Former Abortion Clinic Owner: We Pushed Sex Ed on Kids to Create a Market for Abortion

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: Krazysh0t Um...in Europe and Canada there are plenty doctors, janitors, nurses, etc that are working in the state run medical systems. And pharmaceutical research is still done in those nations as well. Just saying.

Well hold on there. I never said that it doesn't happen. I just said that it is a problem that is more easily addressed by the for-profit industry.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Your post clearly implies that Christians aren't able to be reasonable on an issue. Don't pretend it doesn't.

That may be waht you inferred, but thats not what I implied. I have met plenty of christians that dont think it is their place to force their beliefs on others.

Again, my post simply points out that it is ALWAYS christians leading the anti-choice charge. AM I WRONG?

That is why it got any stars at all, because others that can't respect Christians like that sort of dig. You didn't offer anything actually relevant; you addressed the group you assume is posting in agreement with me, instead. That isn't valid debate.

And yet, here you are, trying to debate me. Interesting.

I ask again, AM I WRONG?

If you were paying any attention, you'd see that I didn't mention any religious aspects of the issue in this thread. Nope, you were too busy posting an insult to Christians to take the time to actually READ the thread. Typical.

You mean except the source posted, and the entire point of the thread?

Come on now. Thats just sad.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

That sounds like anti abortion propaganda to me, I wonder how much he is been paid to say that, you don't have to push sex ed on children to encourage sex, that is a lie.

Young children do NOT naturally wonder about sex, unless they are exposed to it. For kids to be interested younger and younger does indeed require them to be "educated" in sexual matters at earlier ages.

originally posted by: marg6043
Sex is part of human nature and preservation of species in the animal kingdom and any other kingdom in earth, children are very aware of their sexual organs at a very young age and experience sexual gratification also, even if they do not know what they are doing, it just feels right for them.

For adults, not for children. This is about kid, not adults. Doing "what feels right" is an excuse any number of criminals could use. Not valid.

originally posted by: marg6043
Also children upon maturity will experience with sex as a natural thing.

If they are mature, they aren't children. Sex for children is NOT natural. Of course, there are some infamous types that would disagree with me. NAMBLA for instance.

originally posted by: marg6043
Christianity and social standards are the ones that seems to push sex as unnatural and dirty, because is against religious views and to stop sexual abuse as that has become a trend in modern days to encourage none Christian countries from the practicing of marrying young girls.

This isn't about Christianity; it's about bad habits of abortion providers and lobbyists.

originally posted by: marg6043
I do find very disgusting that now they are after sex ed in order to keep pushing agendas as the reason of promiscuity and abortion as a side effect.

Sex ed should be nothing more than some basic biology, for teens, not younger, and some warnings about STDs. Graphic picture books, assigned genital drawing, and assemblies discussing sexual practices, aren't needed. Stay on focus here. This isn't saying "all sex ed is bad"; it's saying that some things are done in that which should not be done.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
But if you make abortion illegal then your own comments mean that underground abortions will be inherently unsafe!

Most abortions should be illegal. All, in my eyes, but I could deal with cases of rape or serious medical issues. That isn't what most are for these days. If abortions were not legal, women would have to actually think more seriously about the consequences of their actions. If one isn't responsible enough to raise a child, then one isn't responsible enough to be having sex.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So what? That is these womens' right. If it is legal I don't really care what the reason for it is, it's not mine nor your business so what does it matter? That decision is between the woman, (hopefully) the man who got her pregnant, and god (if he exists). Your opinion on the matter isn't necessary. The fact is that it is legal so these women have every right to do it for whatever reason they want. Can the reasons be shallow? Yes. Certainly, people are generally pretty shallow, but again that isn't my place to judge them or cast shame on them for it. Let their guilt eat them.

