You can believe in a soul and still not care about abortion. What's really necessary is to believe in original sin. That is, believe that God would for some reason punish an aborted child instead of just giving it a do-over.

11/16/2011 3:16:53 PM

Can you not baptize it in the womb and then yank it?

11/16/2011 3:35:33 PM

I guess you can reuse the amniotic fluid?

11/16/2011 3:42:56 PM

Quote :

"I don't know, it's getting pretty damned close"

Actually, no. It isnt.

I'm going to refrain from posting a picture of what a 20 week old fetus actually looks like, as well as what stage of development it is in... But they're not even close to each other, IMO. I put IMO because I'm sure you'll want to argue about it.

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 3:54 PM. Reason : ^ haha]

11/16/2011 3:54:31 PM

Quote :

"Because if you don't believe there is a soul then how could you equate abortion to murder?"

What? That is one of the more ridiculous things I've read in a while.

Quote :

"A woman should have the right to choose and if she chooses to abort, there should be a safe, sanitary place wherein she can have the abortion. The only issue is religious people imposing the will of their imaginary friend onto other people."

Jesus motherfucking goddammit, why do people insist on viewing abortion as a religious issue? Religion isn't important at all in the discussion--if you're religious, it has a bearing on it like it would on everything else in your life, but there's no reason for it to have anything to do with it.

Look, there are people who cause me a great deal of inconvenience. I would very clearly be better off without them. However, I am not free to simply kill people who are damaging to my life and my future, because they are people. An unborn baby doesn't even enjoy the same rights as an animal, and I cannot understand how we (collectively) justify it.

Yet again, I must state that the only thing that's important is at what point we define a fetus as being a human life. I'm cool with chemical abortions in the first few weeks, and I don't know that I have an exact line where I think the law should draw the line, but I think it's pretty clearly way the fuck earlier than it is now.

(neither do I think the approach of defining life beginning at conception is right. I mean, I think it's alive, but I don't think it can very honestly be described as a human being).

Quote :

"Actually, no. It isnt. I'm going to refrain from posting a picture of what a 20 week old fetus actually looks like, as well as what stage of development it is in... "

Here, I did it for you.

My bad, though, I misread the statement and missed the part about "1-year old"--the difference between a 20-week fetus and a 1-year infant is pretty significant.

I mean, obviously there's a difference between 20-weeks and a newborn, too, but I think it's getting pretty undeniably into the realm of being a small human being. I mean, it's identifiable as male or female, responds to external stimuli, sleeps and wakes, has eyebrows/teeth/eyelids, can hear, and in some cases can survive outside the womb.

11/16/2011 8:35:19 PM

Quote :

"Yet again, I must state that the only thing that's important is at what point we define a fetus as being a human life. I'm cool with chemical abortions in the first few weeks, and I don't know that I have an exact line where I think the law should draw the line, but I think it's pretty clearly way the fuck earlier than it is now."

thumbs up

11/16/2011 8:41:58 PM

Quote :

"and I cannot understand how we (collectively) justify it."

same way we collectively justify to defund government institutions used to help the underprivileged.

Fight to the death to bring that fetus into the world, then fight to the death to make sure it doens't receive assistance.

I'm not allowing the genocide of unborn children. i'm just saying it makes no sense for it to be illegal. There is tons of grey area in regards to how late is too late, etc. What matters is that it is legal, women are provided with choices and information that they can make those choices and they have a safe place to have them.

Comprehensive Sex Education would also cut down on unwanted pregnancies, just saying

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 8:51 PM. Reason : legal]

11/16/2011 8:49:12 PM

Quote :

"Comprehensive Sex Education would also cut down on unwanted pregnancies, just saying"

OH WHY HASNT ANYONE THOUGHT OF THIS BEFORE

if it can survive outside the mother then all parties involved in its termination are murderers-

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 9:08 PM. Reason : simple as that]

11/16/2011 9:03:29 PM

Quote :

"same way we collectively justify to defund government institutions used to help the underprivileged. Fight to the death to bring that fetus into the world, then fight to the death to make sure it doens't receive assistance. "

That is utterly unrelated to the ethical question at hand.

