I'm trying to understand what it is that some people seem to have against this organization.
I'm a school teacher, and what I see in the school system is that the people who are least well equipped to properly care for and raise children are producing the most kids. Over time this single fact places an enormous burden on society. Such children are more likely to have health problems (diabetes, obesity, fetal alcohol syndrome etc..), they tend to have more difficulty in school, struggle more to get gainful employment after school, and are more likely to end up in the criminal justice system.
Having an organization like planned parenthood that helps to educate people about taking steps to ensure that they don't have children when they aren't equipped to raise them can only be a good thing for society. The savings a country will see in the long run for investing in such education will more than pay for itself.
After much soul searching, I have decided to simply say, IBTL.
The problem some people have with Planned Parenthood is that they loathe the idea of-
After much soul searching, I have decided to simply say, IBTL.
Nevermind, CF is right.
This topic has great potential to become very heated.
This is a pre-reminder: keep it civil.
Having an organization like planned parenthood that helps to educate people about taking steps to ensure that they don't have children when they aren't equipped to raise them can only be a good thing for society. The savings a country will see in the long run for investing in such education will more than pay for itself.
Yes, well, that's assuming that the average American is willing to discuss sexuality and reproduction in a rational manner.
You can see the problem with that, right?
I'm trying to understand what it is that some people seem to have against this organization.
I'm a school teacher, and what I see in the school system is that the people who are least well equipped to properly care for and raise children are producing the most kids. Over time this single fact places an enormous burden on society. Such children are more likely to have health problems (diabetes, obesity, fetal alcohol syndrome etc..), they tend to have more difficulty in school, struggle more to get gainful employment after school, and are more likely to end up in the criminal justice system.
Having an organization like planned parenthood that helps to educate people about taking steps to ensure that they don't have children when they aren't equipped to raise them can only be a good thing for society. The savings a country will see in the long run for investing in such education will more than pay for itself.
Why not just approach the problem directly? Forced sterilization would solve many of societies woes. Let only the worth breed.
Why not just approach the problem directly? Forced sterilization would solve many of societies woes. Let only the worth breed.I'm trying to understand what it is that some people seem to have against this organization.
I'm a school teacher, and what I see in the school system is that the people who are least well equipped to properly care for and raise children are producing the most kids. Over time this single fact places an enormous burden on society. Such children are more likely to have health problems (diabetes, obesity, fetal alcohol syndrome etc..), they tend to have more difficulty in school, struggle more to get gainful employment after school, and are more likely to end up in the criminal justice system.
Having an organization like planned parenthood that helps to educate people about taking steps to ensure that they don't have children when they aren't equipped to raise them can only be a good thing for society. The savings a country will see in the long run for investing in such education will more than pay for itself.
Because it would cost too much. You'd have to pay surgeons to go around forcibly sterilizing people, and you'd probably have to give them hazard pay.
On the other hand, you could probably work out a deal and get Cuban doctors to do it cheap.
|
I've started half a dozen comments and finally just want to say this:
Topics like this are often full of strong opinions and emotions.
Please keep it civil. keep it kind. and please don't crap in threads trying to have honest discussions with snark and sarcasm and comments that are intentionally trolling.
|
Why not just approach the problem directly? Forced sterilization would solve many of societies woes. Let only the worthy breed.
Forced sterilization would be too costly to the State. Think of all the medical bills, complications - also imagine how much downtime we would loose in productivity as those (few) who do work need to recover. Wouldn't be economically viable.
To quote a line from an excellent movie -
"Dead men don't hump, dead women don't get pregnant. Death is the most reliable form of sterilization, put it that way."
Also considering the savings to the State would be immense - and as good citizens we must always consider the State and the needs of society first.
This isn't snark, this is history.
I'm trying to understand what it is that some people seem to have against this organization.
Abortion. Nothing more to it.
People don't have it in for PP for any other reason.
