"Abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun." - Planned Parenthood

"Abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun."

Yes, Planned Parenthood itself made this statement, granted in an advertisement from 1964.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/061382f356cf.jpg[/atsimg]

So the question arises, what scientific discoveries have been made in the last 45 years that has led PP to provide 305,310 abortions in 2007 (an increase of 16,000 on the previous year)?
With 34% of their revenue ($349,600,000) coming from government grants shouldn't we ask the question?
As they seek to "improve" abortion services in Africa, Asia and Latin America, funding abortion services to 15,000 women in these regions of the world last year, what has changed their minds?

[All above statistics from Planned Parenthood Annual Report 2007-2008]

With philosophical reasons for objecting to abortion being roundly dismissed and pro-choice advocates frequently resorting to "objective" claims of personhood etc what objective change in the understanding of human life has happened to allow PP to change its belief concerning this matter? Indeed, more broadly, what has led western culture to make such a dramatic and devestating change to its ethos of life?

Abortion is an issue likely to arise as the new SCOTUS Justice is confirmed. POTUS had lifting the "gag order" one of his first acts in power. $350Mil are given to PP by the government each year. This is a political and philosophical issue with broad ramifications - how did PP and the government and the West change their minds?

reply to post by Supercertari


Society has changed quite a bit from the early 60's no? back then discrimination was still a way of life in many areas. The Leave it to Beaver mentality that had Barbara Billingsly vaccuming in heels and pears was the norm NOT the exception. The notion of sex moved from the dark bedroom under the covers for married couples only to a much more acepted open practice. With the age of Aquarius you also had more pregnancies.

Also you were 9 years away from the landmark Roe versus Wade ruling (1973) and it changed from being a states rights issue to a federal one thus making it avalible anywhere. Thus you also had the number of abortions comming out of the shadows and alleys and being tabulated with more accuracy.

I will touch on my views regarding this issue, but I do not care to elaborate further.

I will however, briefly, comment on the potential reasoning behind the abortion issue.

It is a battle between yes and no, good and evil, where there is seemingly no middle ground.
Quite the contrary though.
Without going too deep, I feel that every single case is unique, and every single case should be viewed as such. Unique.
There is more gray area than anything, and I do not believe that there is a right or a wrong answer in every single matter.
Abortion has become just like anything else, when left in the hands of the government and lawyers.
The rights of the people become something more when put into the hands of manipulative lawyers. What the become are rights to selfishness, and a "Who gives a F**K anymore attitude"
The argument of "It's my body!!" becomes the issue, instead of the actual life that is being terminated. I cannot think of anything more selfish, than to put your own feeling of worth before that of an innocent unborn child.
But like I said, there is a lot of gray areas. Rape, for example. Should a woman be forced to bear the child of a such a heinous act as rape?
You answer that one.
How about disease?
Perhaps the child will be better off passing on.
I do not have the answers to this and I do not think that anyone does.

Oh yeah, lets not forget about the monetary aspect of this entire situation either. What is better for business than a little controversy.
I mean by that comment, Who really benefits?
The doctors?
The lawyers?
The political groups, using the issue to swing votes?
The millions funneled into legal, clinical, and international funds, for the purpose of "family planning"?

Far too often, I have heard people say in my own life, "F**K it, I'll just get an abortion." A comment that makes me sick the several times I have heard it, from upper middle class Caucasian women too busy with careers.
When reason should come into play, the issue provides an easy way out, and removes the individual from their responsibility.

Just what this world needs, more people free of responsibility.
Which is what this issue is all about.
Isn't it?



[edit on 7/6/2009 by reticledc]

From what I personally know about abortion clinics in the 1960s from my mother's career...

The issue was that many women were dying from "black market" abortions on a regular basis. It wasn't the question of whether or not to have an abortion, it was a question of how to do it in the safest manner possible for the mother and the fetus. There were botched abortions before abortion became legal where the fetus survived with very serious medical problems.

I own a copy of both the 1970s and 1984 versions of "Our Bodies Ourselves." I've cited it on here on numerous occasions. The general perception of abortion was slightly different, just because of cases like

Let me quote:

We believe that compulsory pregnancy and forced motherhood are morally wrong...

There are numerous paragraphs of complications and risk factors, agencies that can help, etc. The most important part is the "History and Politics of Abortion." It's worth a trip to the bookstore. (Although I'm not sure if this book is still in print.)

