[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What do you call funds received in excess of expenditures then? Anyway, that is the same reason smoking will not be outlawed, because the governments will lose billions in tax revenues that are generated by tobacco sales.

I would think that you call them 'funds received in excess of expenditures'. Please try to understand the situation before you sling wild accusations about making a profit. As has been pointed out, there is no government tax on non-profit abortions.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I did not say abortion generate tax revenue, it was in reference to if you are taking in more money than you are spending what do you call it if not profit. Planned parenthood had excess funds of 1 billion dollars from abortion services.

You should do a little homework. Planned Parenthood is a 501c3. It does not make a profit. Any funds generated must be put back into its mission activities. There are no shareholders, no dividends, and no profits.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

I wasn't making a determination of overall harm. If I was I would have stated so.

However, you do get an irony point for having your straw man lob accusations of spin.

I believe that's what the original poster was referring to when he said "Safe abortions? Over 350 women dead due to this legal procedure. Fail. "

It's likely that as many or more women suffer now than they did before, due to the huge increase in the number of abortions that are performed. Making it "legal" likely didn't decrease the number of incidents of death or complications.

[peeb]

But certainly did reduce the risk per procedure.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Making it "legal" likely didn't decrease the number of incidents of death or complications.

I would have to disagree. Legalizing the procedure meant that there was little call for the covert abortionist, so those often unqualified individuals using unsterile instruments and interested in money more than their "clients'" health sort of evaporated. Once it was legal, qualified doctors performed the procedures almost exclusively (there were no doubt still a few "unauthorized" procedures) and so the likelihood of complications of any kind went down immediately and complications that could be life threatening were reduced to a very tiny fraction of the number of procedures.

Remember that ANY surgical procedure of any kind has some risk of death; people have died having their teeth drilled for fillings. But by bringing the procedures used to perform abortions into clinics and out of back alleys, legalization made the procedure enormously safer.

We really don't know the extent of the damage done by back alley abortionists through the years because they were by nature covert. But as they were covert, they were also most likely generally poorly trained and more fearful of being caught than of botching the procedure—to the detriment or death of the woman they were "helping."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

But certainly did reduce the risk per procedure.

Possibly. But the fact remains that more injury and death likely occurs with legalized abortion then there was before legalized abortion. That can't be argued as a "good thing".

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I would have to disagree. Legalizing the procedure meant that there was little call for the covert abortionist, so those often unqualified individuals using unsterile instruments and interested in money more than their "clients'" health sort of evaporated.

There's really no verifiable evidence that most abortions pre-Roe were done this way. It's sort of a myth. Doctors all over the country did illegal abortions for cash or because of their personal political beliefs. Qualified Doctors who had sterile equipment. That's not to say that there weren't less safe abortions done, but this sort of thing STILL happens today. You hear about a girl afraid to tell her parents and can't go to the Doctor and takes things into her own hands and as we know the number of unnecessary legal abortions skyrocketed, making any claims to "safe and rare" laughable.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Possibly. But the fact remains that more injury and death likely occurs with legalized abortion then there was before legalized abortion. That can't be argued as a "good thing".

I don't think this has been established as a 'fact'.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I don't think this has been established as a 'fact'.

Not any more than there was widespread injury and death pre-Roe. We're just guessing at both.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I would have to disagree. Legalizing the procedure meant that there was little call for the covert abortionist, so those often unqualified individuals using unsterile instruments and interested in money more than their "clients'" health sort of evaporated.

This notion was pretty much vapor to begin with as it was being done by physicians arguably just as competent as any performing abortions today. As reported by former director of Planned Parenthood in 1960; "Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physician. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind…Second, and even more important, the conference [on abortion sponsored by Planned Parenthood] estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians…Whatever trouble arises usually arises from self-induced abortions, which comprise approximately 8 percent, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of non-medical abortionist…So remember…abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians."

Once it was legal, qualified doctors performed the procedures almost exclusively (there were no doubt still a few "unauthorized" procedures) and so the likelihood of complications of any kind went down immediately and complications that could be life threatening were reduced to a very tiny fraction of the number of procedures. Remember that ANY surgical procedure of any kind has some risk of death; people have died having their teeth drilled for fillings. But by bringing the procedures used to perform abortions into clinics and out of back alleys, legalization made the procedure enormously safer.

