"The Republican War on Women: A Red Herring" Huffington Post Article, replete with biased, inaccurate statistics, disproven femi-myths, and support for sexist laws

[–]Crimson_D82 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coldbeam 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coldbeam 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]LDL2 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coldbeam 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

You mean the killing of fetuses to decrease future welfare costs? That point has it's own flaws, like, for instance, weighing the amount of welfare paid for/to the perspective human compared to how much they produce, taxes they pay, other positive benefits to society and people in general, etc. If you have statistics which account for these things (i.e., the expected net benefit of the average aborted human minus the welfare costs paid), I would be glad to see it. Otherwise, It's sort of just a speculative shot which ignores the entire other side of the equation.

edit: The 3% number is 3% of all services/procedures. I seriously doubt abortions are equal (in costs or effects) to the typical procedure (or what they count as a "service/procedure" anyway) and every time I have seen this quote, it's almost always been someone quite clearly trying to manipulate the presentation of data to push an agenda.

[–]diehtc0ke 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]diehtc0ke 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The OC didn't claim nor insinuate that they only do abortions, he only insinuated that they do them and tax payers shouldn't be forced to pay for them.

How the fuck is defunding planned parenthood depriving women of their rights? Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for it. If you want an abortion get one.

Abortion is the only thing mentioned in this comment and a number of people seriously think PP is some abortion factory so it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to address the fact that PP does more than abortions. If he came back to say he thinks that pap smears and contraception for poor women is something he also thinks needs to be defunded, that would clear up what I think was my fair reading of his comment.

As for the rest of your post, simply stating the percentage of total services/procedures is rather helpful given the fact that relying on 3% of your services as your money-making operation (not forgetting that PP is actually a non-profit organization) makes no business sense. I think this is a really good article from the Washington Post about some of the things that are often said about PP and address some of your concerns with what I've been saying: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-04-15/opinions/35230231_1_federal-medicaid-funds-abortion-care-sexual-health

[–]Coldbeam 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The first 18 years they do not produce anything at all.

And if people only lived 18 years on average, that would be enough. You're completely missing an entire side of the economic calculation. If this is a legitimate argument, so would be a legitimate argument against the production of anything. After all, it would be cheaper not to produce cars than produce cars if we don't account for the productive use of the car.

Do you have a more balanced overview of what PP provides?

Not really, I cannot find numbers to give a more accurate picture. They perform ~340,000 abortions a year and count "pregnancy tests" and "contraceptives" as "services/procedures." The stat is outright and purposefully misleading.

if they were proposing simply making the abortions through them not funded by taxpayers

PP is already prohibited from using taxpayer funds to perform abortions, but the prohibition is silly because money is fungible.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

That it's more "humane" to kill fetuses than let them become humans and live on welfare?

I definitely prefaced my opinion with the statement "I am of the opinion". And yes, I believe it's more humane to abort an unwanted child before it becomes a full, living child if you can't give the child the resources and care that the child needs. Plenty of poor people go on to raise wonderful kids, but plenty go on to neglect their children because they weren't ready for children. I want the people who aren't ready to have the option to end the pregnancy. For everyone's sake.

And you're right, it's difficult to account for the future tax revenue that a person might provide, versus the cost of paying for welfare. But it's also difficult to account for the amount of tax revenue lost to people having children (and taking tax deductions, and getting set back in their careers, etc.). I just believe that in the immediate future, the money is better spent providing all of the PP services to the impoverished (which includes more than abortion - there's also contraceptive services, STD testing, gyno appointments, and education services).

[–]TheRealPariah 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

And yes, I believe it's more humane to abort an unwanted child before it becomes a full, living child if you can't give the child the resources and care that the child needs.

First, the child gets welfare to provide much of the services (which also provides somewhat for the caretaker).

Second, the choice is not only between "killing the fetus" and "birth mother must take care of unwanted child." There is also adoption.

Third, what experience do you have or methodology do you use to make the judgment that "it's more humane" to kill an unwanted fetuses than let them carry to term and be born alive?

And you're right, it's difficult to account for the future tax revenue

People provide more economic benefits to society than merely paying taxes.