Quote :

"I'm not allowing the genocide of unborn children. i'm just saying it makes no sense for it to be illegal."

I want to hear the distinction explained.

Quote :

"There is tons of grey area in regards to how late is too late, etc."

Of course, it isn't an easily clear-cut thing, but I don't see how the current places the lines are drawn are even arguably defensible.

Nor do I find them practically necessary--if you get pregnant and don't want to continue with it, terminate it early, while you still have a nondescript lump of cells on your hands.

Quote :

"What matters is that it is legal, women are provided with choices and information that they can make those choices and they have a safe place to have them."

That is important with regard to performing the procedures that are ethically acceptable.

[/quote]Comprehensive Sex Education would also cut down on unwanted pregnancies, just saying[/quote]

OK...and? No shit...who's arguing this? Nobody in here.

11/16/2011 9:10:55 PM

Quote :

"Jesus motherfucking goddammit, why do people insist on viewing abortion as a religious issue? Religion isn't important at all in the discussion--if you're religious, it has a bearing on it like it would on everything else in your life, but there's no reason for it to have anything to do with it."

Because as much as you hate to admit it a vast majority of people whom are pro-life are pro-life because of their religious beliefs. Most people's position on the matter is not as nuanced as yours.

So you can piss and moan that religion shouldn't have anything to do with it while the rest of us will deal with the real world where religion has everything to do with it.

I'm sure religion has had nothing to do with the spread of AIDS in Africa too, right? Arguably the most powerful organization in the world would have opposed condom distribution for some other reason?

Jesus Christ fuck, when will you give credit when credit is clearly due? Most religions as practiced by humans in the history of this world have been and are oppresive to women's rights. It wasn't just men who happened to be religious. It was actions caused by their non-rational beliefs and the organization that nurtured those actions. It's getting better, but only incrementally. And deflection from otherwise rational agents doesn't help.

Quote :

"Nor do I find them practically necessary--if you get pregnant and don't want to continue with it, terminate it early, while you still have a nondescript lump of cells on your hands. "

But if something prevents a woman from terminating it however early as TheDuke666 arbitrates...well she's shit out of luck then, eh?

Personally I'd rather keep the options open and prevent women from hurting themselves by killing the fetus themselves because people like you think it's morally reprehensible not to force a woman to carry a child that they don't want to term.

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 11:06 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2011 10:59:54 PM

What I am saying is that people are treating it like it's only an issue because of a bunch of Bible-bangers wanting to get into other people's business due to some feeble analysis of the issue based on some fairy-tale reality.

Certainly some of that goes on--religious people view the world through the lens of religion--but that doesn't discount the validity of the ethical question at hand. It's a pretty weak and cheap "out" to say "Look, abortion is simply a 'choice' that women should have, and the argument against it is religious in nature and doesn't warrant a serious response or consideration."


If you want to ignore the pleas of "babies are crafted in the womb by the hand of God; that's why they're human and we shouldn't kill them", then by all means, be my guest. That argument rightfully should be ignored...but the existence of that simple-minded analysis doesn't discount very legitimate arguments against the status quo on this issue.


^ So you're saying that you're cool with killing human beings that are unwanted and/or inconvenient? Where do you draw the line? Birth? Why is that any different than, say, 6 months old? Somewhere before birth? What drives your decision on where to draw the line?

You have to draw the line somewhere. Where do you put it and why?

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 11:16 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 11:17 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2011 11:12:09 PM

The line for a woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy? The moment the child is no longer physically contigent on the mother. Usually birth, but could be the moment that it's extracted by some other method.

The line for which a person should be punished for killing a fetus against the mother's will? Much earlier. Probably the same place you draw the line for all killing of fetuses.