The "back-alley" abortion has been the rallying call for an extremely lucrative practice, but in reality there were very few "back-alley" abortions; and the fact is there are no documented studies to prove or quantify the claim either way. Besides, if we're going to talk about such minute numbers, we're going to have to include the number of dead due to "competent" surgeons today. Remember, that ANY surgical procedure of any kind has some risks both short and long term. The more of these surgical procedures, the greater number of those you're putting into this risk category including the ABC link to breast cancer, the most commonly diagnosed type of cancer among women.

We really don't know the extent of the damage done by back alley abortionists through the years because they were by nature covert. But as they were covert, they were also most likely generally poorly trained and more fearful of being caught than of botching the procedure—to the detriment or death of the woman they were "helping."

This is not generally supported by evidence including those who were interested in legalizing the procedure as early as 1960. In fact, it could hardly be argued that these clinics are sterile today. In New Jersey for example, 3 of 4 late-term abortion providers have not been inspected in 5 years or more. To assume clinics are sterile, doctors are perfectly competent, and abortions are "safe" just because the procedure is legal is simply not logical. There are too many examples to the contrary. This does not even begin to take into account infertility, complications with future "wanted" pregnancies, and the stressful mental implications of the procedure.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The more of these surgical procedures, the greater number of those you're putting into this risk category including the ABC link to breast cancer, the most commonly diagnosed type of cancer among women.

There is no ABC Link to breast cancer. If you were really up on this issue you would know it has been refuted numerous times and all study groups have shown a critical recall flaw.

ci: The best studies, cohort studies, all report no link, at least for the 90% of abortions that are performed during the first trimester. One Danish study reported in 1997 found that a link might possibly exist for very late-term abortions; however the conclusion is not statistically significant. A much larger subsequent worldwide meta-study confirmed that no ABC link exists.

[Chongo]

What gets me is that a school nurse can't dispense medicine to a minor without parental consent, but can take her to get a medical procedure that carries a risk a bleeding to death without her parent's consent.

[peeb]

She's not dispensing either though, is she? In both cases the procedure is authorised by a physician. False comparison again?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The majority of those seeking services such as planned parenthood.

... The same exact can be said for legal abortions provided by Planned Parenthood.

I don't think you understand what Planned Parenthood is.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

...the greater number of those you're putting into this risk category including the ABC link to breast cancer, the most commonly diagnosed type of cancer among women.

There is no link between miscarriages and breast cancer.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In fact, it could hardly be argued that these clinics are sterile today. In New Jersey for example, 3 of 4 late-term abortion providers have not been inspected in 5 years or more.

You're taking an exception and making it a rule.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by peeb 

She's not dispensing either though, is she? In both cases the procedure is authorised by a physician.

Prostitution should be authorized by physicians too, and filled at the pharmacy.

[peeb]

Prostitution should certainly be legal, but I don't think a physician should be necessary, unless that's your thing, you know?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The 350 women dead are from the time of Roe V Wade. You may be thinking; "well, this doesn't really indicate anything profound" and I'd counter by saying the statistic of those cited as having sought the "back alley" abortion as a justification for legalizing it were equally low.

No they weren't. The statistics cited were huge (like 10,000 deaths), and as it turned out, made-up.

As I said, my source on the number of "back alley" complications is the person who invented the "back alley" death statistics.

He has admitted these death statistics were totally fabricated, and has not only now become pro-life, but sees it as his mission to undo some of the damage he feels he's done as one of the founders of the legalize abortion movement.

That being said, he has never recanted his statement that what inspired him to start the movement in the first place was the sheer numbers of women whom he treated for complications (not death) due to illegal abortions when he worked at a community clinic in NYC.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's likely that as many or more women suffer now than they did before, due to the huge increase in the number of abortions that are performed. Making it "legal" likely didn't decrease the number of incidents of death or complications.

If you had solely made this point right off the bat, there would be little I could disagree with. I might even see your bet and raise you a "psychological damage".

My issue has been with your dubious attacks on my statistical methodology.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What gets me is that a school nurse can't dispense medicine to a minor without parental consent, but can take her to get a medical procedure that carries a risk a bleeding to death without her parent's consent.

Originally Posted by peeb 

She's not dispensing either though, is she? In both cases the procedure is authorised by a physician. False comparison again?

A school nurse is required to have a signed consent form before he/she can give a child medication.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

A school nurse is required to have a signed consent form before he/she can give a child medication.

Is this demanded by some governing body or is it a liability issue?