In the 1950s about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result.

There was also a strong coincidence that most women who could get abortions legally in 1969 (Ninety percent) were white. In 1969 75% of the women who died from abortions were women of color.

I can't type up the entire chapter but the section on "The Current Antiabortion Crusade" is well-written and I do believe that the perspective was different then, although the struggle of pro-choicers to keep the right to have an abortion was just as strong.

When this book was written in 1984, I'd like to quote "Since 1977 hundreds of clinics have been bombed, burned and vandalized."

But I think the history of both the pro-life and pro-choice movements is complex. The issue by the 1970s and 1980s was to give women the opportunity to have abortions in a safer way. Many people would still say that women who die having an illegal abortion deserve it. But I'd like to point everyone in the direction of Geraldine Santoro, as I have so many times before, who died in 1964 in a well-known illegal abortion scenario. Even into the early 1980s, these things continued to happen. And in my opinion, they should never happen again. People were more concerned about the health of the mothers, they were concerned about women who had been raped, they were afraid that pro-choice supporters would be harmed, and afraid that abortion clinics would be attacked or bombed.

I kind of thought things were different but about a week ago I realized that maybe things are reverting backwards.

reply to post by Supercertari
Those pictures are perfect. The parents look down right scary even though they are physically perfect.Something looks terribly wrong ;love is missing. The mother looks cold and distant from the child. Most women can not take their eyes off a new born baby. Who ever took the photo was an artist;he managed to capture the essence of the sinister world the eugenicists are trying to create. The photagrapher did this by design. The morons who paid for the propaganda did not even have a clue how diabolical the advisement makes them look. Genius!

reply to post by FredT


reply to post by ravenshadow13


Both these replies don't answer the question of my OP, indeed they both treat the issue from a socio-political perspective. There is nothing scientific or objective which has been discovered in the last 45 years to translate planned parenthood's contention that abortion "kills the life of a baby after it has begun" to a provider of over 300,000 abortions.

Therefore the pro-choice criticism of pro-life advocates that their stance is based on belief applies equally in reverse, that pro-choice advocates are basing their advocacy on beliefs. We thus have two contradictory beliefs vying for supremacy. Where such a suituation pertains we naturally speak of "grey areas", etc. - except in this case, pregnancy, there is no grey area as pregnancy is a binary state: ie you can't be slightly pregnant. Similarly for the human life in the womb existence is a binary state: they are either alive or not.

Permitting abortion, advocating abortion rights, can only be based on belief, beliefs which have changed in the last 45 years. Why these beliefs have changed may be based on socio-political "developments" but there is no objective change in the status of the human life.

Is it semantics then? Someone who is willingly pregnant (or even otherwise without recourse to an abortion) is "having a baby" it's only a "fetus (etc.)" either in the objective setting of medical care or when abortion rights are being advocated. An example is the heartbreakingly tragic murder of a pregnant woman in the UK today where it is reported that "Murdered woman's unborn baby dies" (Source). No-one says "Pregnant woman killed, fetus terminated." Clearly this was not her choice but the "choice" argument is used to distinguish between baby/fetus. There is no objective difference between either human life but there is, it seems, a "belief" difference.

I am advocating the right to life and presenting another facet of the argument in favour of abolishing this invented "right"/"choice", I'll lay those cards on the table as honestly as I can. At least though I would ask that those who advocate a pro-choice position have the honesty and integrity to realise/admit that there has been no objective change in the last 45 years, there is no objective difference between "fetus" and "unborn baby" - it is based on belief.

reply to post by Supercertari


I'll add this, hopefully it's not too far off topic...

There was a movie called [color=gold]Our Time 1974.

It dealt with unwanted pregnancy as it's story line. My bro and I weren't old enough to see it so we got a ticket to Bambi or something and off to the other screen back when multiscreen theaters were first introduced. It was much easier to sneak around back in those pre teen summer days and nights... those were the days.

Anyhow, When I saw the OP it reminded me so starkly of that movie from 1974... Now, being able to recall the scenes to some extent... It really made quite an impression on me back then. I was expecting a happy ending and it was devastatingly sad for a youngster.

One main character has an unwanted pregnancy (set in the 50's) and she goes to a back alley abortionist who botches it and the girl dies. I distinctly recall the girls best friend throwing a large soft drink in the face of the guy that knocked her up.