You see, I don't think it's convenient to ignore the mother in the situation. If I could, then my position would probably be the same as yours. But any stipulation of what she cannot do with her own body is a limitation of her rights I'm not willing to throw out the window because it's icky. She already exists and clearly has rights to her own body. I'm not ready to charge her with murder if she takes a clothes hanger to herself after your point of demarcation.

11/16/2011 11:21:04 PM

Quote :

"So you're saying that you're cool with killing human beings that are unwanted and/or inconvenient? Where do you draw the line? Birth? Why is that any different than, say, 6 months old? Somewhere before birth? What drives your decision on where to draw the line?"

If one requires a caretaker to sustain life and caretaker says "no" then bye.

Moral relativism is a real thing. There's nothing inherent or divine about your belief that life shouldn't be extinguished in these circumstances, and you'll encounter other circumstances when you certainly will find it right to extinguish human life.

If the baby is out then someone else can take it. In fact, we can presuppose that a willing caretaker exists in our current society because, and only because, we are wealthy enough to do that. Thus, in today's world, it makes perfect sense to mandate the protection of all life after birth. Need any more help with this argument? My argument, unlike yours, has a solid anchor to something real in the world today.

11/16/2011 11:26:38 PM

11/16/2011 11:45:23 PM

^ you never answered this question yourself

Quote :

"So you're saying that you're cool with killing human beings that are unwanted and/or inconvenient? Where do you draw the line? Birth? Why is that any different than, say, 6 months old? Somewhere before birth? What drives your decision on where to draw the line?"

And you will fail. You have no objective way of answering it. I do. Once you accept that the real universe doesn't care about your warm fuzzy morals then you'll start getting closer.

11/17/2011 8:55:51 AM

my personal opinion is that the fetus becomes a living person at the point in which it could live outside of the womb minus 3 weeks

11/17/2011 9:50:28 AM

Please explain the minus three weeks... Did you randomly pick that?

11/17/2011 11:20:04 AM

Quote :

"Cancer Group Halts Financing to Planned Parenthood In a decision that is inflaming passions on both sides of the abortion debate, the world’s largest breast cancer organization, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is cutting off its financing of breast cancer screening and education programs run by Planned Parenthood affiliates. The move will halt financing to 19 of Planned Parenthood’s 83 affiliates, which received nearly $700,000 from the Komen foundation last year and have been receiving similar grants since at least 2005. [...] A spokeswoman for the Komen foundation, Leslie Aun, told The Associated Press that the main factor in the decision was a new rule adopted by Komen that prohibits grants to organizations being investigated by local, state or federal authorities. Ms. Aun told The A.P. that Planned Parenthood was therefore disqualified from financing because of an inquiry being conducted by Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida, who is looking at how Planned Parenthood spends and reports its money. [...] Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, said that the decision “came so abruptly in the face of a long, good, working relationship with Komen” and that the change in financing criteria “was written specifically to address the political pressure that they’ve been under.” Ms. Richards said all of Planned Parenthood’s affiliates provided around 770,000 women with breast examinations and paid for mammograms and ultrasounds for those who needed and could not afford further diagnostic services. She said she received the news from the Komen foundation in late December and had requested a meeting with officials there to discuss the matter but was rebuffed. “Until really recently, the Komen foundation had been praising our breast health programs as essential,” Ms. Richards said. “This really abrupt about-face was very surprising. I think that the Komen foundation has been bullied by right-wing groups.” Anti-abortion advocates and Web sites have criticized the Komen foundation’s financing of Planned Parenthood for years. And in December, LifeWay Christian Resources, which is owned by the Southern Baptist Convention, said it was recalling a pink Bible it was selling at Walmart and other stores because a dollar per copy was going to the Komen foundation and the foundation supported Planned Parenthood. Leslie Durgin, senior vice president of public policy for Planned Parenthood’s Rocky Mountain affiliate, said the Komen decision would cost three of the organization’s health centers in Denver and one in Glenwood Springs about $165,000. Ms. Durgin said the money paid for hundreds of breast exams each year, as well as mammograms and other services. Ms. Durgin, who has herself had breast cancer, said many low-income women visited Planned Parenthood for their primary health care needs and in the process received breast cancer education and screening that they would not otherwise have made the effort to seek out. “Any kind of impediment for women, including a referral to go someplace else, will mean that women delay getting further screenings and women who may have cancer will discover it later than they might otherwise,” Ms. Durgin said. “A lot of our clients are just one hassle away from not getting services at all.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/us/cancer-group-halts-financing-to-planned-parenthood.html?_r=1

But, wait! There's more!

