|
I'm also not sure that doctors who perform abortions are compensated above and beyond what other specialist doctors receive.
Probably. And this has probably changed in recent years thanks to Congress.
But do Planned Parenthood agencies perform births? (I didn't see it listed as one of their benefits even though it seems that an organization involved with "parenthood" should be involved in assisting people to give birth and become "parents".)
My comparison at the time had more to do with how much the clinic/doctor makes with each adoption referral as opposed to each abortion performed.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably. And this has probably changed in recent years thanks to Congress.
Why is that? Because tax money isn't used to fund abortions?
But do Planned Parenthood agencies perform births? (I didn't see it listed as one of their benefits even though it seems that an organization involved with "parenthood" should be involved in assisting people to give birth and become "parents".)
I think they are more about the planning for being (or not being) a parent. A more apt name would probably be somethign like Planned Reproduction, which isn't nearly as alliterative as Planned Parenthood.
I'm not sure that they should be required to provide services relating to birth/parenting because it's in their name. No one expects that Apple actually sells fruit; I'm not sure how this is different.
My comparison at the time had more to do with how much the clinic/doctor makes with each adoption referral as opposed to each abortion performed.
Maybe I'm insufficiently cynical, but I can't imagine someone choosing to perform abortions simply for the money. Even if they get paid more, I can't imagine that it's all that much as a marginal matter. If you can perform an abortion, you're already an MD, already capable of making a good living - are you really going to take the societal hit for a little extra cash? I suppose some people will, but, given the political context, I suspect that those who do it are more motivated by doing what they believe to be the right thing to do than the marginal increase in compensation that comes along with it.
People are greedy, but you have to be a strange combination of greedy + dumb + a doctor to decide to become an abortion provider. If you want to make money, and are smart enough to be a doctor, there are significantly safer, better ways of making money.
The greedy argument strikes me as an attempt to further characterize the doctors as villians. It's not enough that they are evil murderers, they have to be evil murderers who are concious of the murders they are committing and are doing so to make some extra cash. I submit that they don't see themselves that way, and likely have a very strong belief that what they are doing is just/right/moral.
*shrug* I find it unlikely that this is an instance of greed resulting in evil. It strikes me more as differing beliefs.
But, what do I know. I cling to the fantasy that humans are rational despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
|
|
Probably. And this has probably changed in recent years thanks to Congress.Why is that? Because tax money isn't used to fund abortions?
Sorry, things don't always translate all that well over forums...
With (I believe) the recent Health Bill, Congress put some wierd restrictions on doctors and their pay. My comment had nothing to do with the abortion thing in that regard.
But do Planned Parenthood agencies perform births? (I didn't see it listed as one of their benefits even though it seems that an organization involved with "parenthood" should be involved in assisting people to give birth and become "parents".)I think they are more about the planning for being (or not being) a parent. A more apt name would probably be somethign like Planned Reproduction, which isn't nearly as alliterative as Planned Parenthood.
I'm not sure that they should be required to provide services relating to birth/parenting because it's in their name. No one expects that Apple actually sells fruit; I'm not sure how this is different.
I'm not saying that they should provide anything. I just wasn't sure one way or the other. And giving births is another way to make money. By not providing births, I feel that the organization is limiting themselves a bit more on how to make money.
My comparison at the time had more to do with how much the clinic/doctor makes with each adoption referral as opposed to each abortion performed.Maybe I'm insufficiently cynical, but I can't imagine someone choosing to perform abortions simply for the money. Even if they get paid more, I can't imagine that it's all that much as a marginal matter. If you can perform an abortion, you're already an MD, already capable of making a good living - are you really going to take the societal hit for a little extra cash?
Maybe I'm confused on how they would make money. Do they make a base salary regardless of what they refer? Or do they make money based on the service they provide. If they don't provide a "service" do they make any money? How much money do they make providing contraceptives?
I think that you're right in that they feel that it's the right job for them, it's what they want to do, or something similar than simply -- "Oooh, if I ..." <Never mind ... no matter what I wrote, it wouldn't have come out well.> I think I largely agree with you here though.
But just because it's a "right" doesn't mean that it's 99.71% of the time the best choice.
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.
OH NOES IT IS THE SEVENTH SIGN! THE END IS NEAR!
But do Planned Parenthood agencies perform births? (I didn't see it listed as one of their benefits even though it seems that an organization involved with "parenthood" should be involved in assisting people to give birth and become "parents".)