OK, now, get this; Since I was young back then before Roe vs. Wade and, for what I was told by my parents, they stated to me pretty much what was on the pamphlet in the OP.

PP offers planning for having kids. Even to teens as rumor had it. You could get condoms etc... which, as far as I was concerned, still made GREAT water balloons at my age...

Time Passed... (years)

I was with a girl friend and were getting serious (maybe going to get some)... She asked me "What if I get pregnant?" I said... (of course, drawing from early sex education talks with my parents and not at all knowing about Roe V. Wade... ) "We can always go to PP and talk with them."

Oh Em Gee, she knew and I didn't!! I about had my face slapped off. She never spoke to me again. Good thing because now I'm happily married to an awesome woman, however... if you do the math on that scenario you can see, and I can vouch for the changes that happened at PP.

To my absolute horror, they've become an abortion shop. Nothing like the original mission, which I'm sure, as a noble cause, that any tax payer would be happy to fund.

Perhaps in an idealistic society PP could be separated from abortion shops and both could do their assigned task independently. What made them switch over to the dark side, I'm not sure.

Not sure where to go from here but there's my two cents worth...

I'd mildly recommend that movie, Our Time. It's a contemporary look at 50's Americana and taboo etc... Check IMDB.

I think you need to stop trying to force your opinions/beliefs on people, Its a persons choice, its their body and not yours.

Originally posted by DrMattMaddix
reply to post by Supercertari

 

I'll add this, hopefully it's not too far off topic...

There was a movie called [color=gold]Our Time 1974.


Perhaps in an idealistic society PP could be separated from abortion shops and both could do their assigned task independently. What made them switch over to the dark side, I'm not sure.

Well speaking as someone who was a clinic manager for Planned Parenthood for several years in South Florida I never saw this "dark side" that you speak of. I never saw anyone coerced into an abortion. I never saw PP try to make money off providing aborations and I never saw any of the evils that you speak of.

What I DID see where a lot of dedicated people who were truely concerned about providing healthcare and options to patients who were in need. I saw many, many cases of incest, women and girls who made mistakes, and people who otherwise would have been caused major hardship and heartache if they would have had to take care of babies.

Before you start making public statements about what Planned Parenthood does or doesnt do maybe you should go and volunteer for a few weeks, it might just change your perspect.

Ok so it does say that.
"Abortion kills the life of an unborn baby after it has begun".
But they lied about it.
They said that to force the other stuff, birth control, upon them, to scare them into it.
They thought if they used a frightening enough statement such as that then the person would consider the birth control more.

reply to post by Supercertari


A plausible reason for PP to "update" its stance is because of stem cells. Stem cells and pure profit go hand in hand.

Why is there such an interest in stem cells?
Researchers hope stem cell studies can help to:

Increase understanding of how diseases occur. By watching stem cells mature into cells that eventually become bones, heart muscle, nerve cells and other organs and tissue, researchers and doctors may better understand how a variety of diseases and conditions develop.

Generate healthy cells to replace diseased cells. Researchers hope they can train stem cells into becoming specific cells so that those specialized cells can be used to regenerate and repair diseased or damaged tissues in people. Stem cells could also be grown to become new tissue for use in transplant medicine.

Test new drugs for safety and effectiveness. Before using new drugs in people, researchers could use stem cells to test the safety and quality of investigational drugs. For instance, nerve cells could be generated in order to test a new drug for a nerve disease. Tests could show whether the new drug had any effect on the cells and whether the cells were harmed.

Stem Cells

The Mayo Clinic lists Embyonic Stem Cells as a prime source of stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells. These stem cells come from embryos that are four to five days old. At this stage, an embryo is called a blastocyst and has about 150 cells. These are pluripotent (ploo-RIP-uh-tunt) stem cells, meaning they can divide into more stem cells or they can specialize and become any type of body cell. Because of this versatility, embryonic stem cells have the highest potential for use to regenerate or repair diseased tissue and organs in people.

I have a hunch that these highly sought after and highly controversial stem cells are in fact, being harvested from aborted fetuses for the furtherance of life extending research for those with the wherewithall to afford the luxury of life extending therapies.

I can't entertain the notion that aborted fetuses are being ignored for this type of research and medical profiteering.