Seems simple enough to me. They are easy to target on this one issue because they can't entirely divorce their image from abortion services.
|
I've started half a dozen comments and finally just want to say this:
Topics like this are often full of strong opinions and emotions.
Please keep it civil. keep it kind. and please don't crap in threads trying to have honest discussions with snark and sarcasm and comments that are intentionally trolling.
I hear you Sara. I thought about posting a lament about where I think this thread is going, but I figured I would just sit back and watch. I don't know much about Planned Parenthood and I might learn something if people stay civil enough.
We are humans do we have to have a valid reason to hate something?
NO!
And the problem is normal people want other people to be like themselves.
|
I'm trying to understand what it is that some people seem to have against this organization.Abortion. Nothing more to it.
People don't have it in for PP for any other reason.
Seems simple enough to me. They are easy to target on this one issue because they can't entirely divorce their image from abortion services.
This is really all there is to it.
According to the Wikipedia article -- "Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the United States." and "Those percentages include ... 332,278 abortions."
So while statistically speaking, you are very correct in the benefits of what they do, yet for someone who strongly feels that abortions are ... well let's just say that they feel it's wrong ... referring to 300,000 abortions as a savings for the country seems a little ... off.
Because it would cost too much. You'd have to pay surgeons to go around forcibly sterilizing people, and you'd probably have to give them hazard pay.
On the other hand, you could probably work out a deal and get Cuban doctors to do it cheap.
Ok, then make mandatory so called "chemical castration" for men and birth control for women.
If individuals are found to be not taking the pills or shots or whatever form we develop, then they are jailed. Repeated violation can lead to medical sterilization at that point.
Make people have to file for the right to have children. In which case they have to prove they are capable (mentally, physically, emotionally, financially, etc) of caring for them.
Though it should be noted that most vasectomies:
Due to the simplicity of the surgery, a vasectomy usually takes less than 30 minutes to complete. After a short recovery at the doctor's office (usually less than an hour), the patient is sent home to rest. Because the procedure is minimally invasive, many vasectomy patients find that they can resume their typical lifestyle routines within a week, and do so with minimal discomfort.
The ironic thing is that if they were better funded there would probably actually be far fewer abortions because the proactive measures that they advocate would start to have a bigger impact on society, and there would be a decrease in instances of unplanned pregnancies.
By not funding them there might actually be a rise in abortion.
I'm trying to understand what it is that some people seem to have against this organization.Abortion. Nothing more to it.
People don't have it in for PP for any other reason.
Seems simple enough to me. They are easy to target on this one issue because they can't entirely divorce their image from abortion services.
This is really all there is to it.
According to the Wikipedia article -- "Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the United States." and "Those percentages include ... 332,278 abortions."
So while statistically speaking, you are very correct in the benefits of what they do, yet for someone who strongly feels that abortions are ... well let's just say that they feel it's wrong ... referring to 300,000 abortions as a savings for the country seems a little ... off.
Oh, this should be fun.
I'm gonna say one and a half pages before the lock.
Now, to cook up some popcorn and watch the fun. Kinda like a Spanish soap opera.
I'm trying to understand what it is that some people seem to have against this organization.
I'm a school teacher, and what I see in the school system is that the people who are least well equipped to properly care for and raise children are producing the most kids. Over time this single fact places an enormous burden on society. Such children are more likely to have health problems (diabetes, obesity, fetal alcohol syndrome etc..), they tend to have more difficulty in school, struggle more to get gainful employment after school, and are more likely to end up in the criminal justice system.
Having an organization like planned parenthood that helps to educate people about taking steps to ensure that they don't have children when they aren't equipped to raise them can only be a good thing for society. The savings a country will see in the long run for investing in such education will more than pay for itself.
Well, my thinking is this: Whatever good Planned Parenthood may do is (IMO) trivialized by the murder of our future generations. Trying to justify it by saying the victims are somehow 'better off' than if they were born into less than ideal circumstances is... I just can't wrap my head around that kind of thinking.