No, it isn't about women's rights; it's about killing children because they aren't "convenient" for their irresponsible mothers. Why not toddlers next? Why is one life stage less human than another? Is it your business if a mother kills her born children? Everyone seems to agree that's wrong. Abortion is no different, except that it is legal. Killing another human being for convenience is flat out wrong. Those killed have rights, too, which the law ignores. Gee, why prohibit any murder at all? Let their guilt eat them. Should cut down prison population.

originally posted by: marg6043
I read your op about a few clinics with poor oversight from an ex-worker there who, after reading further sources about it, sounds like she is just blowing smoke because she is now a pro-lifer. I haven't read or seen ANY information from you say that this is a problem indicative of the whole industry. Though you keep insisting that it is. Sorry, but your logic flow doesn't match up.

Not "a few"; she ran a few, but she was involved with NATIONAL lobbying, and knew people from many others, that were all for the same practices. You seem unable to grasp that fact.

originally posted by: marg6043
Well I don't consider abortion to be murder, so there is that. Your examples all fall under crimes that contain victims. I view abortion as a victimless crime, so that is just a difference of opinion. All victimless crimes should be legal since people will do them anyways and they aren't hurting anyone.

That is the key difference, of course. For me, unique DNA at even the earliest stages means a new human being, and thus abortion is murder. Simple science. The victims are the unborn that are denied any right to birth, growth, and further life. Abortion isn't victimless. The women aren't unharmed, either. Besides real physical problems, there are emotional issues as well. I am a woman, and I don't consider killing an unborn child a right. My body is one thing, but another body inside mine? That isn't mine to destroy. It's not natural, and it's not right. Five WEEKS, and you can see the heart beating. I have. 10-12 weeks, well within abortion guidelines all over, you can see a formed FACE, formed hands and feet, fingers and toes; a tiny little human being. Anyone that has ever seen an early ultrasound knows this, which is THE reason abortion providers don't want ultrasound to be mandatory before any abortion. I have seen them, with pregnancies that had issues. My second daughters profile looked like she does now. She's thirteen.

My second daughters profile looked like she does now. She's thirteen.

originally posted by: marg6043
But you still have to prove that this problem is indicative of the entire industry. Again all you've shown is at the most that we have a bad apple or two in the bunch.

If it's a problem anywhere in the industry, it needs to be corrected. Unless you would approve plans to make people sick just to drum up business for doctors, you can't say this is acceptable. If national lobbying groups support this practice, that's a real problem.

originally posted by: marg6043
That STILL isn't all of them. Heck, it's not even all the clinics in Texas (her home state). And she lobbies AGAINST abortions not for them. I'd think her views are a little biased as far as identifying nationwide problems with abortion clinics. Sorry but you are really trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. You are making an egregious leap in logic and trying to pin the testimony from ONE ex-abortion worker turned lifer into actions of the entire industry. Using your logic, we should disband the Catholic church because some priests are pedophiles in it.

She's not "biased" because she was on one side, and changed her point of view based on what she saw. That's educated, not biased. She isn't the only former abortion worker to talk about issues, either. Whistle blowers from that sector are as credible as from any other.

An investigation would help, but the abortion people don't want that, either. Any time anyone wants to investigate, "privacy" is thrown around like a shield. Privacy allowed Gosnell to do what he did for so long. He's not alone. Even if you approve of abortion, would you approve of what she says is happening, if it's true?

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
That's ridiculous. And complete sophistry. Legal abortions are by any measure much safer, despite not being risk free, so the argument absolutely stands. You just want to exclude it.

The logical conclusion of your argument is to abolish all safety measures in anything, since sometimes they fail. Planes occasionally crash, so clearly air flight should be completely unregulated because planes would still crash. Their number being apparently immaterial.

No, it isn't ridiculous. The abortion fans claim it's safe this way. If that isn't true, which it isn't, that makes their claim invalid.

Safety measures? Under whose enforcement? Places don't get inspected as they should, there is little to no oversight, and thus the industry isn't safe at all.

However this thread is about how abortion providers use sex ed to bring in patients. Stay on topic.

originally posted by: theMediator
Sex education wasn't what was pushed, it was low dose birth control that was given to teenagers thinking they we`re protected.