I would hope not. However valuable a clinic is, childbirth is a serious and risky procedure that can turn very life-threatening, very quickly. If at all possible one should go to a hospital for it. However common it is on TV, finding a random doctor on the street, barging into a clinic, or having a bystander take care of it in an elevator is not the best way to give birth.
|
|
I would hope not. However valuable a clinic is, childbirth is a serious and risky procedure that can turn very life-threatening, very quickly. If at all possible one should go to a hospital for it. However common it is on TV, finding a random doctor on the street, barging into a clinic, or having a bystander take care of it in an elevator is not the best way to give birth.
But do Planned Parenthood agencies perform births? (I didn't see it listed as one of their benefits even though it seems that an organization involved with "parenthood" should be involved in assisting people to give birth and become "parents".)
This seems odd to me. Aren't abortions also a serious procedure? I'm actually suggesting that they get licensed OBGYNs on their staff.
|
Spoiler:The problem is that homosexuals are not infinitely less likely to become nondeployable (due to pregnancy).Let's look at your original comment: "That's one thing I've never understood about the "don't ask don't tell" policy. You would think the military would want more homosexuals in the ranks. After all, they can't get pregnant and become non-deployable like heterosexual soldiers."
This comment only makes sense when comparing homosexual males to heterosexual females.
Heterosexual males can't become pregnant, so it doesn't make sense in their case.
Homosexual women can become pregnant, thus it doesn't make sense in their case.
The issue isn't really relevant to the sexual orientation, but to the sex of the individual or rather its capacity to get pregnant. So your original comment should read:
"That's one thing I've never understood about the "don't ask don't tell" policy when it comes to homosexual males. You would think the military would want more males in the ranks. After all, they can't get pregnant and become non-deployable like female soldiers."Any other reading doesn't make any kind of logical sense. Of course, I know you were going for humor and logic wasn't necessarily an issue for you. I found the lack of logic humorous myself.
But yes, I was careless with my language. I'm sure you'd have gotten my point better by my saying 'homosexual soliders are signifigantly less likely to get pregnant and become nondeployable'.
And I counter that sexual orientation IS relevant, as a homosexual male is much less likely to impregnate a female soldier while deployed, causing her to be redeployed early. Same for homosexual females, they are less likely to be impregnated by heterosexual males. (Even counting the results of homosexual females being raped, the heterosexual female is as likely to be raped as the homosexual, thus that number can be factored out.)
Now, if you have any further objections to my revised statement, and would like to show how I'm a woman-hater because of them, by all means explain them so I can revise my statement further. :)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm confused on how they would make money. Do they make a base salary regardless of what they refer? Or do they make money based on the service they provide. If they don't provide a "service" do they make any money? How much money do they make providing contraceptives?
I'm not sure. I was thinking more along the lines of "whatever you get paid for as a doctor who provides abortions is likely similar to what a doctor who specializes in another field would earn." So, the decisions facing a doctor considering working at a clinic are probably something like: choice A: be a doctor, make $200k; choice B: be a doctor who provides abortions, make $250k; choice C: be a doctor who specializes in bunyons, make $225.
At that level of income, the difference between $200k and $250k isn't nearly as dramatic as it would be if you were comparing $35k to $85k.
But, I have no idea what doctors make or how any of this works. I'm making this all up as I go along. For all I know, the choices are: be a doctor, make $100k; be a doctor who provides abortions, make $500k + $50k/abortion performed. If that were the case, you'd be completely correct and I would be a blathering idiot. I have no idea.
But I like to blather. So I think it works out.
|
|
Noticed this after I posted...
The greedy argument strikes me as an attempt to further characterize the doctors as villians. It's not enough that they are evil murderers, they have to be evil murderers who are concious of the murders they are committing and are doing so to make some extra cash. I submit that they don't see themselves that way, and likely have a very strong belief that what they are doing is just/right/moral.
I really don't mean to put the doctors as villians. They are simply people doing a job. My PCP does abortions (and I have mixed feelings about that). But what my doctor also does (I feel) is a better job of giving more and better alternatives and education on the entire thing. I also think that she can do this better because she makes her money in other areas.
While they may see what they are doing as "just/right/moral", I personally don't see it as more "just/right/moral" than giving a child up for adoption. Certainly not 99.71% more "just/right/moral". If it isn't about the money, then the two (or more) options should have equal compensation -- and I seriously doubt that they do. And that's more an issue with the system than with the doctors.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I really don't mean to put the doctors as villians. They are simply people doing a job. My PCP does abortions (and I have mixed feelings about that). But what my doctor also does (I feel) is a better job of giving more and better alternatives and education on the entire thing. I also think that she can do this better because she makes her money in other areas.