Quote :

"Perhaps best known for his position overseeing the investigation into the Solyndra loan guarantee, [Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida] has spent more than 20 years in Congress. Over such a long period, his political opponents inevitably called him a number of negative things. Among them, "bully" might be the easiest to print. "It's hard to understand how an organization with whom we share a mission of saving women's lives could have bowed to this kind of bullying. It's really hurtful," [Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood,] told the Associated Press. More than confused, Richard was shocked to learn about decision in a phone call this past December. She called it "incredibly surprising" that Komen's president, Elizabeth Thompson, was unwilling to have a discussion about the quick shift. According to Jezebel's Erin Gloria Ryan, however, the influence of another key player in the Komen organization goes a long way in explaining its decision to defund: Karen Handel, who ran for governor of Georgia in 2010 and lost, despite an endorsement by none other than Sarah Palin, has been Komen's senior vice president for public policy since April 2011. On her campaign blog (fire up the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine because, curiously, these pages don't exist anymore), Handel wrote: "I will be a pro-life governor who will work tirelessly to promote a culture of life in Georgia. ... I believe that each and every unborn child has inherent dignity, that every abortion is a tragedy, and that government has a role, along with the faith community, in encouraging women to choose life in even the most difficult of circumstances. ...since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood." Handel even "promised to eliminate funding for breast and cervical cancer screenings provided by" Planned Parenthood, according to Jezebel."

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/who-is-behind-susan-g-komens-split-from-planned-parenthood/252327/

2/1/2012 6:27:12 PM

2/1/2012 6:32:13 PM

I can't find any logic in this decision.

If you're against abortions, how is removing PP's breast-cancer funding going to achieve this goal? PP isn't the only place to get abortions. I bet you can count on 1 hand the # of abortions this will prevent.

With this in mind, they are significantly affecting the number of women that will get screened for cancer.

It's ironic how cruel and uncaring the allegedly pro-life side can be.

2/1/2012 6:42:59 PM

Ahhh....the abortion issue.

Just another wedge issue getting people to vote against their own best interests since 1973.


Hey, did you guys know that gay people are getting married now?

THAT SHIT IS GROSS!




[Edited on February 1, 2012 at 6:53 PM. Reason : the future, conan?]

2/1/2012 6:43:50 PM

19723? INTO THE FUTURE!


what, we allow homos to live? This changes eeeeeeeeeeeeverything

[Edited on February 1, 2012 at 6:44 PM. Reason : ]

2/1/2012 6:44:14 PM

Susan G. Komen, helping fight cancer for wealthy women!

2/2/2012 2:46:14 PM

i wish we could use these fetuses as fossil fuel and nip two problems in the bud.

2/2/2012 2:58:59 PM

Quote :

"Hey, did you guys know that gay people are getting married now? THAT SHIT IS GROSS!"

Men, barbeque. "I like you" "I like you too dawg, let's get married man"

2/2/2012 6:04:42 PM

Ahmadinejad very possibly has weapons of mass destruction.

I can't sleep on that. Not on my watch.

2/2/2012 6:06:55 PM

The nigga bought aluminum tubes! You know what the fuck you can do with an aluminum tube? ALUMINUM!

2/2/2012 6:20:12 PM

Quote :

" responds to external stimuli, sleeps and wakes, has eyebrows/teeth/eyelids, can hear, and in some cases can survive outside the womb."

