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

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You keep ignoring the point that I have repeatedly brought up - if you make abortion illegal then you drive it underground. There will always be a need for it. You can rail against sex ed all you like, you can suggest umpteen ways of changing it, but it still gets wrecked on the rocks of reality. People have been having sex at the wrong time and with the wrong people since we fell out of the trees. There will always be a need for abortion. Make it illegal and IT WILL STILL HAPPEN. But it will be far less safe. You cannot deny that fact - and please don't bring up the issue that even some legal abortions are unsafe. I am talking about the old backstreet abortions which will kill people by mistake.

I didn't ignore the point; I addressed the point. Just because people will do something that is illegal, that doesn't mean you should make it legal, so they aren't breaking the law. That sort of thinking is utterly illogical. Should we make burglary legal, so burglars don't have to sneak around? Make it so they can knock on your door, walk in and take whatever they want, and you can't stop them? No police will help you? I mean, gee, they could be shot the way it stands now. Make it legal so they are safe, right? Wrong!

Abortions kill people now, every single time one is performed, unless it's really late term and the doctor "screws up", and the baby lives. Then, of course, they can toss them in some room alone to die, or snap a spine, right? Why make that illegal? Who is hurt? Oh, that's right, fifty-five million people and counting, and that doens't include the mothers that are scarred for life or die.

No, you didn't address the point; you ignored it. At the moment abortion is illegal. And saying that "abortions kill people now" is the basic argument that gets brought up again and again by those who are against abortion. There's just one problem with it - at which point does a foetus become a person? Not a potential person, a real person. This is an ancient argument and I have yet to find a satisfactory answer from the anti-abortion lobby. When two cells merge, that's not a person. When you have a clump of cells, that's not a person. If a foetus has a heart, do they also have a brain? A functioning brain? Where do you draw the line?
Shouting about how much you hate abortion is all very well and good. But you have to face facts. It's legal, people want to keep it legal. Make it illegal and it's still going to happen, only those having the procedure will be in greater danger of dying. There will always be a need for it. You can't ignore that fact. And what about the people who aren't having an abortion for any kind of frivolous reason (like you seem to claim they do) but for other reasons? When the baby is the result of rape? Or incest? Or the baby is malformed, or has a massive birth defect? What about when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother? You want to stop all those people from having an abortion, just because you think that your version what entails a person is the only correct one? Are you really that arrogant?
We live in an imperfect world full of people who make mistakes. I suggest that you try to live with that.

And sadly this the link below shows the type of devastation to women who are shunned by society for becoming pregnant and what becomes of their babies when they are forced into keeping them, yet given no support.

Notably this article relates to the period between 1925 and 1961, which is before abortion was legalised in the UK, but sadly in a part of Ireland where abortion is still illegal today

The bodies of nearly 800 babies are believed to have been interred in a concrete tank beside a former home for unmarried mothers.
The dead babies are thought to have been secretly buried beside a home for single mothers and their children in County Galway, Ireland, over a period of 36 years.
It is suspected that 796 children were interred on unconsecrated ground without headstones or coffins next to the home run by the Bon Secours nuns in Tuam between 1925 and 1961.
Newly unearthed reports show that they suffered malnutrition and neglect, which caused the deaths of many, while others died of measles, convulsions, TB, gastroenteritis and pneumonia.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Mass Graves of 800 Babies

And of course the people supposed to be looking after these babies and their mothers...the nuns...

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Now you are using the arguments used by utilitarian bioethicists, who claim that "quality of life" issues are a valid reason for killing someone, at any age. It isn't our place to decide if someone will have what we think is a good enough life that they deserve to live, or die if we don't think they'll have what we think they need. It's supremely arrogant to assume to make such a decision for another person.

"Fetus" is simply a term for a stage of life, and no less human than "infant", "toddler", "child", and so forth.

Well it is currently legal, so I guess you are currently wrong.

So, allow a person too irresponsible to care for a child to decide they can kill the child because it isn't convenient for them to raise one? No. How about anyone that wants abortion to be legal has themselves neutered, instead? Sex all they want, and no chance of pregnancy, ever. Much better than killing people.