I mean, what you seem to be saying is that, because someone might grow up in less than great health or might be a bad person, the best course of action is to deny them the chance of having a long healthy life as a good person who does contribute to society?
Hmmm...wikipedia offers this synopsis Planned Parenthood
I would suspect that most of the posters on this board fall somewhere in the descriptions of pro/con.
I was surprised to read that this organization has been around since 1942 under its current banner. With federal funding beginning in 1970 with Richard Nixon, though the majority of its funding is from private sources. (Interesting breakdown of how their money is doled out.) So is the question 'how much more 'effective' would they be with more funding? Counter that question with another; 'who exactly determines whether parent(s) are equipped to raise a child?'.
So, after decades growing, what impact should we look for going forward? After decades, what impact should we already see?
I'll skip the personal insights and PoVs that might run counter to someone else's. That ground is pretty pointless.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
their eagerness to murder our future generations
I support the murder of a large portion of the existing generation of humans (provided, of course, that the humans I care about are spared), might as well get a head start on the next generation. There's 5 billion of them, it's not like we're going to run out.
their eagerness to murder our future generationsHyperbole much?
Troll much?
Constantly. Et tu?Troll much?their eagerness to murder our future generationsHyperbole much?
Edited. Is that more acceptable?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So, after decades growing, what impact should we look for going forward? After decades, what impact should we already see?
Wasn't there a segment in Freakonomics linking together increased access to abortion with decreased crime over the course of a generation or so?
Of course, there's the same fundamental problem as with climate change or any other politicized area of science, where people pick and choose what they accept as science based on what they want the answer to be...
I think the point of the organization is really about educating people and helping them to make good decisions. Making good decisions means that men and women practise proper birth control if they have sex and thus women don't pregnant until they actually want to have babies. Proactive measures are key. Abortion is a reactive measure. Successful proactive measures make it so that the reactive ones (like abortion) don't have to come into play. Sure some people still make mistakes, and get into situations where they feel things like abortion are necessary, but if planned parenthood is properly funded and able to do its job it reduces the number of cases of unplanned pregnancies, and thus the people that do get pregnant actually want to have the baby. They just need a separate organization to do the abortions then all the antiabortionists could get mad at them instead and leave planned parenthood alone.
I'm trying to understand what it is that some people seem to have against this organization.
I'm a school teacher, and what I see in the school system is that the people who are least well equipped to properly care for and raise children are producing the most kids. Over time this single fact places an enormous burden on society. Such children are more likely to have health problems (diabetes, obesity, fetal alcohol syndrome etc..), they tend to have more difficulty in school, struggle more to get gainful employment after school, and are more likely to end up in the criminal justice system.
Having an organization like planned parenthood that helps to educate people about taking steps to ensure that they don't have children when they aren't equipped to raise them can only be a good thing for society. The savings a country will see in the long run for investing in such education will more than pay for itself.
1d20+4
Well, my thinking is this: Whatever good Planned Parenthood may do is (IMO) trivialized by their eagerness to murder our future generations. Trying to justify it by saying the victims are somehow 'better off' than if they were born into less than ideal circumstances is... I just can't wrap my head around that kind of thinking.I mean, what you seem to be saying is that, because someone might grow up in less than great health or might be a bad person, the best course of action is to deny them the chance of having a long healthy life as a good person who does contribute to society?
Well we've probably got another 10-30 years or so before this giant house of cards we've made for ourselves falls down and then there may well be a significant decrease in population.
their eagerness to murder our future generationsI support the murder of a large portion of the existing generation of humans (provided, of course, that the humans I care about are spared), might as well get a head start on the next generation. There's 5 billion of them, it's not like we're going to run out.
|
I'm trying to understand what it is that some people seem to have against this organization.