Say what? Kill it with fire!

Quote :

"What I am saying is that people are treating it like it's only an issue because of a bunch of Bible-bangers wanting to get into other people's business due to some feeble analysis of the issue based on some fairy-tale reality."

Unfortunately the truth of the matter is that abortion (just like same sex marriage) are only issues in the political arena because of a bunch of bible bangers. I am all for a discussion of how late is too late except for the problem that the religious wackadoodles aren't willing to be rational and would simply keep pushing the date further and further back until fucking birth control was illegal.

2/2/2012 8:18:00 PM

About face (maybe):

Quote :

"Susan G. Komen for the Cure said on Friday it was retreating from a decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and birth control services, and apologized for a move that thrust the world's largest breast cancer charity into a deeply politicized controversy. Komen had said earlier this week it would cease to fund grants for breast cancer screening to Planned Parenthood under new eligibility rules that preclude grants to groups under investigation by U.S. authorities. The move sparked a massive outcry among supporters of both groups, who believe Komen came under pressure from anti-abortion activists. Komen also faced dissent within its ranks from local chapter leaders. "We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women`s lives," Komen said in a statement on Friday. "We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities." Komen said it will amend its new funding criteria to "ensure that politics has no place in our grant process." The reversal circulated within minutes on social media sites like Twitter, where much of the furious debate over Komen's move had been waged in the past three days."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/us-usa-healthcare-komen-idUSTRE8111WA20120203

Some more related:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/the-komen-foundations-black-eye/252388/
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/top-susan-g-komen-official-resigned-over-planned-parenthood-cave-in/252405/

2/3/2012 12:10:03 PM

Quote :

"It's ironic how cruel and uncaring the allegedly pro-life side can be."

Speaking of, Mr. Pro Life himself.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rick-santorum-tells-sick-kid-market-should-should-set-drug-prices/

Quote :

"“People have no problem paying $900 for an iPad,” Santorum said, “but paying $900 for a drug they have a problem with — it keeps you alive. Why? Because you’ve been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it.”"

The most convincing pro-life arguments I've heard have come from people who are otherwise extremely liberal in their views. Why? Because it's actually consistent with everything else they believe in, rather than a totally disingenuous viewpoint pandering to religious zealots.

2/3/2012 12:41:13 PM

Thing is, before this, they were under pressure from the other side not to fund the PP screenings (e.g., refusing to sell pink Bibles in stores). So that side also was pressuring and voting with their dollars. So it's unfair to say it's not okay for the pro-choice contingent to exert pressure when that's what folks on the other end were doing. SKG can do whatever it wants with its grants, but donors are also free to no longer donate - or speak up -if they don't agree with an agency's actions. People on every side speak up, either vocally or with their money, all the time. And the problem with the investigation is, there is a lot of - in my opinion - rightly founded suspicion that this congressional investigation is similar to other past, politically motivated attacks. Congressman/women can open an investigation over pretty much anything - McCarthyism? - so that doesn't automatically warrant halting funding unless something is proven. SKG also gives money to Penn State, which coincidentally, is facing investigations but wasn't facing the same penalties. Also, this investigation is about how PP is spending federal funds, not private donations.



And part of the outcry was because SKG was hiding behind what I consider to be a bogus excuse. If they don't want to make grants to PP, then they should just say so. Own it. Don't hide behind the veil of this new policy, which appears convenient and transparently false, then get mad/surprised when people say you're being political because you made a decision based on an investigation many already think is political. SKG then offered a second reason a few days later as the "real" reason, which then made it look like they were making up new reasons. Abortion is a sensitive topic, so if you want to cut ties to PP, you need to accept the consequences and be prepared to handle it, because you will upset people. In the end, SKG looked foolish for not creating a coherent, united, believable message, esp. when it kept changing directions. They would have been better off just saying they didn't want to affiliate with PP and deal with the fallout. It was a great lesson to future PR folks how not to handle a potential problem.