Forced castration is just as pro-government as your abortions are illegal stance. Don't be silly, If I don't support abortions being illegal I wouldn't support forced castration. Voluntary castration would be preferable and yes, I agree, if you are unfit to have a child, you shouldn't have one. Castration would be a decent solution to this problem (as long as it is a voluntary decision made by the person getting the surgery). So would proper sex education and easily accessible birth control measures. You know like planned parenthood provides? The very organization that you are trying to demonize in this thread.

I simply posted that this woman claims that's what's going on, so that could be discussed. Instead of debating the right or wrong of abortion, perhaps we can discuss whether what she claims is happening is right or wrong, how it could be done, hoe widespread it might be, etc.?

If that was all you had done, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I would have loved to discuss the things you suggested, if you had lead the thread in that direction. What you did was posted what this woman said then tried to pretend like it was indicative of the whole industry making a case to make this procedure illegal. NOW you are backpedaling to try to save face after you have been shown to be wrong by several different posters about your gross exaggerations.

I'm just curious. Does anyone besides the OP believe the woman the article is about is actually telling the truth?

As far as I can tell after 11 pages of posts. Like one ATS poster has thought the article was anything but a partisen hack piece.


So if y'all wouldn't mind sounding off with a true or false real quick I would appriciate it. :p

a reply to: ArtemisE

Obviously false. The woman is a parasite profiting off the pain and misfortune of others.

P.s. Good job stoping the flow of disinformation fellas. Without posters like us you could spread any falsehoods you wanted. I don't think a single person actually bought in. Deny ignorance indeed!

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Well, at least we're getting somewhere, because if you admit that teen pregnancy and abortion rates are going DOWN, not UP -- that proves the woman in your OP is lying.

As for the reasons teen pregnancy and abortion rates are declining, the research implies that it is more due to increased contraceptive use (77%), with a smaller percentage attributed to delaying sexual activity(23%).

Prior research suggests that the overall risk for pregnancy declined 55% for teens aged
15–17 years during 1995–2002, with 23% of the change attributable
to a decrease in sexual activity and 77% attributable to changes in
contraceptive method use (10).

www.cdc.gov...

There is a very interesting chart in the above link that shows teen birth rates by state. What's interesting is that in the more conservative states (where religion and the Pro-lifers have a stronger foothold), the teen birth rates are highest. In the more liberal states (where Pro-choicers and Planned Parenthood have a stronger foothold), the teen birth rates are the lowest. Hmmmmm....

originally posted by: ArtemisE


I'm just curious. Does anyone besides the OP believe the woman the article is about is actually telling the truth?

As far as I can tell after 11 pages of posts. Like one ATS poster has thought the article was anything but a partisen hack piece.


So if y'all wouldn't mind sounding off with a true or false real quick I would appriciate it. :p

False...as far as I am concerned it is at best, religious propaganda and at worst, downright deceptive lies, designed to subjugate women

a reply to: destination now

I honestly don't think it's about subjugating women. I think it's about motivating there base. If you really want people to be politically active you need to enrage them and there are few things that will enrage people like telling them somone is MURDERING BABIES!

a reply to: ArtemisE

Ah but the bottom line is that women should not be having sex outwith of relationships that they intend to have children within...don't forget the lie in the OP about providing sex ed and contraception to girls is apparently a covert means to promoting abortion, thus making profit for the abortion providers..that in itself, suggests to me, that it's more about promoting abstinence, specifically aimed at women.