But it's also difficult to account for the amount of tax revenue lost to people having children (and taking tax deductions, and getting set back in their careers, etc.).

Okay. So you're essentially saying, "I don't know," throwing confetti in the air and claiming they somehow cancel out.

I just believe that in the immediate future, the money is better spent providing all of the PP services to the impoverished (which includes more than abortion - there's also contraceptive services, STD testing, gyno appointments, and education services).

What do you base this "belief" on? Merely saying, "my opinion is X" isn't adding much to the dialogue; you have no data, your economic claim is a shot in the dark, and your "humane" claim is simply a naked assertion of opinion.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

What do you base your belief on that it's inhumane to abort the child (edit: if that is your view, or someone else's)? My opinion comes from all of my ethical beliefs combined. I don't see a developing fetus as equivalent to a born human being. I don't see a "potential life" as any more sacred than the well-being of its parents. I don't think there really is any objective basis for claims about abortion. Either you think it's moral or you don't, and opinion often differs based on extremely subjective value judgements about the worth of (potential) human lives.

I also don't consider adoption a much more humane option than abortion, seeing as how many kids in the foster system are abused (or in the case of my state's DCF, completely lost). I would rather have an abortion than subject a child to that.

And fair enough, about the economic analysis. I'll get back to you if I find any studies that can prove that the costs cancel out.

Edit: removed one of the DCF links, wrong story

[–]TheRealPariah 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

What do you base your belief on that it's inhumane to abort the child?

I never said it was inhumane to abort the child, I questioned your claim that it was "more humane" to kill a fetus than to allow them to live and grow on welfare or otherwise in a fosterhome.

My opinion comes from all of my ethical beliefs combined.

So essentially a vague platitude that means nothing. You might as well just say, "because." It's fine, this is the response I expected.

I don't see a developing fetus as equivalent to a born human being.

This is completely irrelevant.

I don't see a "potential life" as any more sacred than the well-being of its parents.

This is completely irrelevant too, although it gives insight into what some of actual rationale for your opinions. I dare not speculate about your other ones.

Either you think it's moral or you don't, and opinion often differs based on extremely subjective value judgements about the worth of (potential) human lives.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not abortion is "more humane" than growing up with parents who originally didn't want you, in fostercare, or adopted. The closest I could come to actually measure the humanness of two outcomes in this scenario is to ask people in the above situation if they would have preferred not exist, but I'm sure you can guess how that would turn out and it won't support your claim... with the vast majority of them saying, "Of course not."

Would you have preferred to being aborted than grow up on welfare? I have trouble evaluating my own life, I wouldn't dare speculate about the nonexistence versus additionally speculative existence of others. I would answer this question with a resounding "Of course not."

how many kids in the foster system are abused

First, adoption and fostercare are not the same thing.

Second, I wonder if abused children would prefer to live and maybe abused to not living at all. Would you prefer to not exist than maybe experience some abuse.

I would rather have an abortion than subject a child to that.

First, you're not the only party in this scenario. Actually, I'm trying to figure out how you would even be relevant other than as the gatekeeper.

Second, abuse is not guaranteed.

Third, not all otherwise aborted children are put into foster care.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

Would you have preferred to not be born than any of the above correctly described situations? Would you have preferred to not be born if there was a 1%, 10%, 75%, 100% chance you would be subject to any of the above scenarios? I think if you're honest, you will answer "of course not."

I understand that your value judgements are different

It's not that my value judgments are different than yours, it's that you have nothing to actually base your judgments on beyond, "all my ethics rolled into onem," a.k.a. "nothing" obfuscated. If that is good enough for you, I would bet an attempt to change your feelings (because, let's be honest, that's all this is) would be futile anyway.

I lied, I will speculate on your actual motivation for these rationalizations; it's because you are selfish and don't want to admit that to yourself so you instead try to rationalize how it's actually "for everyone," and not just for you. That's fine, I don't negatively judge for this, but these proffered arguments are simply bad. The "more humane" claim is flatly nonsensical in all but a tiny, insignificant portion of cases.

their own reproductive choices (including the ones they otherwise couldn't afford).