Sex education isn't evil, sex isn't evil...
Deception, however, is.

Sex ed, if done properly, isn't a bad thing. When I was in school, junior high kids got, on one day, a lesson in puberty (separated by sex for the class), and what we could expect. In high school, there was basic biological discussion (mostly in Bio2, which most didn't take), and some discussion of STDs there. We didn't have everyone running around having sex, either. A few did, but it was considered something that brought a bad reputation, for boys and girls. Never saw a single pregnant girl (that one could tell), either. Never even heard of anyone becoming pregnant while in school, and this was a large high school in a major US city. A few people I knew talked about it, but most weren't willing to go through with it, because we knew the dangers, and no one was telling us it was "normal" or "expected". These days, that isn't what a lot of kids get. Elementary school kids some places get more that I had in high school biology.

Deception.......evil, indeed, and very present in the abortion industry. Low dose birth control for teens might be "safer" as far as the drug itself is concerned, but it isn't safe as far as real protection is concerned! Evil indeed!

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
But if you make abortion illegal then your own comments mean that underground abortions will be inherently unsafe!

Most abortions should be illegal. All, in my eyes, but I could deal with cases of rape or serious medical issues. That isn't what most are for these days. If abortions were not legal, women would have to actually think more seriously about the consequences of their actions. If one isn't responsible enough to raise a child, then one isn't responsible enough to be having sex.

I'm not sure what to say about the above, other than the fact that you have again failed to address my point. Making abortions illegal on moral grounds is hopelessly unrealistic. It's always going to happen, for reasons that you don't seem to grasp. And once again - if you make abortion illegal then you drive it underground, where it will continue to happen - and be very, very, unsafe. Are you going to tell some desperate 15-year-old that her lack of morals means that she can't have an abortion? Are you really that cruel?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Many clinics here do make money. Even those receiving tax dollars, such as Planned Parenthood, make money. None of them do it at no profit.

So now you're saying that people in the US are having abortions for different reasons than they do in the UK? And don't say that's not what you're saying, because you are clearly ignoring the fact that in the UK, there is no profit to be made, but abortions still happens, and you're straight back into...clinics in the US making money, so it can only be extrapolated from that, that people in the UK are having abortions for different reasons than in the US, which is, yet again, totally ridiculous.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
I'm not sure what to say about the above, other than the fact that you have again failed to address my point. Making abortions illegal on moral grounds is hopelessly unrealistic. It's always going to happen, for reasons that you don't seem to grasp. And once again - if you make abortion illegal then you drive it underground, where it will continue to happen - and be very, very, unsafe. Are you going to tell some desperate 15-year-old that her lack of morals means that she can't have an abortion? Are you really that cruel?

If it's illegal, then there can be, and should be, prosecution for doing it. Jail time for the women and the providers. If that happens, then a lot of people won't be getting them, because they won't want to risk it. As for "cruel", I think poisoning or cutting up a tiny human being is cruel. The fifteen-year-old can be taught before the fact that sex isn't something she should be practicing, till she's ready and willing to raise a child, in case her birth control doesn't work. I think it's cruel teaching kids that age that they can have sex, and no one minds, and it's "acceptable". They aren't old enough, or mature enough, mentally or emotionally, even if they might be physically. When I was that age, I knew all I needed to know, and I abstained, even with some good opportunities, because I didn't want to risk a pregnancy. No free and legal abortion to fall back on would make more people think about it before they acted.

If someone isn't responsible enough to be a parent, they aren't responsible enough for sex.

originally posted by: destination now
So now you're saying that people in the US are having abortions for different reasons than they do in the UK? And don't say that's not what you're saying, because you are clearly ignoring the fact that in the UK, there is no profit to be made, but abortions still happens, and you're straight back into...clinics in the US making money, so it can only be extrapolated from that, that people in the UK are having abortions for different reasons than in the US, which is, yet again, totally ridiculous.