[TheWOAT]

California Proposition 73 (2005) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It didnt pass. called for parental notification for a minor to get an abortion. I guess notification was never required. School nurses would have to follow the law and NOT inform parents if the kid wants an abortion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

but can take her to get a medical procedure that carries a risk a bleeding to death without her parent's consent.

Can someone fill me in on the details here? I'm ignorant.

My quick google search only uncovered this being a claim made by that Hagee guy.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Can someone fill me in on the details here? I'm ignorant.

My quick google search only uncovered this being a claim made by that Hagee guy.

In Focus: Parental Consent and Notification Laws — teenwire.com (a Planned Parenthood site)

14 states(and DC), including the two most populous states, CA, and NY have no parental notification requirements; the rest a judge can waive the requirement.

[peeb]

So what? I'm having trouble seeing the relevance of this.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

In Focus: Parental Consent and Notification Laws — teenwire.com (a Planned Parenthood site)

14 states(and DC), including the two most populous states, CA, and NY have no parental notification requirements; the rest a judge can waive the requirement.

What does this have to do with school nurses taking students to get abortions?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

There is no ABC Link to breast cancer. If you were really up on this issue you would know it has been refuted numerous times and all study groups have shown a critical recall flaw.

Really? All study groups? From what I've seen, there have been more than 50 years of epidemiological studies that indicate quite a strong link between the two. If you were up on this issue you'd know that it is uncontested that the longer a woman waits to have her first full term pregnancy, the greater her breast cancer risk is. I can bore you with the "whys" if you'd like.

ci: The best studies, cohort studies, all report no link, at least for the 90% of abortions that are performed during the first trimester. One Danish study reported in 1997 found that a link might possibly exist for very late-term abortions; however the conclusion is not statistically significant. A much larger subsequent worldwide meta-study confirmed that no ABC link exists.

You mean meta-analysis?

Also... the "best" studies, cohort studies? What does that even mean? Where shall they get their "risk pool" if not for the foundation provided them by numerous epidemiological studies? One such cohort study was wrought with methodological slop; 1997 Melbye et al. in which it was found that 60,000 women were misclassified as not having had abortions that had legal abortions on file. I also find it interesting that the study itself states that "with each one-week increase in the gestational age of the fetus, there was a 3% increase in the risk of breast cancer" and that in pregnancies that were aborted after 18 weeks gestation, there was a statistically significant 89% risk elevation, but somehow this denies the link between abortion and breast cancer. I suppose your evidence could suggest any number of things depending on your conclusion.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There is no link between miscarriages and breast cancer.

Correct. Women endure a spike in estrogen levels hundreds of times greater than normal upon conception. This leads to the growth of "undifferentiated" cells in the breasts which are more vulnerable to carcinogens known to cause cancer. Miscarriages are not generally linked to breast cancer because they are usually associated with insufficient levels of estrogen in the first place.

You're taking an exception and making it a rule.

You must have missed the conversation then. It was assumed that illegal abortions were unsafe when common knowledge at the time documented to the contrary. It also assumed that legal abortions are safe when there is sufficient documented evidence to the contrary. This argument works both ways. Why would you accept an exception as a rule in one instance, but not the other?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I don't think you understand what Planned Parenthood is.

I went there as a teen with my then, girlfriend now wife. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to what Planned Parenthood is???

- They operate through hundreds of affiliates and more than a thousand clinics and is in fact the largest abortion provider in the US.

From their website;
Abortion Procedures at a Glance
Medical procedures that end pregnancy
Safe and effective
Available from many Planned Parenthood health centers
Costs about $350–$700 in the first trimester

Planned Parenthood

Is there anything else you'd like to know about them?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

No they weren't. The statistics cited were huge (like 10,000 deaths), and as it turned out, made-up.

Quit stealing my thunder!!

As I said, my source on the number of "back alley" complications is the person who invented the "back alley" death statistics.

He's simply opining as to why he got into the business in the first place. This doesn't mean the numbers of women injuring themselves then was any greater than the massive amounts of women seeking the procedure today and enduring its consequences.

He has admitted these death statistics were totally fabricated, and has not only now become pro-life, but sees it as his mission to undo some of the damage he feels he's done as one of the founders of the legalize abortion movement.

Again... thunder... mine... KNOCK IT OFF!

That being said, he has never recanted his statement that what inspired him to start the movement in the first place was the sheer numbers of women whom he treated for complications (not death) due to illegal abortions when he worked at a community clinic in NYC.

I got the new computer for my wife so I'd keep better track of our bills and the new Jeep Wrangler to ensure I got to work regardless of conditions outside... and its resale value.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This doesn't mean the numbers of women injuring themselves then was any greater than the massive amounts of women seeking the procedure today and enduring its consequences.

I never said that was the case. I'm saying that if what you are talking about is safety then vs. safety now, the appropriate way to determine that is by percentage, rather than a direct numerical comparison.

By the direct numerical comparison logic, a workplace that employs two people and kills one of them is safer than a workplace that employs 1,000 and kills two.

Ahem... does not compute.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I got the new computer for my wife so I'd keep better track of our bills...

I think his change in position gives the claim some extra credibility, but you are correct, he is by no means an unimpeachable source.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

In Focus: Parental Consent and Notification Laws — teenwire.com (a Planned Parenthood site)

14 states(and DC), including the two most populous states, CA, and NY have no parental notification requirements; the rest a judge can waive the requirement.

Originally Posted by subego 

What does this have to do with school nurses taking students to get abortions?

Let's try it this way. Can the school nurse/counselor take your 14 year old daughter to get a tonsillectomy without your consent/notification?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Let's try it this way. Can the school nurse/counselor take your 14 year old daughter to get a tonsillectomy without your consent/notification?

I understand the point you are trying to make, you didn't need to rephrase it.

I'll rephrase my proposition: provide proof that a school nurse has ever taken a student to get an abortion. Ever.

[Chongo]

PPA won't release that data, just like they have refused to release the data to investigators in IN. A judge ordered PP of IN to, but can't find anything that says they did.

Planned Parenthood Is Told to Show Children's Files

[peeb]

So there is no proof that a school nurse has ever taken a student to get an abortion. Ever?

[Chongo]

no proof that one hasn't either, or teacher, or counselor.... that pesky confidentiality

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

no proof that one hasn't either, or teacher, or counselor....

Oh, come on.

[TheWOAT]

Regardless of which side you are on, its VERY hard to believe that a school nurse has never taken a student to the hospital or PP to get an abortion. Just seems unAmerican.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

PPA won't release that data, just like they have refused to release the data to investigators in IN. A judge ordered PP of IN to, but can't find anything that says they did.

Planned Parenthood Is Told to Show Children's Files

That's a pretty fancy way of saying you have no evidence for your preposterous claims.

Or at least it would be, if "pretty fancy" could contain its epic scope. Obscenely baroque is more apt.

I give it a 9.2.

The only reason you don't get a 10 is I know your best work is yet to come.

[subego]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Regardless of which side you are on, its VERY hard to believe that a school nurse has never taken a student to the hospital or PP to get an abortion. Just seems unAmerican.

To me, that sounds like the exception that proves the rule.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

no proof that one hasn't either, or teacher, or counselor.... that pesky confidentiality

I have no proof that George Bush doesn't eat babies for breakfast. Pesky confidentiality. Come on. You've got nothing.

[TheWOAT]

Just saying, its a crazy world out there, and Im sure the law was based on experiences of ERs, PPs, and school nurses that some kids wouldnt get an abortion because their parents wouldnt sign off on it.... unless they just made this law based on some theoretical circumstances dreamt up in policy makers heads... This topic has took an odd turn.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I have no proof that George Bush doesn't eat babies for breakfast. Pesky confidentiality. Come on. You've got nothing.

Have you seen "Loose Change"? Man that show proves just about everything.

[subego]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

unless they just made this law

Gahhhhhgh.

What law?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I went there as a teen with my then, girlfriend now wife. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to what Planned Parenthood is??? Is there anything else you'd like to know about them?

I would ask you the same question, since you like to indicate it's only about abortions.

You link directly to the abortion section and refer to Planned Parenthood only as an abortion clinic. It is not. Abortion is almost always the last case scenario. Planned Parenthood is about planning to be a good parent. There is a wealth of information there for couples who want to have children, or couples having children; everything from nutrition, financial preparation, pre-K education, health services, pretty much anything you can think of that has to deal with having children.

I see people campaigning against and badmouthing Planned Parenthood because they also offer information on abortions, but then don't give two thoughts about the hundreds of other services they offer that are critical to having a healthy baby or preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place to avoid having to deal with an abortion.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by subego 

Gahhhhhgh.

What law?