So it's more about "Stop these evil abortionists making profits from dead babies by making women get pregnant" What's the alternative if sex education and contraception beat a straight path to abortion? Yup, you've got it, abstain from sex until you want to have a baby.

a reply to: destination now

Were on the same page. I just think the subjugation of women is more of a symptom then the disease. I think the same about racism. I don't think any of the powers that be are actually racists or hate women. I think they know a big part of there base does tho. So they play to it. Rage is a far better motivator then benevolence.

originally posted by: destination now

False...as far as I am concerned it is at best, religious propaganda and at worst, downright deceptive lies, designed to subjugate women

I think it is just an appeal to emotion fallacy backed up with an argument from authority fallacy with the addition of the ex-abortion worker. But her authority dissipates when you realize that she switched camps when she became religious. It's pretty much textbook propaganda. "Hey look we have this person who used to be in charge of a few abortion clinics who has now recounted her ways. Look what she is saying about abortion clinics!" *provides testimony about the clinics she oversaw*

Be wary of any article calling for a ban on something that appeals to your emotional heartstrings to accomplish the goal. It is probably trying to make you abandon logic and reason in favor of overreacting to the situation.

a reply to: Phage

No; it's clear that attitudes have changed, and are still changing, on the issue:

Why Are Abortion Clinics Closing and Abortion Rates Declining?

www.teenbreaks.com... ng.cfm

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
Attitudes about what? Sexual activity? That's not what the statistics show.
Contraception? That is what the statistics show.

Same rate of sexual activity + contraception = reduced rate of pregnancy = reduced rate of abortion

Pretty basic. It should make you happy, shouldn't it?

Attitudes about abortion haven't changed much.
content.gallup.com...

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
No, I stated that sex ed is, according to this woman, used to drum up abortion business.

Which is a very stupid claim if you stopped to think about it.... in fact it does the opposite!

Now, assuming she's correct,

That is a wrong assumption to make!

Not if the circumstances are as she describes them. Low dose birth control has to be used on a tight schedule. Adult women have it fail, and end up pregnant. Teens tend to be a lot less responsible for such things, and thus it's more likely to fail for them.

When discussing sex ed, you have to discuss the type. Some places, it's pretty basic, but some, it's a LOT more detailed, and programs like that can and do encourage more interest in sex for teens. With younger kids being taught, this is magnified. Elementary-age kids getting sex ed, before they would be naturally interested, is going to make many more curious than they would otherwise have been.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

When discussing sex ed, you have to discuss the type. Some places, it's pretty basic, but some, it's a LOT more detailed, and programs like that can and do encourage more interest in sex for teens.

They do? You have evidence to support that claim I suppose. Or maybe not.

Abstinence-only education did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in vaginal intercourse (OR(adj) = .8, 95% CI = .51-1.31, p = .40), but comprehensive sex education was marginally associated with a lower likelihood of reporting having engaged in vaginal intercourse

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The study couldn't fully tease out the differences between abstinence-only sex education and sex education that also includes discussion of birth control methods, but the researchers wrote that contrary to some critics' beliefs, there is no evidence that sex education encourages teens to have sex sooner or to take more sexual risks.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
No, you didn't address the point; you ignored it. At the moment abortion is illegal. And saying that "abortions kill people now" is the basic argument that gets brought up again and again by those who are against abortion. There's just one problem with it - at which point does a foetus become a person? Not a potential person, a real person. This is an ancient argument and I have yet to find a satisfactory answer from the anti-abortion lobby. When two cells merge, that's not a person. When you have a clump of cells, that's not a person. If a foetus has a heart, do they also have a brain? A functioning brain? Where do you draw the line?

I addressed it; you just didn't like the response. If you want a clearer one, then consider this example. Say a woman has a five-year-old child, and decides she can't manage the responsibilities, so she decides to kill the child. She takes the kid, and a gun, out into a field, and shoots the child. The bullet goes through, ricochets off a rock, and comes back, hitting and killing her. Are you going to state that her action should have been legal, so she could have gone to a location that wouldn't have happened? In my eyes, the two are no different. To me, it's clear that life begins at conception. New, unique DNA means a new, unique person. Killing that person, at any stage, is wrong for me. You do bring up an interesting point, there, however. You say you don't have a clear answer on when the fetus becomes a person. If that's true, at what point do you think abortion becomes murder? If you can't be sure, isn't it better to err on the side of caution? If the fetus is a person, then the fetus has rights, like everyone else. Not knowing the time means we should be as careful as possible not to remove the rights of a "potential person", right?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Shouting about how much you hate abortion is all very well and good. But you have to face facts. It's legal, people want to keep it legal. Make it illegal and it's still going to happen, only those having the procedure will be in greater danger of dying. There will always be a need for it. You can't ignore that fact. And what about the people who aren't having an abortion for any kind of frivolous reason (like you seem to claim they do) but for other reasons? When the baby is the result of rape? Or incest? Or the baby is malformed, or has a massive birth defect? What about when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother? You want to stop all those people from having an abortion, just because you think that your version what entails a person is the only correct one? Are you really that arrogant?
We live in an imperfect world full of people who make mistakes. I suggest that you try to live with that.