2/4/2012 8:43:59 AM

I always thought it was ironic for Komen to be funding breast cancer research on one hand, while giving grants to create breast cancer with the other. PP's primary services create more breast cancer than their alleged screenings help find.

2/4/2012 9:16:14 PM

sounds like some rightwing talking point frankly. got any sources?

2/4/2012 9:22:18 PM

^ It's complete bullshit obviously.

He's just continuing the right-wing trend of embracing delusion.

2/4/2012 9:38:35 PM

Is the American Cancer Society good enough?

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/OverviewGuide/breast-cancer-overview-what-causes

Or the National Cancer Institute?

http://cancer.gov/bcrisktool/breast-cancer-risk.aspx

The use of hormonal birth control, not having any children, older age at first live birth are all recognized as real risk factors. Planned Parenthood is the go-to place for people want those things.

Beyond that, abortion is a bigger contributor than any of those factors, but politics keeps that in the denial stage. The science against the link is as bad as the smoking/cancer denials of decades ago.

Think of the tremendous volume involved with PP and those factors, then compare to how many women are helped in early detection by PP (even using optimistic, propagandistic PP estimates).

[Edited on February 4, 2012 at 9:45 PM. Reason : a]

2/4/2012 9:42:30 PM

You DO realize though that birth control exists independently of PP? That if you snapped your fingers and made all the PPs disappear, people would still use birth control and seek abortions at a similar rates?

It's completely absurd to say that the Komen foundation funds creating cancer by earmarking money to PP to be used on breast cancer screenings.

And then it's even more disingenuous to say that Planned Parenthood as an organization has created more cancer than they've found.

But this is such basic reasoning that you surely must have already rejected logical thought processes in favor of blaming planned parenthood for the existence of birth control.

Not to mention that incidences of breast cancer have been dropping for the past decade, as birth control use has increased. Clearly Planned Parenthood is a massive cancer-creating machine, spreading breast cancer far and wide, feeding itself by devouring fetuses.

2/4/2012 10:21:16 PM

Of course BC would exist and be used at similar rates without PP. But that's irrelevant.

Abortions would not be nearly as available without PP, but in their absence, other providers would spring up and abortion rates wouldn't change much. Of course that's true. It's also irrelevant.

Planned Parenthood facilitates later first births and the use of the birth control. Those things increase breast cancer risk. Those are the relevant facts.

It's perfectly fine if you want to say that, as a society, we believe these benefits to lifestyle flexibility and 'freedom' are worth the costs (including increased breast cancer risk) that come along with them. But it's not fine to deny the cost altogether.

Lastly, money is fungible. If you gave money to PP designated only for their landscaping, that is still money for BC and abortion, because it frees up assets that would otherwise be used for landscaping to serve another purpose.

2/4/2012 10:29:49 PM

^^^ Why bother citing the National Cancer Institute and then post something they have debunked?

"In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer."

[Edited on February 4, 2012 at 10:31 PM. Reason : .]

2/4/2012 10:31:15 PM

^^ I'm not denying the costs, but it's baseless and absurd to assert that PP has created more cancer than they've found. There's just no evidence for this, or reasonable ways to speculate that's the case.

Risk factors are just that, risk factors.

[Edited on February 4, 2012 at 10:38 PM. Reason : ]

2/4/2012 10:37:42 PM

^^First, the case stands regardless of that point. The cancer created by PP's services exceeds their screening help without abortion included.

Secondly, politics rules (at least in the short and medium term), even in science. It was a serious fight even to get them to recognize that late child-birth, not having children, and birth control increase breast cancer risk. Those things were politically unpalatable to say the least. Abortion is on a whole different level than even that.

I can cite more studies showing the link between breast cancer and abortion than you could cite studies that deny it, even limiting myself to federally-funded studies by our health agencies. Why? Because there are more of them - a lot more show a statistically significant correlation than don't.

