Planned Parenthood

[Blarg]

If you want to put babies on spikes then we have to adopt Sharia Law first. But you only get to put apostate or non believer babies on spikes. 

[krAbs]

13 minutes ago, Ordos said:

Totally from the far left media spectrum, but I'll leave this here for discussion...

https://m.dailykos.com/story/2017/7/12/1680000/-Republicans-defunded-Planned-Parenthood-in-Texas-and-abortions-rose-among-teens-Who-s-surprised

So this is kiiiinda my point. Basically, you lower both access to abortion and access to prevention methods. Depending on the specific conditions of the area, its possible abortions would go up if you did this, because while the % of people who had an unintended pregnancy and opted for an abortion would go down, the % of unintended pregnancies would go up more. It is also totally possible that abortions would go down, but even in that case, you end up with a ton of people who are stuck with children they didn't want and didn't plan for. Which is horrible both on a personal level and on a societal level. Your best case scenario here still sounds pretty horrible to me. Now, you can sit back and say "well, people are responsible, and they shouldn't have sex", which is true, but also kinda horrible on a personal level, and suuuuuper not helpful on a societal level.

For more on the societal level stuff I'm talking about, Stevel Levitt co-authored a paper on abortion rates and crime, but the underlying logic behind the hypothesis holds if you substitute prevention methods for abortion.
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf
"While acknowledging that all of these factors may have also served to dampen crime, we consider a novel explanation for the sudden crime drop of the 1990s: the decision to legalize abortion over a quarter century ago.2 The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion nationwide potentially ts the criteria for explaining a large, abrupt, and continuing decrease in crime. The sheer magnitude of the number of abortions performed satises the rst criterion that any shock underlying the recent drop in crime must be substantial. Seven years after Roe v. Wade, over 1.6 million abortions were being performed annually—almost one abortion for every two live births. Moreover, the legalization of abortion in ve states in 1970, and then for the nation as a whole in 1973, were abrupt legal developments that might plausibly have a similarly abrupt inuence 15–20 years later when the cohorts born in the wake of liberalized abortion would start reaching their high-crime years. Finally, any inuence of a change in abortion would impact crime cumulatively as successive affected cohorts entered into their high-crime late adolescent years, providing a reason why crime has continued to fall year after year."
"First, women who have abortions are those most at risk to give birth to children who would engage in criminal activity. Teenagers, unmarried women, and the economically disadvantaged are all substantially more likely to seek abortions [Levine et al. 1996]. Recent studies have found children born to these mothers to be at higher risk for committing crime in adolescence [Comanor and Phillips 1999]. Gruber, Levine, and Staiger [1999], in the paper most similar to ours, document that the early life circumstances of those children on the margin of abortion are difcult along many dimensions: infant mortality, growing up in a single-parent family, and experiencing poverty. Second, women may use abortion to optimize the timing of childbearing. A given woman’s ability to provide a nurturing environment to a child can uctuate over time depending on the woman’s age, education, and income, as well as the presence of a father in the child’s life, whether the pregnancy is wanted, and any drug or alcohol abuse both in utero and after the birth. Consequently, legalized abortion provides a woman the opportunity to delay childbearing if the current conditions are suboptimal. Even if lifetime fertility remains constant for all women, children are born into better environments, and future criminality is likely to be reduced."

[Thomas]

1 minute ago, Blarg said:

If you want to put babies on spikes then we have to adopt Sharia Law first. But you only get to put apostate or non believer babies on spikes. 

I assume the test on faith is verbal?

[krAbs]

11 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I am against abortion but for killing babies. 

I am for abortion, but only if we abandon this trimester nonsense and raise it to 18: up until 18, you're not an adult, and thus can be aborted.

[Thomas]

Just now, krAbs said:

I am for abortion, but only if we abandon this trimester nonsense and raise it to 18: up until 18, you're not an adult, and thus can be aborted.

You have teenagers too I see.

[AngelsLakersFan]

6 minutes ago, krAbs said:

I am for abortion, but only if we abandon this trimester nonsense and raise it to 18: up until 18, you're not an adult, and thus can be aborted.

Sounds like a reasonable compromise.

[krAbs]

Just now, AngelsLakersFan said:

Sounds like a reasonable compromise.

See, this is the art of politics. This is the stance the left should take, so they can pretend like they are compromising and reaching across the aisle when they suggest abortions of unborn babies only.

[Jay]

11 hours ago, calscuf said:

My wife used to work at Planned Parenthood.  I've mentioned this before here I think.

As an organization it seems that they're mostly interested in the government funds they receive, customer service and bedside manner are not a priorities and making as few waves as possible beyond what they necessarily already make is the priority (as to not disturb those precious funds).

 

In other words, a de facto government agency.

 

[krAbs]

2 hours ago, Jay said:

In other words, a de facto government agency.

 

Or at the very least a pretty standard medical facility.

Though...if what calscuf described is true, and the piece of vomit that the senate jokingly refers to as a health bill passes, wouldn't PP just stop providing abortions so they can keep their funding? I guess that would be interesting. I doubt it goes that way, though.