Everyone likes their congressperson, but supports a term limit to get rid of those other congresspeople that don't represent them. ;-)
While they may see what they are doing as "just/right/moral", I personally don't see it as more "just/right/moral" than giving a child up for adoption. Certainly not 99.71% more "just/right/moral". If it isn't about the money, then the two (or more) options should have equal compensation -- and I seriously doubt that they do. And that's more an issue with the system than with the doctors.
Blame capitalism. It takes significantly more training to provide abortions than to counsel people on adoption. Plus, the costs to the ultimate decision maker (the pregnant woman) are vastly different, and I imagine that plays a much bigger role than the availability/quality of the doctor or counselor.
These debates are always funny because, at the end of the day, probably 95% of people are in agreement on the core issues. I've encountered a small handful of people in my life who are pro-abortion (as opposed to pro-choice), but most everyone takes the position that the best scenario is for the child to be raised by its mother, next best is adoption, and abortion is way, way, way down the line. I don't have a problem with providing further funding for adoption counselors, or making adoptions easier, or any of that stuff.
And, I don't even think abortion is a constitutional right, but I would vote against laws denying access to it.
Removed a post—be civil, please.
I'd rather my daughter be a responsible, morally upright young woman and not get knocked up because she was fooling around with some boy. If she did, I'd rather she had the baby.
I'd probably disown her if she had an abortion for any reason other than to protect her own life, or because she'd been raped.
Because, as everyone knows, one cannot be sexually active and morally upright at the same time.
As for my daughter, I'll continue to love and support her even if (when) she makes poor decisions.
|
If those numbers are accurate, I'd certainly like to know why.The numbers came from Wikipedia and they are footnoted. More than that, I'm not sure. It seems like there are a number of flaky organizations trying to take them down and being stupid about it.
I know that we will disagree about the other. A lot of it (as you know) is religious based -- but that really doesn't have a place here.
I guess that I just wish that an organization called "Planned Parenthood" did more to actually help people become good parents. Yet it seems far more focused on keeping people from becoming parents. And while that is important, I really feel that the world needs more and better parents -- not more ways to shirk responsibility.
You can't expect them to be all things.
They are a non-profit health clinic that focuses on women's reproductive health, not an adoption agency.
Until these organizations/topics/etc (...hold 'til the end) shed themselves of the most extreme practices/POVs/etc they will always face criticism and opposition. People will find more in common if it ever happens.
ie. In the abortion debate, late-term abortions cause a vehement response, whereas a medical crisis, rape, or incest garner less resistance. PP is affected by the practices of all abortion doctors.
This holds true for the NRA. While I think it would be cool to fire a machine gun (even semi-automatic) I don't need to, and I don't need to own one. I don't need an assault rifle. Otherwise I enjoy the right to own a gun.
Pro-Lifers are colored by the actions of idiots that bomb clinics.
And so on. Each entity is afraid of giving in a smidgeon on their position as it may lead to losing more--->horse hockey excuses.
When people refuse to give an inch, they remain separated by miles.
While they may see what they are doing as "just/right/moral", I personally don't see it as more "just/right/moral" than giving a child up for adoption.
Respectfully, you would rethink your opinion if you had to personally carry a child to term. You might not change your opinion, but I guarantee you'd think about it a lot.
Being pregnant for 9 months is not easy, trivial, or inexpensive to do right, but your argument assumes that just that by glossing over it as not an issue worthy of consideration or weight.
This seems odd to me. Aren't abortions also a serious procedure? I'm actually suggesting that they get licensed OBGYNs on their staff.
Any procedure is serious but most abortions are less serious than pregnancy. Something around 10% of American abortions are performed by taking a few pills. Even a pretty nasty series of pills is going to be a whole lot less traumatic than a normal childbirth.
I know some people are squeamish about this, but you can read the next most popular method's details right here. That's almost all of the other abortions performed in the US. It's minimally invasive.
Sometime in the second trimester these methods no longer suffice and one has to upgrade to a D&E. This is getting to be closer to normal childbirth in level of invasiveness, but it's still a ways off.
Intact dilation and extraction is banned in the US, so when an abortion is called for in those circumstances the fetus must be dismembered in utero instead. Abortions performed this late, incidentally, are virtually never elective. That's not a fact I consider significant, but some people do.