Thing is, abortion is something people want and not necessarily need. And this is a society of want, not need.

People want fast cars and big houses, they don't need them.
People want illicit drugs, they don't need them.
etc...

And as it's something people want, it isn't going to disappear with the wave of an oppressive religious hand or attack from an activitist group. It hasn't worked before when peoples' freedoms were far less (resulted in back-ally abortions) and it certainly won't work now, given how much people will stand up and shout about their personal freedoms and right to choose for themselves.

I think the point is, we won't ever go backwards on this. It's a modern world with modern thinking. And if that means the value of human life is a trip to an abortion clinic, well, sorry to say, "So be it".

For me, I really don't care what reason the woman says for an abortion - it makes no difference to me. Regardless of the reason, the result is the same so I don't see the point in bickering about it. After all, we all die at some point; earlier for some. And it's not my place to say who and when.

Originally posted by Horus12
I think you need to stop trying to force your opinions/beliefs on people, Its a persons choice, its their body and not yours.

ATS as a whole is nothing more then a site where people post (or force as you call it) their opinions or beliefs. Be it politics, religions, pro life, pro choice, UFO's, ghosts, 9/11 and a host of other things.


You don't like someones opinion about something then ignore it. You are at your computer completely seperate from anyone else on here. How exactly was the OP forcing his opinion or belief onto you? Did he make you click the thread?

Get over yourself.


On topic.

In 1964 there was a differant mind set. You will also notice they describe an abortion as a dangerous procedure that might leave you sterile.

Things have changed and more options are granted. I don't agree with abortions, but the info that pampleht gave is obviously not correct. You shouldn't look to information that is 35 years ago to argue todays hot topics. I'm sure you would find that Presidents back then had a negative view on homosexuals. Would their opinion be relevent in todays society?

Originally posted by AllInMyHead
I saw many, many cases of incest, women and girls who made mistakes, and people who otherwise would have been caused major hardship and heartache if they would have had to take care of babies.

Such a statement, with the usual reference to rape/incest, ignores the statistics as published by the Guttmacher Institute. They make interesting reading and the source is an institute which owes its founding to PP and which advocates "safe, affordable abortion services" as "women['s] reproductive rights." (Source) I do think, as throughout my contributions to this thread, that I employ the statistics generated by these pro-choice organisations themselves.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cb4712f8c2fc.jpg[/atsimg]
(Source)

As can be seen less than 1.5% of abortions are for reasons of rape/incest - I know one case of rape/incest is too many but how are you defining "many, many" in your experience based claim? The woman's health as a reason is represented by 12%.
Remarkably these are both less than the 20% who give their partner's/parent's wishes as a cause for seeking an abortion - in what way is this respecting women's freedom or "reproductive rights"?
As can be seen approximately 75% of abortions are carried out for economic/lifestyle reasons with a good percentage also using abortion as a form of contraception.

Another occasion for pro-choice advocates to be honest perhaps? Acknowledge the small proportion of abortions performed for cases of rape/incest/maternal health - even acknowledge the higher proportion in which women come under pressure to have an abortion?

Perhaps though, as a former employee of PP you could enquire, and/or inform us, on what objective standard they decided to change their perspective on the human life in the womb from being a baby whose life has begun to something a woman can dispose of should she choose.

It is even more clear now then it was in 1964 that the preborn child is indeed a human being. It is MUCH more clear thanks to science.

We now have ultra sounds and other medical devices that show us inside the womb while the child is still residing there. The preborn baby boy or girl will sleep and wake; will open and close his or her eyes; will suck his or her thumb; will play with the cord; will play with his or her toes.

We now know for a fact that preborn children feel pain in the womb. When surgery is preformed on preborn children pain killing drugs are used.

Those things were not known in 1964 ... but they are now.

OF COURSE abortion kills a baby after it's life has begun.
It stops a human heart from beating.

Originally posted by Horus12
I think you need to stop trying to force your opinions/beliefs on people, Its a persons choice, its their body and not yours.

1 - nothing is 'forced'. If you don't like it ... post on another thread.

2 - 'It's their body' is dead wrong. The woman does not kill herself. She kills another human being. She stops another human beings heart from beating. It's not her own body that she's shredding in abortion or painfully burning to death with chemicals. It's someone elses. So 'it's their body' is wrong.