Well, I was way off.
In 1953, a state law was enacted that allowed minors to receive, without parental consent or notification, the same types of medical care for a pregnancy that are available to an adult. Based on this law and later legal developments related to abortion, minors were able to obtain abortions without parental consent or notification.
Proposition�73: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor�s Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

A proposed amendment to the CA Constitution to reqiure parental consent was struck down by the CA Sup. Court, saying it violates a minor's right to privacy. I would bet that parental notification would recieve the same fate. I see both sides of the arguments, but then again, I dont have kids, so my opinion is meaningless (moreso than usual).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I never said that was the case. I'm saying that if what you are talking about is safety then vs. safety now, the appropriate way to determine that is by percentage, rather than a direct numerical comparison.

I don't know that there's a difference in percentage either, do you? One could assume it is because of the difference between legal and illegal, but there's really nothing else to go by is there?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I would ask you the same question, since you like to indicate it's only about abortions.

When did I indicate it's only about abortions?

You link directly to the abortion section and refer to Planned Parenthood only as an abortion clinic. It is not.

You told me you didn't think I knew what PP was in response to my statement regarding the age group seeking their services. My intention was not to list all of their services as I'm sure you understand that there is a particular service I'm taking issue with here.

Abortion is almost always the last case scenario. Planned Parenthood is about planning to be a good parent. There is a wealth of information there for couples who want to have children, or couples having children; everything from nutrition, financial preparation, pre-K education, health services, pretty much anything you can think of that has to deal with having children.

... and these are all admirable services that are outnumbered 10-1 by abortion services. I wish the lady my wife and I had spoken to in PP would've accepted the fact that we had told her at the outset that we weren't interested in having an abortion. We wouldn't have had to hear her tell us about her pregnancy in the late 50's and that if she had it to do over again would've aborted as she handed us the "purple sheet" of information. I wondered what her children would've thought of this.

I see people campaigning against and badmouthing Planned Parenthood because they also offer information on abortions, but then don't give two thoughts about the hundreds of other services they offer that are critical to having a healthy baby or preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place to avoid having to deal with an abortion.

Handing out the absolute least reliable condoms available isn't really helping the whole "unwanted pregnancies" thing, but this doesn't deny the good they've performed. Though, I think if you peruse the list of clinics and are familiar with the areas in which they've been built, you'll find an incredible correlation between their location and the poor, primarily minority communities. This in light of the fact that they've been caught in genocide and began with the intent of eliminating the poor and the minority, their good is... well, not keeping up IMO.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't know that there's a difference in percentage either, do you? One could assume it is because of the difference between legal and illegal, but there's really nothing else to go by is there?

There's some obvious difficulty in getting good pre-RvW statistics for this country, but I don't think that removes the onus from you to (at the least) provide a mechanism by which we would obtain the counterintuitive result you propose.

The only example in recent memory of a first world country that decided to legalize abortion is South Africa. This appears to have lead to a marked increase in safety for the procedure in that country.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

There's some obvious difficulty in getting good pre-RvW statistics for this country, but I don't think that removes the onus from you to (at the least) provide a mechanism by which we would obtain the counterintuitive result you propose.

I think a statement by the former director of Planned Parenthood in 1960 regarding 90% of the procedures being performed by competent physicians is at least as telling as your former Roe V Wade advocate-turned-pro-lifer statement of women having injured themselves. Interesting that the onus should somehow be on me when this is the single largest reason abortion advocates cite for legalizing the procedure. Knowing that the CDC reported 39 women died from illegal or self-induced abortions in 1972 and multiple clinics like those in Kansas City's Krishna Rajanna's clinic closed for unsterile conditions as well as the 'Alternatives' clinic in New Jersey and several throughout Ohio, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Kansas and the hundreds of documented deaths due to legal abortion today; I think the onus is on you to define "safer".

Several studies have documented problems with legal abortions;
4% of women having legal abortions will suffer from a damaged cervix.
5-10% will become sterile.
300% increase in first trimester miscarriages of later pregnancies.
400% increase in second trimester miscarriages of later pregnancies.
200% increase in premature births.
700% increase in placenta previa.
200% increase in tubal pregnancies.

The only example in recent memory of a first world country that decided to legalize abortion is South Africa. This appears to have lead to a marked increase in safety for the procedure in that country.

America... South Africa. So many differences, so little time. Let me guess, someone introduced them to penicillin.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Several studies have documented problems with legal abortions

Citations please. Are these peer reviewed, unbiased studies, or studies conducted without any review and by organizations with an agenda? Throwing numbers around is easy; citing the studies so we can check them out has a bit more weight.