealed is not those physical abnormalities, but that this person will grow up as a dangerous and destructive sociopathic-psychopathic criminal. This is detectable because it would be part of the genetic construct. THAT WOULD BE THE TRAGEDY and the abortion you might chose not a tragedy at all. No abortion might be the tragedy compounded.

Who should choose in such variable and complicated circumstances? You and your wife (a right to get an abortion) or the larger social unit? That larger social unit can forbid abortion (or demand--force--abortion). In this country it is a woman's right to get an abortion. (Not "have" for "have" implies someone else must pay for or provide for it or that the "right" is granted.)

While humans need at least a tribe, the family is the basic social unit, the tribe, which is a conglomeration of people come together to enhance the chance of sheer survival, may dictate issues about sexual relations even to the point of visiting death on a new-born apropos the continued existence of the tribe. (The same situation manifested itself in the idea of tossing a virgin into the volcano, but that's too much of a digression. I just had to mention it. [is that a romantic notion to us (oops--sorry, Greg)?])

Some babies aren't aborted, they are effectively abandoned. I'm talking here of severe birth defects. My step-father had a son born with half a brain and concomitant cranial deformity. I visited him once in Montgomery, Alabama in 1976. At that time he was in a large group-home well regarded for its care of these people, most of whom were Mongoloid. (This home has since closed.) Some of these children, not destined to live very long--for them it was sort of an extended hospice--had striking defects. I had to be warned about one for the sheer shock value. It was still quite the shock. The child's head was blown up like a balloon. One might ask how could the adults take care of these children year after year? The owner had been doing this for decades. All these children had one over-whelming characteristic: complete innocence. They all could have been Adam and Eves rendered as children for that. The place and the children were immaculate. And the Mongoloid children were full of love. They kept coming up to me with nothing but love and innocence. I couldn't stay to long. It took too much getting used too. It was too concentrated. A woman was needed and I wasn't a woman. (A Mother's love for her child must be the greatest human personal experience and I doubt any man could ever know the half of it, but a Father still can get a lot of it if he's not welfare-hounded out of the home if not the town, the county, the state. Children need their fathers, the boys most of all. The Father needs his family. Any political system that is anti-family is evil. The most primitive tribes I've ever heard of respected the family unit as such. (I'm not claiming any real expertise with that last thought, that's for sure, but it's basically and generally correct.)

The country we live in affords us the luxury of individual rights and one of those is the right of a woman to get an abortion. I do not think it's an absolute right as deeper and deeper into the pregnancy the application of such a right becomes more and more problematic ending, in some circumstances in murderous abomination. The right to get an abortion also means a right not to be made to have an abortion. That would be rights' violation. That is why I'm only open to discussion on this matter if the other party agrees with me about that woman's right and we go on from there. All this talk about "right to life" for a just fertilized egg even to the point of no birth control except abstinence to protect God's will or God's gift--as if God could be stopped by a rubber--is irrational, Catholic, ideological garbage.

--Brant

[tmj]

As far as this country is concerned, why pick on the Catholics and other sacred sperm(the ova/ um is more limited and falls under a different penumbra) ideologues, put the blame for the legalistic arguments to the women, they abstained from framing a better one in Philly that hot summer.

[Brant Gaede]

As far as this country is concerned, why pick on the Catholics and other sacred sperm(the ova/ um is more limited and falls under a different penumbra) ideologues, put the blame for the legalistic arguments to the women, they abstained from framing a better one in Philly that hot summer.

Tell that to Ayn Rand: "Of Living Death."

--Brant

The Ford Hall Forum (I was there, fall of 1968, right after "the break")

[Selene]

Intriguing reaction by Satanists in Michigan...

 

 

The group attached a symbol of their temple to the American flag and held up a sign that read, "America is not a theocracy. End forced motherhood."

 

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/satanists-drown-women-for-planned-parenthood/article/2570695

[BaalChatzaf]

Intriguing reaction by Satanists in Michigan...

The group attached a symbol of their temple to the American flag and held up a sign that read, "America is not a theocracy. End forced motherhood."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/satanists-drown-women-for-planned-parenthood/article/2570695

A waste of perfectly good milk (even if it is pasteurized). Messing up the public sidewalks is a misdemeanor, isn't it?.

[moralist]

Jules writes:

What I find ironic and a little twisted(especially in Canada) is we have no problem with snuffing out the life of an unborn innocent life but are unwilling to snuff out the life of a piece of shit that really deserves it. (Like Clifford Olson)

This is a peculiar quality of the secular left in that they fight the good while defending the evil.

Greg