For what reasons do you think most have them? And of course there is profit to be made. Someone is paying for the clinic space, and the staff, and the materials and equipment used, so there is someone making a profit. Even if tax money is used, someone is still collecting those funds. Claiming there is "no profit" isn't being honest.

Here, the clinics DO run for profit, in most cases.

None of that is about the reasons, though, that women seek abortions. The clinics do it for the money. If you want to discuss why the women do it, make a thread for that.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
I'm not sure what to say about the above, other than the fact that you have again failed to address my point. Making abortions illegal on moral grounds is hopelessly unrealistic. It's always going to happen, for reasons that you don't seem to grasp. And once again - if you make abortion illegal then you drive it underground, where it will continue to happen - and be very, very, unsafe. Are you going to tell some desperate 15-year-old that her lack of morals means that she can't have an abortion? Are you really that cruel?

If it's illegal, then there can be, and should be, prosecution for doing it. Jail time for the women and the providers. If that happens, then a lot of people won't be getting them, because they won't want to risk it. As for "cruel", I think poisoning or cutting up a tiny human being is cruel. The fifteen-year-old can be taught before the fact that sex isn't something she should be practicing, till she's ready and willing to raise a child, in case her birth control doesn't work. I think it's cruel teaching kids that age that they can have sex, and no one minds, and it's "acceptable". They aren't old enough, or mature enough, mentally or emotionally, even if they might be physically. When I was that age, I knew all I needed to know, and I abstained, even with some good opportunities, because I didn't want to risk a pregnancy. No free and legal abortion to fall back on would make more people think about it before they acted.

If someone isn't responsible enough to be a parent, they aren't responsible enough for sex.

I think that you have a hopelessly unrealistic view of humanity. And I also think that you are projecting your own experience onto others. Life is a hell of a lot more complicated than that. As I said on another reply I don't like abortion, but I recognise that it fits a need. Cutting off access to it and bringing in legal punishment for it is staggeringly doctrinaire and, dare I say it, also hopelessly naïve. There will always be a need for it, no matter much you might fulminate against it and lecture people. And I have to point something else out. I'm from the UK and there is no movement to restrict or ban abortion here. Take a look at the history of abortion in Ireland so see what can go wrong with banning it.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
But if you make abortion illegal then your own comments mean that underground abortions will be inherently unsafe!

Most abortions should be illegal. All, in my eyes, but I could deal with cases of rape or serious medical issues. That isn't what most are for these days. If abortions were not legal, women would have to actually think more seriously about the consequences of their actions. If one isn't responsible enough to raise a child, then one isn't responsible enough to be having sex.

Oh I see it's up to the woman is it. She has to live with the consequences including morals dictated by men.....like yourself, whilst the man walks away to sh.g another woman next saturday.

How about this : if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy and wishes an abortion you can prevent her only if the man gets a vasectomy. How about that rule? Seems perfectly fair and even to me.....

This is typical male bible thumping nonsense. You will stoning women next for having sex without permission (as they do elsewhere in the world!).

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: destination now
So now you're saying that people in the US are having abortions for different reasons than they do in the UK? And don't say that's not what you're saying, because you are clearly ignoring the fact that in the UK, there is no profit to be made, but abortions still happens, and you're straight back into...clinics in the US making money, so it can only be extrapolated from that, that people in the UK are having abortions for different reasons than in the US, which is, yet again, totally ridiculous.

For what reasons do you think most have them? And of course there is profit to be made. Someone is paying for the clinic space, and the staff, and the materials and equipment used, so there is someone making a profit. Even if tax money is used, someone is still collecting those funds. Claiming there is "no profit" isn't being honest.

Here, the clinics DO run for profit, in most cases.

None of that is about the reasons, though, that women seek abortions. The clinics do it for the money. If you want to discuss why the women do it, make a thread for that.