I'm a school teacher, and what I see in the school system is that the people who are least well equipped to properly care for and raise children are producing the most kids. Over time this single fact places an enormous burden on society. Such children are more likely to have health problems (diabetes, obesity, fetal alcohol syndrome etc..), they tend to have more difficulty in school, struggle more to get gainful employment after school, and are more likely to end up in the criminal justice system.
Having an organization like planned parenthood that helps to educate people about taking steps to ensure that they don't have children when they aren't equipped to raise them can only be a good thing for society. The savings a country will see in the long run for investing in such education will more than pay for itself.
1d20+4
Well, my thinking is this: Whatever good Planned Parenthood may do is (IMO) trivialized by the murder of our future generations. Trying to justify it by saying the victims are somehow 'better off' than if they were born into less than ideal circumstances is... I just can't wrap my head around that kind of thinking.I mean, what you seem to be saying is that, because someone might grow up in less than great health or might be a bad person, the best course of action is to deny them the chance of having a long healthy life as a good person who does contribute to society?
Or on a more humorous note, with similar logic.
Edited. Is that more acceptable?Who said hyperbole was bad? I was more interested in what facts back up that opinion. If there are bloodthirsy child murderers in abortion clinics, I'd like to know so we can act on it.
Amusingly, Houston's PP building vaguely resembles a ziggurat.
I think the point of the organization is really about educating people and helping them to make good decisions. Making good decisions means that men and women practise proper birth control if they have sex and thus women don't pregnant until they actually want to have babies. Proactive measures are key. Abortion is a reactive measure. Successful proactive measures make it so that the reactive ones (like abortion) don't have to come into play. Sure some people still make mistakes, and get into situations where they feel things like abortion are necessary, but if planned parenthood is properly funded and able to do its job it reduces the number of cases of unplanned pregnancies, and thus the people that do get pregnant actually want to have the baby. They just need a separate organization to do the abortions then all the antiabortionists could get mad at them instead and leave planned parenthood alone.
...I'm trying to understand what it is that some people seem to have against this organization.
I'm a school teacher, and what I see in the school system is that the people who are least well equipped to properly care for and raise children are producing the most kids. Over time this single fact places an enormous burden on society. Such children are more likely to have health problems (diabetes, obesity, fetal alcohol syndrome etc..), they tend to have more difficulty in school, struggle more to get gainful employment after school, and are more likely to end up in the criminal justice system.
Having an organization like planned parenthood that helps to educate people about taking steps to ensure that they don't have children when they aren't equipped to raise them can only be a good thing for society. The savings a country will see in the long run for investing in such education will more than pay for itself.
1d20+4
Well, my thinking is this: Whatever good Planned Parenthood may do is (IMO) trivialized by their
If proactive measures are so important, why is the best, most effective one completely ignored and even ridiculed by most supporters of PP. (I suspect by PP as well, but I can not actually state that as fact.)
So, after decades growing, what impact should we look for going forward? After decades, what impact should we already see?
Wasn't there a segment in Freakonomics linking together increased access to abortion with decreased crime over the course of a generation or so?
Of course, there's the same fundamental problem as with climate change or any other politicized area of science, where people pick and choose what they accept as science based on what they want the answer to be...
Have we seen a decrease in crime? In poverty? In problem parents/children in a school district?
That's the problem with all of these debates, regardless of subject matter, and the expectation that an answer can be obtained with a few pages of posts from a limited audience.
It's hard to find the right measuring stick for societal/cultural changes. I had it here a moment ago...
|
|
So, after decades growing, what impact should we look for going forward? After decades, what impact should we already see?
Wasn't there a segment in Freakonomics linking together increased access to abortion with decreased crime over the course of a generation or so?
Of course, there's the same fundamental problem as with climate change or any other politicized area of science, where people pick and choose what they accept as science based on what they want the answer to be...
Have we seen a decrease in crime? In poverty? In problem parents/children in a school district?
That's the problem with all of these debates, regardless of subject matter, and the expectation that an answer can be obtained with a few pages of posts from a limited audience.