If other people are paying for it, it's not really your choice. You have turned it into "our" choice.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

You could call me selfish. Though I'm responsible enough not to get pregnant when I am not ready to support a child. I have (edit:typo) a job, private health insurance, and I paid for my own IUD simply because it's the most effective means of delaying pregnancy without outright getting a tubal ligation.

However, I empathize with the situations of women who end up pregnant with no good means to raise their children. In some cases, they can get help from their family or the government (edit: if they live in a state with good programs), or participate in a successful private adoption. And good for them! But that's not an option for everyone. If you can't find a couple to privately adopt your child, you're stuck on crappy state assistance (in states that don't offer very good programs) or you have to give your child to the state DCF. Neither are a great way to live.

You mentioned before about people who grew up on welfare or abused. I'm sure most of them wouldn't choose to have never existed, of course. But under that logic, we might as well try and create as many human lives as possible, because once people exist, they would rather live, right?

This is where subjective value judgements come in. Do you see a fetus as an existing person that deserves to continue living no matter what? I don't, in all cases. I willingly admit that the line between person and non-person is fuzzy as hell. But I generally draw the line at "viability" (once the baby can be extracted and live independent of its mother's body). Before viability, I see abortion as exactly morally equivalent to taking a birth control pill to prevent ovulation. In my view, in both cases, you are preventing the life of a person where a person does not yet exist. I'm so sorry that my ethical judgements aren't valid to you, but they are what they are. And I will run my life/vote accordingly.

I can see you're the analytical type (an an-cap, it seems?) so you've got a very solid framework of opinions on how individuals can interact with each other without violating each others' rights. My view on those issues tends to be fuzzy and grey at times. Sometimes it just depends on the situation. While I see my views as internally consistent, I know that not everyone else is going to agree that I'm being consistent, and there's nothing I can do at that point beyond acknowledging your point, and agreeing to disagree.

[–]Crimson_D82 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D82 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D82 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D82 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]diehtc0ke 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]indpndnt0 points 12 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]kygardener1 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]indpndnt0 points 12 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

The quote wasn't meant to say that the 3% was including just the 3 services they listed. I used that quote to illustrate the magnitude of the abortions performed.

If you include all the services planned parenthood performs then yes it is 3%

The article defines how that number doesn't mean anything, because it's not representative of the relative magnitudes of services.

FTA:

"Planned Parenthood “unbundles” all of its services so that a pack of pills, an STD test and an exam are three separate services"

So you have a bunch of low cost, easy to count up 'services' that can overshadow just saying 'perform abortion'. Doing this, which they do on purpose, allows them to make it look like they aren't just an abortion provider. However:

"Planned Parenthood gets at least a third of its clinic income—and more than 10 percent of all its revenue, government funding included—from its abortion procedures."

A third of the income that it gets from actually providing services (this excludes all the donations and government checks they get) comes from abortions.

None of this really matters, though, relative to the "Your body, your choice, your expense" comment. Defunding an organization is not the same as blocking access to it.

[–]kygardener1 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You quoting a section that has 3 services listed with abortion being the highest then saying "That's hardly '3%'." is what is highly misleading.

I just do not agree with the article. Getting an STD test, an exam by a doctor, and a prescription refilled are 3 different services. If I go to my GP and he wants me to get a CT scan done I have to go to radiology. If he also wants to put me on some medication I have to go to a pharmacy to get it filled. If he wants blood drawn I get sent to the phlebotomy lab. Although there can be some overlap in what medical professionals do, usually each section has their own technicians trained specifically for that job.

It is great that my GP's office has all these services available, and he doesn't have to send me to the hospital to get them done. However if I want an MRI, an echocardiogram, or a colonoscopy done they do not provide those services so I have to go somewhere else.

Also not every person who goes into PP would get all 3 of those done at the same time. Someone can come in to get a prescription refilled, and not get an STD test or an abortion. They are different services so it is totally fine to list them as such. Just because one service costs more does not mean it is the same as another service so they should be included together.

[–]JayBopara 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hillock65 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kygardener12 points 12 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hillock65 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments