planned parenthood pledge and picket

[glowbelly]

brilliant.

http://www.ppsp.org/PledgePicket-index.asp

[KevinTheOmnivore]

"We will place a signoutside the health center that tracks pledges and makes protesters fully aware that their actions are benefiting PPSP."

Or, the protesters will spin it so that it looks like PP is raising money off of "victims" of abortion. Sounds like a pretty silly campaign to me.

A really good way to prevent the actual harassment stuff would've been for our congress to re-work the tax code during the debate over thebancruptcy bill. Protesters who blockade doorways to clinics and get violent often walk away with minimal fines, because they found a loophole in the tax code which allows them to declare bancruptcy the day before they protest. Unfortunately that wasn't important to our congress.

Non-violent protesting outside of clinics, which don't obstruct doorways or intimidate, are ok in my book.

[glowbelly]

either way, as long as protesters are there, the amount of money going to planned parenthood goes up.

i don't think it's silly at all.

[sadie]

tehee. i love it. the protestors themselves will be benefitting planned parenthood just by showing up. it's a clever, peaceful way to keep them at bay.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

How exactly does it keep them at bey? The money is counted for every protester. That means if you just show up peacefully with a sign and stand there, you're "contributing to PP."

If anything, that might incite crazier demonstrations. Hell, if they're sponsoring me, I might as well put on a good show. 10 ft. high pictures of aborted fetuses, and noise makers!

[sadie]

why would protestors want to come protest if their presence will equal greater proceeds to planned parenthood? :alliteration

[Dr. Boogie]

To see the giant fetus!

[Lil' Johnny]

More like unplanned parenthood :rolleyes

[KevinTheOmnivore]

why would protestors want to come protest if their presence will equal greater proceeds to planned parenthood? :alliteration

The fact that PP is essentially "sponsoring" these protesters will add fuel to the fire, and draw out more protesters.

See, this campaign doesn't say "we don't like aggressive, law breaking protesters." This plan says "they shouldn't even protest because they're wrong, and I'm right."

Pretty condescending, and IMO, a pretty bad idea. I could probably think of ten ways to counter it and use it to my own advantage.

[sadie]

i see your point; it's basically more of the back-and-forth egocentricity. but i don't think more people will come out if it means the organization they hate will profit from it.

[Sethomas]

But they only profit if people are willing to actually thow money at the problem. I still fail to see why PP is considered non-profit, especially when it does liberty-stifling shit like this.

[sadie]

that's a good point. maybe no one with any huge amounts of money will participate. i'm not a planned parenthood supporter, though i appreciate that they provide the services they do for people who choose to do what is legally within their rights to do. but is it your right to harass these people? to curse at them and even try to harm them? i'm not saying all protestors are like this, and i could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to me this organization is aiming this campaign at the peaceful protestors.

[Sethomas]

Okay, let's make a rediculously high assumption and say that 50% of the protesters are beligerent violent assholes. That still means that the company seeks to earn the remaining 50% off the disciplined non-violent types.

I'm personally against abortion, and that should be obvious. Contraception is idiosyncratically to religion a sin, but it should be perfectly legal and upheld. If PP just wants to distribute information on how to prevent pregnancy, what to do when raped, hand out condoms, hell, throw around the pill all it wants, I'd be fine with that and would be glad that such an institution exists. It might be harmful to my utopian Civitate Dei in some metaphysical sense, but that's where society stands.

But the truth is, whether or not the organization is tax-free or not, at the individual level there are abortionists who realize that there's big money in vacuuming embryonic matter. They're not going to act out of altruistic loyalty to the pillars of the organization, they're going to seek profit. That's why I believe that if abortion is going to be legal, it should only be done under highly evaluated circumstances by practitioners who are disconnected to the decision of whether to abort or not.

[sadie]

would any doctor be disconnected? furthermore, most doctors who are morally against abortion won't perform abortions, and i don't blame them.

[Sethomas]

It's quite possible to have someone evaluate the need for abortion and have it undertaken by someone else. Yes, I agree that it would be awkward for a general practitioner to be the one responsible, but a specialist in the OBGyn department could take the responsibility.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

i see your point; it's basically more of the back-and-forth egocentricity. but i don't think more people will come out if it means the organization they hate will profit from it.

Yeah, I think the really extreme anti-abortion protesters and organizations just assume that those wicked abortionists are going to get money regardless, either from soulless liberals or Hollywood.

[glowbelly]

It's quite possible to have someone evaluate the need for abortion and have it undertaken by someone else.

this made my head hurt :(

[kellychaos]

Abortions would happen anyway to those who really want them. The question is whether the opportunity for legal and sterile abortions are made available for those who do want them. I wouldn't be for abortion in my own personal life but I'm all for the personal choice and safety of those that make that choice. Live and let live. I don't see this as "standing on the fence" either. It's more a matter of "live and let live" and not piously making decisions for others.

P.S. And no, I'm not for government-sponsored abortions.

As to this particular article; however, I don't see this detracting from the fundamentalist types who invested the time to protest and strongly oppose abortion. They are too self-absorbed, self-important and pious to think that their cause is wasted, that the pledges will benefit the opposition or that they will largely be ignored. They are doing God's will for God's sake.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Because people who oppose abortion are merely "fundamentalist types," and those who are, for example, having their THIRD abortion (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/national/18abortion.html?incamp=article_popular_5) are perfectly rational.

Sounds like a balanced argument to me.

[kellychaos]

Those who take the time to protest in abortions are more likely to be fundamentalist types.

And if it's their 10th abortion and they paid for it with own funds, what business it to you?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

My business in it is the same reason you said you wouldn't be for it in your own life, which is the standard line that everybody gives.

I think it's wrong, and the reason we have all of this sexual education, aside from STDs, is to prevent unnecessary pregnancies, right? Don't most, even those who support abortion, see it as a societal ill? Isn't the saying from the 90's keep abortion safe, available, and seldom???

Well, abortions have decreased, and teenage sex has also decreased. Sexual education appears to have been an overall positive, so shouldn't those who are still using abortion like a condom be criticized? Isn't it too mentally and physically harmful to be used in such a manner???

We have ethical medical procedure practices in most states that prevent certain types of cosmetic surgery from being practiced. Doesn't abortion warrant the same kind of care and scrutiny???

[kellychaos]

If abortions weren't legal, people would find ugly, underground, unsterile ways to get them. Whether you're for or against them in your personal life, they will persist. It's a question of how not of will.

At the same time, I'm for a lot of the tennets that PP endorse about hygeine, safe sex, contraception, ect. I don't necessarily think that these beliefs betray my earlier stated beliefs.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

If abortions weren't legal, people would find ugly, underground, unsterile ways to get them. Whether you're for or against them in your personal life, they will persist. It's a question of how not of will.

Fair enough, but a lot of people will do things if they want it bad enough. My question to you was do you or don't ou believe that abortion, while maintaining that it should be legal and available, is an overall negative???

[glowbelly]

while bringing into the world an unloved, uncared for and unwanted child is a positive.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

That is a terribly wishy-washy argument, IMO. Who decides that that child won't be loved? Who decides that that child won't have the advantages or abilities in life that others do?

It seems to be on the slippery slope towards eugenics to me when you start saying "well, this kid's life was gonna suck anyway."

[Sethomas]

Eugenics is pretty much inevitable, though, once the technology catches up with us.

And yeah, there's a huge demand for children in the adoption corner.

[glowbelly]

are you guys saying that all unwanted pregnancies should be carried to term and then the resulting babies be given up for adoption?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

But I thought we were talking about babies that were inevitably going to be "unloved"?

Teenage sex and pregnancy rates, as well as abortion rates, are down because people don't want to prematurely have unwanted babies.

I'll repeat, for example-- If you don't want a baby, and you are on your THIRD abortion, then you need to rethink your behavior.

I understand the arguement to keep abortion legal now. I also understand the need to promote sex education and condoms and stuff. I get that.

But if so many people seem to think that abortion is basically a "necessary evil," then why can't we discuss it as a bad thing? Don't even necessary evils deserve some scrutiny?

[Daphne]

Because people who oppose abortion are merely "fundamentalist types," and those who are, for example, having their THIRD abortion (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/national/18abortion.html?incamp=article_popular_5) are perfectly rational.

Sounds like a balanced argument to me.

Oh ok, but to you the first and second one are ok? That makes absolutely no sense.
It's very VERY dangerous to put 'legal but only under the condition that etc. etc' stipulations on things like this.

Perhaps you might be opposed to it morally (which makes no sense to me, if you're not bothered by the first two abortions...) and that's your right, of course but I thought you were someone who knew about science and therefore should know better.

Are you against the morning after pill?

Do you have a vagina? Are you ever going to have a baby? I'm not saying this to say you have no right to an opinion, but how would you like it if I argued that getting hit in the balls feels good? I don't have balls, so how could I POSSIBLY RELATE to how that feels?

And Kelly, nice fucking work in this thread.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Oh ok, but to you the first and second one are ok? That makes absolutely no sense.
It's very VERY dangerous to put 'legal but only under the condition that etc. etc' stipulations on things like this.

Perhaps you might be opposed to it morally (which makes no sense to me, if you're not bothered by the first two abortions...)

I believe I already said I'm against it.

are you against the morning after pill?

Personally, or as policy? There's a difference, but it's a subtle difference that zealots such as yourself probably don't get.

Do you have a vagina? Are you ever going to have a baby? I'm not saying this to say you have no right to an opinion, but how would you like it if I argued that getting hit in the balls feels good? I don't have balls, so how could I POSSIBLY RELATE to how that feels?

And Kelly, nice fucking work in this thread.

YEAH, WAY TO GO BUD, GO TEAM!! :ABORTION!