It's hard to find the right measuring stick for societal/cultural changes. I had it here a moment ago...
In answer to your questions, yes.
I posted the Freakanomics link above, btw.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have we seen a decrease in crime? In poverty? In problem parents/children in a school district?
Depends who you ask and what metrics you use. Same as climate change. Some (such as the Freakonomics segment linked above) do say that there has been a decrease in crime/poverty/etc. I suspect there are other studies, but I honestly couldn't care less. I've seen science disregarded many times because it doesn't support an ideological point of view; even if there were substantial amounts of evidence providing for a causal relationship, it would be ignored or dismissed.
(Just like abstinence only programs, which demonstrably do not work, but which are still advocated as if they do because the ideal of the program aligns with many people's beliefs, even if reality does not.)
I think the point of the organization is really about educating people and helping them to make good decisions. Making good decisions means that men and women practise proper birth control if they have sex and thus women don't pregnant until they actually want to have babies. Proactive measures are key. Abortion is a reactive measure. Successful proactive measures make it so that the reactive ones (like abortion) don't have to come into play. Sure some people still make mistakes, and get into situations where they feel things like abortion are necessary, but if planned parenthood is properly funded and able to do its job it reduces the number of cases of unplanned pregnancies, and thus the people that do get pregnant actually want to have the baby. They just need a separate organization to do the abortions then all the antiabortionists could get mad at them instead and leave planned parenthood alone.
Too late to separate them in people's minds. The reactive methods have poisoned the well, so to speak. The good gets overwhelmed by the controversy. A lot of that is their own fault. They've had almost 70 years under their belt.
The synical side of me believes controversy drives up donations.
|
|
If proactive measures are so important, why is the best, most effective one completely ignored and even ridiculed by most supporters of PP. (I suspect by PP as well, but I can not actually state that as fact.)
Because most people don't agree with me about putting Depo-Provera in school lunches.
Unless you are talking about abstinence education, which not only doesn't work, but may actually make them less likely to be abstinent.
http://stats.org/stories/contrac_v_abst_dec12_06.htm
I know you don't mean abstinence, because there's a mountain of evidence that it doesn't work to prevent pregnancy (at least by itself).
Which is why it's ridiculed. Not working is a pretty big problem.
Well. I know of one case in the last 2000 years, but God's really of a one woman kind of guy, so I'm not expecting any repeats.
Well we've probably got another 10-30 years or so before this giant house of cards we've made for ourselves falls down and then there may well be a significant decrease in population.
their eagerness to murder our future generationsI support the murder of a large portion of the existing generation of humans (provided, of course, that the humans I care about are spared), might as well get a head start on the next generation. There's 5 billion of them, it's not like we're going to run out.
But the U.S. birth rates have been dropping, hence all the shrinking school districts. In our area, immigrant influx is the only growth.
|
|
Amusingly, Houston's PP building vaguely resembles a ziggurat.
That went by a little fast for me.
Also, yes, abstinence is the best contraceptive known to man. Unfortunately, hardly anyone seems to actually use it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well. I know of one case in the last 2000 years, but God's really of a one woman kind of guy, so I'm not expecting any repeats.I know you don't mean abstinence, because there's a mountain of evidence that it doesn't work to prevent pregnancy (at least by itself).
Which is why it's ridiculed. Not working is a pretty big problem.
Yeah, that pretty much misses the point. While we're at it, we might as well eliminate crime by teaching people that if they break laws, they will be put in jail. If it's as easy as telling people the obvious, it wouldn't really be a problem.
Well. I know of one case in the last 2000 years, but God's really of a one woman kind of guy, so I'm not expecting any repeats.
So before we go farther... are we basing this argument on actual real-world facts and statistics, or just interpreting quotes from Wolfthulhu's version of the Old and New Testament?