I've encountered a small handful of people in my life who are pro-abortion (as opposed to pro-choice), but most everyone takes the position that the best scenario is for the child to be raised by its mother, next best is adoption, and abortion is way, way, way down the line.
I'm pro-abortion. I think the best case scenario for a wanted pregnancy is for that pregnancy to come to term, be healthy, and then the child be raised competently by competent, stable parents. For unwanted pregnancies, the best scenario is an abortion. It asks no one to give up nine months of their lives and doesn't produce a child that is then left to overtaxed, straining child welfare bureaucracies and adoption agencies to place with parents.
A simple outpatient procedure sounds far more sensible and responsible to me.
Removed some posts. Let's stop with the sniping.
|
|
For unwanted pregnancies, the best scenario is an abortion. It asks no one to give up nine months of their lives and doesn't produce a child that is then left to overtaxed, straining child welfare bureaucracies and adoption agencies to place with parents.
I agree, as odd as it feels. My wife was an unwanted pregnancy. :/ I'm happy to have her, but looking at her life up until now...
For unwanted pregnancies, the best scenario is an abortion. It asks no one to give up nine months of their lives and doesn't produce a child that is then left to overtaxed, straining child welfare bureaucracies and adoption agencies to place with parents.I agree, as odd as it feels. My wife was an unwanted pregnancy. :/ I'm happy to have her, but looking at her life up until now...
My mother was a wanted pregnancy and she had a horrific childhood I wouldn't want anybody to suffer. It's not quite the same thing, but yeah. I can easily imagine myself taking a one-way time machine trip to stop all that.
The name "Planned Parenthood" might seem a little strange or ironic today, but in the context of when the organization started (1920ish) and the political language of the time, it makes perfect sense.
Remember, this is when women habitually pumped out double-digit children and some (many?) died from the complications and exhaustion that this caused.
My grandmother (daughter of Italian Catholics) was one of 18 children, a third of whom didn't make it to the age of 5. Fortunately, my great-granmama was a hearty and hale uprooted peasant, with all of the resilience that that implies, and got to spend her last years surrounded by fat, happy grandchildren (even though she couldn't talk to them; she never learned to speak English).
In that context, where Planned Parenthood was about allowing women to control their fecundity so that they'd only have 2 or 3 children instead of 10 or 15, their name makes total sense.
On a slightly different topic, unless I'm mistaken (it's been a while, unfortunately, since I've had to keep up on the birth control market--did RU486 ever get approved in this country?), women with adequate medical insurance who want to keep their babies don't cast their shadows on Planned Parenthood's doors. As Samnell pointed out, they go to their doctor. So, I'm not at all surprised that the numbers are so "skewed".
On a slightly different topic, unless I'm mistaken (it's been a while, unfortunately, since I've had to keep up on the birth control market--did RU486 ever get approved in this country?), women with adequate medical insurance who want to keep their babies don't cast their shadows on Planned Parenthood's doors. As Samnell pointed out, they go to their doctor. So, I'm not at all surprised that the numbers are so "skewed".
It was finally approved in 2000 and makes up a rapidly-increasing proportion of American abortions.
If self-righteousness and sanctimony were sufficient to the task of preventing prolific pregnancy, the rate of ghetto spawn and trailer trash population explosions wouldn't be as high as they are.
Speaking as a Statistic™ myself, I'd not done sufficient world-altering change in my life to feel I am a necessity, and contrary to popular belief I am not suicidal. Therefore, I will let the sanctimonious tell me I should have been aborted, and tell them the 'damage' is done, and that their discomfort with my candor speaks volumes of their hypocrisy.
I am not pro-abortion; I am pro-choice. The choice is not mine to make, and none of my business, but moreso it is none of the business of high and mighty would-be theocrats to push their nose in where it doesn't belong. There's nothing wrong with being anti-abortion, because at heart most people likely are; that doesn't mean that those who might require one need be disparaged and antagonized.
Would that those who are vehemently opposed put up or shut up; instead of spending on incarceration, invest in better adoption services and improved foster care. Invest in improved contraceptive technology, instead of attempting to mandate your sexual mores, so that by the time that your children become just as subject to the hormones that brought them about, they will not have to worry about being subjected to the notion that children are punishment for indulgence.
Children should never be a punishment. Avoiding their creation should not be a crime. Parenthood should, in fact, be planned.