You're just going round in circles now...you've just admitted that women have reasons for seeking abortions, and it is that which drives the demand, not profit seeking by providers. And abortion services are part of the overall NHS budget in the UK, yes there are staff costs, overheads etc, but these costs are often included in the maternity services, so the staff are getting paid anyway as are the overheads for the buildings, so it really is a moot point

And there are enough abortion threads on ATS anyway, we don't need another, but I will stand by my initial statement that the premise of sex education and contraception being made available in order to get women pregnant and thus to elicit profit from a subsequent abortion, really is crazy talk imo and is just some religious zealot's way of castigating women even more, putting pressure on them to conform to some sort of ridiculous ideal that they shouldn't be having sex unless they are in a relationship and want to have babies..that's what it all boils down to and if you can't see that for yourself, then no one else can make you see it (and notably I don't think there is one other person on this thread who thinks that the OP is accurate, despite their personal opinions on the morality of abortion)

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Thats not what I said. I never claimed it was only christians. I said it was always christians leading the charge. Can you rwad or are you changing my wprds on purpose?

If this isnt about religious belief, why is it coming from a religiously biased source, and why does it feel the need to point out very early in the article that the woman in question is born again?

You can try and make this about me, but I am not the one who brought religion into it. You did.

(Nice pathetic ad hom)

a reply to: pexx421

I know exactly what you are talking about, sadly US the leader of almost everything, when it comes to sex is still trying to preserve middle ages views, thank that to the religious pushers in the nation that pay great contributions to the politicians in Washington even when churches pay not taxes.

The irony.

US when it comes to sex education and awareness is considered to be the most sex challenged and sex deprived nation in the world, but hell the abortion rates, teenage pregnancy and single mothers is one of the highest, obviously religion is no doing a darn thing to help anything.

But one thing is for use, US does love sex.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
I think that you have a hopelessly unrealistic view of humanity. And I also think that you are projecting your own experience onto others. Life is a hell of a lot more complicated than that. As I said on another reply I don't like abortion, but I recognise that it fits a need. Cutting off access to it and bringing in legal punishment for it is staggeringly doctrinaire and, dare I say it, also hopelessly naïve. There will always be a need for it, no matter much you might fulminate against it and lecture people. And I have to point something else out. I'm from the UK and there is no movement to restrict or ban abortion here. Take a look at the history of abortion in Ireland so see what can go wrong with banning it.

It isn't unrealistic to expect people not to kill their unborn children. It's rather sickening to assume such a thing should be legal.

What experience would that be, exactly? This isn't nearly as complicated as you want to make it out to be. When kids are taught all sorts of details about sex, they become more curious. When they are taught at younger and younger ages, they become curious younger and younger. Kids that aren't exposed to that sort of "education", in school, or through the media, don't worry about it so much. That' s simple logic. It's also proven in families where the kids aren't exposed to all that, and they don't become interested in sex so early. The way it's being taught in a lot of places (not all) isn't right. Elementary age kids don't need any sex ed at all. All they need is to know that areas covered by a swimsuit are private, and that no one should be messing with those. They don't need to draw pictures of genitalia for the opposite sex, or be told what sex even is, at that age. If a child is curious enough to want more information, they can ask their parents. Older kids need basic puberty lessons, and basic biological processes, with warnings about pregnancy and STD dangers,a nd that's it. At no stage do kids in school need what amounts to "how-to" manuals, complete with techniques and pictures. Some places, they get that, and more.

No, there isn't a need for abortion, in most cases. There is a want for it, and that's a completely different thing. You claim there is "no movement" in the UK against abortion. That isn't exactly accurate:

Abortion Protest Campaign at UK Universities

UK: large pro-choice protest to defend women from religious harassment

Freedom of speech for anti-abortion protesters?

Stop the anti-abortion protests outside UK clinics

Some over there might want to quash the free speech of the protestors, but they are certainly there protesting.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
Oh I see it's up to the woman is it. She has to live with the consequences including morals dictated by men.....like yourself, whilst the man walks away to sh.g another woman next saturday.

How about this : if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy and wishes an abortion you can prevent her only if the man gets a vasectomy. How about that rule? Seems perfectly fair and even to me.....

This is typical male bible thumping nonsense. You will stoning women next for having sex without permission (as they do elsewhere in the world!).