Yeah, that pretty much misses the point. While we're at it, we might as well eliminate crime by teaching people that if they break laws, they will be put in jail. If it's as easy as telling people the obvious, it wouldn't really be a problem.Well. I know of one case in the last 2000 years, but God's really of a one woman kind of guy, so I'm not expecting any repeats.I know you don't mean abstinence, because there's a mountain of evidence that it doesn't work to prevent pregnancy (at least by itself).
Which is why it's ridiculed. Not working is a pretty big problem.
More like intentionally went around the point. I generally try to avoid arguing with lawyers. I mean, I know better than to think I have any chance of winning.
But, for the hell of it.
Our society hasn't actively encouraged abstinence for decades. Sure it gets mentioned with a wink and a nod, and a 'Oh and by the way, here's a condom'. It's made into a joke, even though it actually is pretty damned effective against both pregnancy and disease.
Have we seen a decrease in crime? In poverty? In problem parents/children in a school district?
Depends who you ask and what metrics you use. Same as climate change. Some (such as the Freakonomics segment linked above) do say that there has been a decrease in crime/poverty/etc. I suspect there are other studies, but I honestly couldn't care less. I've seen science disregarded many times because it doesn't support an ideological point of view; even if there were substantial amounts of evidence providing for a causal relationship, it would be ignored or dismissed.
(Just like abstinence only programs, which demonstrably do not work, but which are still advocated as if they do because the ideal of the program aligns with many people's beliefs, even if reality does not.)
Read your causal relationship as casual, hehe. Yeppers, spin doctor science. Leaves the population at each others' throat. Causation and correlation not clearly defined.
As for PP being limited in succeeding by limited funding, in an African Studies class from a decade ago we studied how ineffective free condom access was in preventing pregnancy and the transmission of HIV. The failure was not the result of religious opposition, it was that the practice of safe sex went against the societies' 'values'. Men refused to use condoms. They also refused to stay monogamous as they travelled away from home for months on end to find work. Groups, like PP, found limited success in their efforts, as they butted heads with society. Societies don't change overnight.
Well. I know of one case in the last 2000 years, but God's really of a one woman kind of guy, so I'm not expecting any repeats.So before we go farther... are we basing this argument on actual real-world facts and statistics, or just interpreting quotes from Wolfthulhu's version of the Old and New Testament?
FACT. If nothing goes in, nothing comes out. And that has nothing to do with any testament or my interpretation thereof.
Amusingly, Houston's PP building vaguely resembles a ziggurat.That went by a little fast for me.
Also, yes, abstinence is the best contraceptive known to man. Unfortunately, hardly anyone seems to actually use it.
My wife sometimes makes me practice it. hehe
Apologies, couldn't resist.
There's nothing wrong with Planned Parenthood. Unfortunately, like every other group in this country, someone or another group can, will, and do see something to dislike and despise in PP.
We live in a society that thrives on polarizing ieals "I'm right, you're wrong."
You want to fix society, planned parenthood isn't enough. You need parents to be Parents to there kids, not friends. Provide boundaries, discipline, teach them that life is going to knock you down - only you can pick yourself up again, be a caregiver. Have a sense of humor, but only so far. Oh, there is absolutely nothing wrong with spanking a child - such as playing matches, a smack on the rear-end IS WARRANTED, JUSTIFIED, and NECESSARY.
And now a word from the Apple Institute of America:
F#&K Pears!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all for abstinence being included as part of sex education. There's just not substanti evidence that abstinence only programs work that well by themselves.
It'd be pretty tough to change the culture to embrace chastity (sex sells and we live in a capitalist society). I wouldn't object to such a cultural sea change, but I don't see a practical non-fascist way to get there.
|
|
It'd be pretty tough to change the culture to embrace chastity (sex sells and we live in a capitalist society). I wouldn't object to such a cultural sea change, but I don't see a practical non-fascist way to get there.
I kinda think there's something else going on there.
I mean,.....Europe has all that sex cells going on but I don't believe that they have our teen pregnancy rates.