Planned Parenthood's former president says she was instructed to say 'abortion' in every interview.

Well you're a smart guy - you would have NO CHOICE BUT to believe that the reduction would be the result of such
laws if say there was a sharp decline in abortion after say a year after a ban on elective abortion is introduced.

 

Alright then, so what suddenly changes?

 

So then if mifepristone and misoprostol stopped being available, it would NOT mean that a woman has lost the right to her body! I think that someone can be pro-choice WITHOUT making it about this ridiculous thing about bodily rights!

 

I'm still confused how this answers this question: How does Planned Parenthood attempt to "save babies" exactly?

 

I'm not suggesting that we prevent abortion tourism. Just as we're both not suggesting that we prevent murder tourism. Because it's simply not possible to prevent.

 

Pro-choice must support the right to make ANY choice made by the mother prior to birth in order to remain consistent. That has worked up until now, because the victims of those choices were unseen. But the 21st century is showing that there are choices, other than abortion, concerning the unborn.

Do you support ALL choices concerning the unborn?

 

Do you make an exemption for rape?

 

For now, yes. I still consider it as killing a person. But I put the responsibility for the death on the rapist, as collateral damage resulting from the original evil act. Forcing victims of these acts to birth the children could mentally destroy them. So they have a right to save themselves from that. I would still ask a woman to do some soul searching to determine if they think they could handle it mentally, and if so, I would recommend having the child. But every mind is different, and a woman who decides to abort in such circumstances should not be shamed.

 

I guess the only issue with a rape exemption is proving the rape to make sure that the exemption isn't being abused.

 

People can claim to care about anything they want. I suppose I can claim to care about the homeless by insisting they move in with you. Those claiming to care about these precious little lives come in all levels of concern. The concern seems to stop where effort starts. As long as the burden falls on others, the righteous mind oozes with concern.

Its like the liberal proudly displaying their "Save the Planet" bumper sticker on their single occupancy vehicle. The moment you ask them to stop eating hamburgers and show up to clean up pollution on their weekends, their true level of concern is revealed.

You are moving farther from being correct. My position is against government interference in our lives. Abortion rates are already on the decline without government interference. That fact is not the reason behind my position.

Instead of creating a position for me and arguing with yourself, try addressing what I actually said. I will give you every benefit of being right for the sake of discussion.

Now all you have to do is describe how you would use government force to achieve your objective. The only "solution" you offered does nothing to prevent abortion; it only keeps the true figures out of sight. That is no different than closing your eyes.

 

???

Not sure what you're referencing.

 

In that case, the woman should have the right to seek medical assistance to end her pregnancy.

 

I didn't say PP is trying to save the fetus.

 

Not necessarily. I know a number of pro-choice types who reject the idea of a woman aborting, say, a viable fetus at 8.5 months unless the woman's life would be endangered by delivering the fetus.

Some of which women take--delivering a fetus threatening their life, for example.

No.

 

So you are not pro-choice. You are pro-some-choice, or pro-more-choice-than-me.

Unless you acknowledge that the unborn have rights, then there are really no limiting principles applicable to action toward them...

 

There is a third way for society to handle it. Canada has no law banning abortion, but as a matter of medical ethics doctors don't perform abortions of a healthy fetus of a healthy woman.

 

You said:

 

There is no right to medical assistance for ANYONE!

 

You're drawing some sort of line at 8 1/2 months aren't you?

 

And you are included in this unless you adopt/foster! Unless you don't think that your standard applies to yourself! You spoke previously about your "beliefs." Well part of your "beliefs" is that unwanted BORN children cannot be legally killed by their parents. So how many do you adopt?

Yes and you're obviously not against ALL government interference in our lives. And why would you view a ban on
elective abortion in the government controlled health system as the government interference in our lives?

It's VERY simple! Just as the law pursues people who commit murder, but cannot stop murder, the law would also pursue anyone who provides an illegal abortion, but would not be able to stop illegal abortions.

Yes, because JAIL TIME for anyone who provides an illegal abortion would do absolutely nothing to prevent abortion!

 

I guess the only issue with a rape exemption is proving the rape to make sure that the exemption isn't being abused. How do you think this can be avoided?

 

It's okay to be pro-choice (see above) or pro-life (see above).

 

I said "right to seek," not "right."

 

Not for me, but my sense is that 8.5 months would be a time when most Americans would support legislation protecting the fetus.

My preference is the Canadian approach of no law against abortion. In Canada, a woman would find doctors as a matter of medical ethics unwilling to abort the healthy 8.5m fetus of a healthy woman.

 

"Planned Parenthood's former president says she was instructed to say 'abortion' in every interview."

if they said she was told not to say Abortion, they would claim she was trying to hide it, lol