^ If you know how much the risk is increased (and we have a good idea), then you can get a very good count for how many cases are attributable to that risk factor. Then take the percentage of those risk factors attributable to PP's services, and compare to their screening and detection rates. This is all very easy and very standard. And the numbers aren't even close, because PP only does basic checks for breast cancer like a normal general practitioner. And they don't do even that very much. Compare that to the massive volume of BC they issue, and early first-children they help prevent, and it's not even close.

[Edited on February 4, 2012 at 10:44 PM. Reason : a]

2/4/2012 10:40:41 PM

You realize the AMA, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, WHO, American Cancer Society, and National Cancer Institute all have concluded that there is no causative link between induced abortion and breast cancer, right?

2/4/2012 10:46:21 PM

Of course I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that their own studies say they are wrong.

2/4/2012 10:51:25 PM

Quote :

"If you know how much the risk is increased (and we have a good idea), then you can get a very good count for how many cases are attributable to that risk factor. Then take the percentage of those risk factors attributable to PP's services, and compare to their screening and detection rates. This is all very easy and very standard. And the numbers aren't even close, because PP only does basic checks for breast cancer like a normal general practitioner. And they don't do even that very much. Compare that to the massive volume of BC they issue, and early first-children they help prevent, and it's not even close. "

LOL

why don't you run the numbers if it's so easy then? hint: it's not that easy

The link between BC and cancer is still not too solid, there are even other factors there to consider, then there is how much of this is from PP, etc.. If you could come up with a remotely credible number, they would publish your results in a journal.

2/4/2012 10:54:35 PM

So if the rate of birth control use and the rate of abortions would be the same with or without PP, then how is PP 'causing' cancer?

This is like arguing a particular car company causes car accidents.

2/4/2012 11:00:08 PM

lol, back of the hand calculations are fine when the relevant numbers differ by several orders of magnitude.

With the millions upon millions of BC recipients from PP, even a ludicrously low rate of increased breast cancer risk would exceed the cancer they help detect by their relatively rare, basic breast cancer checks and subsequent referrals. Their primary clients are in the 18-35 range, or close to it, and their breast cancer rates at that age (which would be detected at their PP visit) are terribly low.

[Edited on February 4, 2012 at 11:02 PM. Reason : a]

2/4/2012 11:00:39 PM

As you've already said, the rate of use of birth control would be the same with or without PP. Unless you're arguing the mere act of walking into a PP clinic is carcinogenic, the fact that birth control comes from PP has no bearing on increased cancer rates resulting from the use of birth control (whatever that may or may not be).

2/4/2012 11:05:49 PM

Let's look at my actual first semi-trolling words.

"PP's primary services create more breast cancer than their alleged screenings help find."

I didn't say PP creates cancer that wouldn't otherwise exist. I said their services create cancer. And that's indisputable.

They give birth control. Birth control increases the incidence of breast cancer. They help delay first child-birth, and that increases the incidence of breast cancer. Ergo, their services create breast cancer. It's fair, and it's true.

That's why I find it ironic that Komen funds increasing cancer. You'd think a first line of thought would be, "let's not give money to things that increase breast cancer risk."

[Edited on February 4, 2012 at 11:12 PM. Reason : a]

2/4/2012 11:11:10 PM

Do you believe the existence of PP has any impact whatsoever on cancer rates? I.e., would cancer rates be different if PP didn't exist?

2/4/2012 11:15:35 PM

Because of PP's unique passion for their services, other providers may not have been as successful at a public campaign for them. In the end, it washes out. If PP didn't exist, somebody very similar to them probably would.

The demographics of abortion and birth control may have been different during their early days, because PP targeted certain areas more heavily than others.

So yes, I think there would have been less breast cancer, but not in a very meaningful amount.

I'm still perfectly right that their services create cancer. Because their services create cancer. I haven't claimed anything about them increasing overall cancer rates compared to the world without them.

2/4/2012 11:22:20 PM

So, yeah, you are arguing that a particular car company 'causes' car accidents.

2/4/2012 11:31:55 PM