And it's not as silly as Technical Virginity.
... instead of attempting to mandate your sexual mores, ...
I hope you realize that this is what some on the other side feel is happening. That society is trying to force/manipulate children into feeling if they don't "experiment" then there is something wrong with them. They are some kind of freak.
... instead of attempting to mandate your sexual mores, ...I hope you realize that this is what some on the other side feel is happening. That society is trying to force/manipulate children into feeling if they don't "experiment" then there is something wrong with them. They are some kind of freak.
The "other side" also thinks it's okay to bully and harass doctors (and in some cases kill them). Goes to show how out of tune with reality they are. No, "society" isn't trying to force/manipulate children.
If anyone is trying to force children (well, teenagers or young adults would probably be a more accurate description) to do anything it's their peers. And what would prevent this? Better sex education (plus responsible and present adults - adults who aren't too scared/repressed to talk about sex with their kids)!Guess what Planned Parenthood would be useful for in this scenario...
Media input into our society is shaping our children. Always has and always will. Sexuality is a big part of it and our world.
That said, PP is not at the forefront of this, they are on the receiving end. Hence, their growth.
On a slightly different topic, unless I'm mistaken (it's been a while, unfortunately, since I've had to keep up on the birth control market--did RU486 ever get approved in this country?), women with adequate medical insurance who want to keep their babies don't cast their shadows on Planned Parenthood's doors. As Samnell pointed out, they go to their doctor. So, I'm not at all surprised that the numbers are so "skewed".It was finally approved in 2000 and makes up a rapidly-increasing proportion of American abortions.
Ahem. Just so we're clear, I have had sex since 2000.
... instead of attempting to mandate your sexual mores, ...I hope you realize that this is what some on the other side feel is happening. That society is trying to force/manipulate children into feeling if they don't "experiment" then there is something wrong with them. They are some kind of freak.
To be candid and (likely) repulsive, I've been active for over two and a half decades...out of the nearly three and a half I've been about.
Mind, I was living in Europe, and I was well-read and well-educated about any and all repercussions, potential outcomes, and hazards. Precautions were taken. And while I don't feel it's the right course of action for all, I happened to have turned out decently enough.
I'd rather people be equipped to make semi-rational decisions than act out of ignorance, superstition, or dogma. I'd much rather that those who would cloister their brood (a perfectly cromulent choice, I might add) not expect the outside word to confirm to their enclave. By the flip side, I fully respect the desire for some measure of baseline standard; tonsil-fishing in the open has always been terribly gauche to me, regardless of who is doing it, by gender or orientation.
That said, I'd be just as loathe to support a local megachurch weaseling out of financial obligations while straining the local infrastructure...or a bunch of quiverful-sorts doing the same while proselytizing. However, as someone prior to me mentioned, I'm less interested in prying into the lives of private citizens, and more dealing with where the attempts to turn 'honest' democracy into 'tyranny of the masses', such as where stupid blue laws keep me from being able to buy alcohol locally because of a few regressive sorts who lack self-control.
|
Ahem. Just so we're clear, I have had sex since 2000.On a slightly different topic, unless I'm mistaken (it's been a while, unfortunately, since I've had to keep up on the birth control market--did RU486 ever get approved in this country?), women with adequate medical insurance who want to keep their babies don't cast their shadows on Planned Parenthood's doors. As Samnell pointed out, they go to their doctor. So, I'm not at all surprised that the numbers are so "skewed".It was finally approved in 2000 and makes up a rapidly-increasing proportion of American abortions.
By yourself doesn't count.
EDIT: Given that this thread can get heated, perhaps I had better clarify: /jk
Two points I want to make....
1) @Emperor 7: It is the greatest irony that each generation think they have 'discovered' sex. Humen beings as a whole have always been sexualy active...to blame it on a generation or the media is silly.
2) @TriOmgaZero and Samnell: Not all unwanted births have horrific lifes...and not all wanted births are raise in heaven. To say categoricaly all unwanted births should be aborted is a very scary concept to me. As with the advances in detecting problems in children raises...I might have been a 'unwanted' birth...which mean I would have been aborted. Sorry to break it to you guys...but as a possible 'unwanted' birth baby I would rather live with my brain damage(and the pain it has caused) than not to have known life at all. I think utlimately most unwanted birth people out there would feel the same way. And if they don't...there isalways sucide.
I am though Pro-choice...I just don't think it is right to enforce my believes on somebody else.