I'm glad you commented, because I think you highlight my point. I think that if you think most Americans think abortion is a great method of contraception, then I think you are out of step with the very rational and moderate view that most Americans hold on abortion. I think the difference between you and the fundamentalists mentioned by kelly is that the latter knows that they're fundamentalists.

As for your balls/vagina comparison, I think it's not entirely relevant. You have no role in me getting prostate cancer, or getting kicked in the balls (other than being the potential kicker). Is your argument seriously that abortion and birth is only a woman's entitlement to discuss, because she encounters the discomfort? Maybe I'm ignorant here, is getting an abortion similar to going to a spa?????

[Daphne]

Personally, or as policy? There's a difference, but it's a subtle difference that zealots such as yourself probably don't get.


Zealot?! You're a fucking goofball. I said you have a right to your opinion, and I don't CARE if you're pro-life! I just think that you need to realize that it's something you can never go through, and maybe you should think about that. Walk in someone else's shoes.


YEAH, WAY TO GO BUD, GO TEAM!! :ABORTION!

I'm glad you commented, because I think you highlight my point. I think that if you think most Americans think abortion is a great method of contraception, then I think you are out of step with the very rational and moderate view that most Americans hold on abortion. I think the difference between you and the fundamentalists mentioned by kelly is that the latter knows that they're fundamentalists.

As for your balls/vagina comparison, I think it's not entirely relevant. You have no role in me getting prostate cancer, or getting kicked in the balls (other than being the potential kicker). Is your argument seriously that abortion and birth is only a woman's entitlement to discuss, because she encounters the discomfort? Maybe I'm ignorant here, is getting an abortion similar to going to a spa?????

You are seriously a fucking idiot, Kevin. I in NO WAY think that abortion is a day at the spa, and I especially think that people who look at it as a method of contraception are abhorrent (even if it's their body and not my problem).

It might surprise you to learn that I am actually personally against abortion. I think that it's awful and it's something that I, again personally would never do. HOWEVER. I am not every woman, and I can not speak for them. Just because I can look at things from another point of view is no reason to be a shit head.

On second thoughts, perhaps your mom should have done the coat hanger mambo when she was pregnant with you, and spared us all from having to read your arrogant assumptions.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I just think that you need to realize that it's something you can never go through, and maybe you should think about that. Walk in someone else's shoes.

I've never had an abortion, nor will I ever. So using your logic, I should never advocate abortion, because I don't understand the pain and psychological damage it could result in, right? Does "walking in someone else's shoes" apply across the board, or only for your arguement?


It might surprise you to learn that I am actually personally against abortion. I think that it's awful and it's something that I, again personally would never do. HOWEVER. I am not every woman, and I can not speak for them. Just because I can look at things from another point of view is no reason to be a shit head.

Precisely, just like everybody is. "I oppose abortion, but..."

Abortion is down. Teenage pregnancy is down. Sex. Ed. is up, and has been a success. So WHEN do we start removing the "but," especially since we're all apparently against abortion!!??

On second thoughts, perhaps your mom should have done the coat hanger mambo when she was pregnant with you, and spared us all from having to read your arrogant assumptions.

Perhaps I should sponsor your psychotic rants, and give the money to Pro-Life groups. Then maybe you'll go away. It seems to work for PP.

[Daphne]

I've never had an abortion, nor will I ever. So using your logic, I should never advocate abortion, because I don't understand the pain and psychological damage it could result in, right? Does "walking in someone else's shoes" apply across the board, or only for your arguement?
Thanks for putting words in my mouth! I love that! They tasted great!
As far as 'never' goes, are you quite sure a girlfriend or fiancee etc of yours never will? Can you say for sure you'll always feel this way no matter what?




Precisely, just like everybody is. "I oppose abortion, but..."

Abortion is down. Teenage pregnancy is down. Sex. Ed. is up, and has been a success. So WHEN do we start removing the "but," especially since we're all apparently against abortion!!??

You can't remove the but. Life isn't black or white. I'm sorry you don't see eye to eye, and I'm sorry that you never will.

Perhaps I should sponsor your psychotic rants, and give the money to Pro-Life groups. Then maybe you'll go away. It seems to work for PP.
YES! I'M SO PSYCHOTIC! EXCELLENT DIAGNOSIS DR. KEVIN! I'M GOING TO BOMB SEX ED CLASSES AND HAND OUT COAT HANGERS! :lol GOBBLE GOBBLE!


Oh well, I live in a country that isn't run but religious nutters so I don't know why I'm worrying anyway :lol

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'm glad you don't live here, either. We have enough morons.

[Daphne]

I can see that!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

zing! Take my wife, please!

(and while you're at it, let's get her an abortion!)

[Dr. Boogie]

Interesting side note: my sister's boyfriend is actually the poster child for abortion.

[sadie]

this page made me lol.

[Chojin]

Isn't the saying from the 90's keep abortion safe, available, and seldom???
This is also the same thing I hear about eating at McDonalds.