If murdering anyone was legal, would you remain silent and claim it would happen even if illegal? If armed assault was legal, would you not complain about that? People do bad things, but that doesn't mean we make them all legal, simply to keep the people doing them from getting hurt. That isn't a valid argument. I disagree that there is any "need" for it, the same as I disagree that there is a "need" for any number of other things that are illegal.

I know someone who was raped and became pregnant. She was single, and still living at home. She chose to have the baby, stating that punishing the child for the crime of the father was wrong. She has a beautiful, sweet daughter. Cases of a real danger to the mother are VERY rare. If those were the only types legal, I wouldn't complain. Those aren't the reasons for most abortions, however. Birth defects are a different issue. I chose not to have amniocentesis with later pregnancies, because the ONLY reason stated was to look for defects that might mean I would want to end the pregnancy. I simply explained to the doctor that wasn't an option for me. I don't think it's right. If it's too serious, the baby tends to not make it anyway. Not my decision to make. Plus, there are many tests for "defects", that show incorrect results. Parents are told the child will have serious issues, and they should abort. They refuse, and end up having a perfectly healthy baby. So, I don't see that as a reason.

I think it's arrogant to claim ending a life is acceptable, for convenience, or because the person "might not have a good life", or "might have medical issues" (who doesn't???), or whatever. That is arrogance.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well it is currently legal, so I guess you are currently wrong.

It's currently legal for the government to spy on you without a warrant, so don't complain.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Forced castration is just as pro-government as your abortions are illegal stance. Don't be silly, If I don't support abortions being illegal I wouldn't support forced castration. Voluntary castration would be preferable and yes, I agree, if you are unfit to have a child, you shouldn't have one. Castration would be a decent solution to this problem (as long as it is a voluntary decision made by the person getting the surgery). So would proper sex education and easily accessible birth control measures. You know like planned parenthood provides? The very organization that you are trying to demonize in this thread.

Comparing abortion, which ends a life, with forced castration is a logic fallacy. Try again.

The rest of your post is off topic, and thus ignored.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Well, at least we're getting somewhere, because if you admit that teen pregnancy and abortion rates are going DOWN, not UP -- that proves the woman in your OP is lying.

Nonsense. That teens are wising up doesn't mean the abortion industry isn't dishonest. Seriously flawed logic there. The simple fact is teens are getting smart enough to see through the BS.

Why Are Abortion Clinics Closing and Abortion Rates Declining?

Looking at only one side of the issue doesn't give you the big picture.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
It's currently legal for the government to spy on you without a warrant, so don't complain.

Well the Constitution says otherwise. Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Besides, I'm just saying that the law disagrees with you.

Comparing abortion, which ends a life, with forced castration is a logic fallacy. Try again.

The rest of your post is off topic, and thus ignored.

Sure whatever. You go ahead and suggest forced sterilization to people, see how that goes over. But I'll give you a hint, I won't be a fan of it. I'm rarely ever a fan of more government. You clearly are. I sure hope you don't call yourself a Conservative. But of course this a special case right?

I'm saying I disagree with you. I agree with a women's right to choose. It's as simple as that. You won't guilt me into changing my opinion. The fact of the matter is, abortions happen regardless of your feelings on the matter. It is just as simple as that. I'd prefer it to be legal with regulation then with it being illegal and the chances of harming the mother increase. Is this selfish of the mother? Maybe. But I don't proceed to dictate one person's morality. I'm also pro-assisted suicide and for legal prostitution among other things.