Are you really that dense? News flash - I am a woman! Get a clue. The screen name I use is female, not male. Plus, I have stated more than once in this thread that I am female. Seriously, pay attention.

Now, stop pretending that sex is all on the part of the man, and the woman has no say in it. What, guys where you are simply grab whatever woman they want, whenever they want, and the women have no choice but to comply? Really? What nonsense! Plus, where I live, men have to have responsibility for the children they sire. Child support is required, if the man and woman aren't together.

How about if a woman wants sex and no kids, she has her tubes tied? If a man is willing to support a child, why should he be forced to have surgery because she wants to be irresponsible? Seriously? "I can kill my child unless YOU get surgery so I can be irresponsible, and not face the consequences if my own actions?" BULL.

When you can figure out that "LadyGreenEyes" means female, maybe you can post a coherent response that isn't a personal attack on my religion and on the opposite sex. So far, you win the award for most ridiculous response int he thread to date.

originally posted by: destination now
You're just going round in circles now...you've just admitted that women have reasons for seeking abortions, and it is that which drives the demand, not profit seeking by providers. And abortion services are part of the overall NHS budget in the UK, yes there are staff costs, overheads etc, but these costs are often included in the maternity services, so the staff are getting paid anyway as are the overheads for the buildings, so it really is a moot point

You said,

So now you're saying that people in the US are having abortions for different reasons than they do in the UK? And don't say that's not what you're saying, because you are clearly ignoring the fact that in the UK, there is no profit to be made, but abortions still happens, and you're straight back into...clinics in the US making money, so it can only be extrapolated from that, that people in the UK are having abortions for different reasons than in the US, which is, yet again, totally ridiculous.

So, I asked what reason you think people have them, and instead of answering, you claim I am "going round in circles"? Really? Why not answer, since you are the one saying the reasons are different?

Assuming that no one seeks profit from such a lucrative business isn't logical. Assuming that no one would seek to increase their profit isn't logical. Drug companies that make drugs with side effects, then more drugs to treat the side effects, isn't something anyone would dispute, so why you have a hard time believing the claims from the article?

The system there might be like that, but here, clinics are frequently set up with providing abortions being their reason to exist. Profit isn't a moot point here.

originally posted by: destination now
And there are enough abortion threads on ATS anyway, we don't need another, but I will stand by my initial statement that the premise of sex education and contraception being made available in order to get women pregnant and thus to elicit profit from a subsequent abortion, really is crazy talk imo and is just some religious zealot's way of castigating women even more, putting pressure on them to conform to some sort of ridiculous ideal that they shouldn't be having sex unless they are in a relationship and want to have babies..that's what it all boils down to and if you can't see that for yourself, then no one else can make you see it (and notably I don't think there is one other person on this thread who thinks that the OP is accurate, despite their personal opinions on the morality of abortion)

Well, it isn't up to you to decide that there are "enough" threads on abortion. This thread addresses a specific issue, which isn't addressed in the other threads. If you don't like discussing the issue, why read the thread at all? It's not a requirement. Some people are discussing this aspect of the issue, and you don't get to dictate to them that they shouldn't be able to.

Your opinion is yours, and you are entitled to it. Your opinion doesn't prove the thread wrong, however. Claiming that a woman is "castigating women", and calling her a "religious zealot" shows a definite prejudice on your part. You don't think anyone should be able to speak against abortion (reinforced by your claim that there are already "enough threads" on the topic), and you don't have any respect for the religious rights of others.

The issue here is the claim that the abortion industry is using methods that bring them more business, that aren't ethical. If you choose not to believe that, that's fine, but assuming no one does isn't logical. And, no, this isn't claiming what you say, either. I said if someone is having sex, they should be prepared for the possibility that they could produce a child, and stop depending on killing the child to avoid that responsibility. Even the best birth control can fail, and killing the children that result from that isn't a good solution.

Pretending that no one in the abortion industry would ever do anything unethical isn't logical, either. They aren't flawless simply because you agree with what they do.