Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
People who oppose safe access to abortion view pregnancy as an appropriate punishment for women having sex.
And that's a terrible view to have of women and babies.
|
That's quite an imaginative conspiracy narrative.
One of the most effective arguments I’ve heard against capital punishment is the fallibility of the judicial system. It goes something like this: If there is the least shred of doubt of the accused’s guilt, how can society risk performing the ultimate, irreversible punishment? Do we know when human life begins? Can we say with certainty that it is less objectionable to take it at 14 or 18 weeks than at 22 or 24? I would think we’d prefer to err on the side of caution. Maybe I am in the minority, maybe not, but I believe that life begins at conception. Being pro-life or anti-abortion is anti-woman? That only works if one believes that life doesn’t begin until birth, or that rights, as HRC says, begin when the baby leaves the hospital. If one believes that life begins at conception, as is backed up by science, then how does a woman’s right to choose trump another human’s right to life? In this context, does the discussion of when life begins make some uncomfortable? It should. As Uncle Joe said, “It’s a big f____g deal.”
So I am anti-abortion, and pp is not only increasingly the single largest purveyor of abortions, but is the most politically active pro-abortion group, so of course I am opposed to government funding of pp. Do they do good things? Yes, pp provides many services to which I do not object. Pro-abortion advocates like to cite pp’s statistic that abortion is only 3% of what pp does, and that even if one objects to abortion one must hold them near and dear because of their good works. Follow the money. PP is run more like a business than many realize. “Abortion is only 3% of what pp does.” As measured by “discrete clinical interaction,” which is how pp calculated that percentage, that may be true. That means that the person who comes in to obtain condoms is counted as one “interaction,” just as is the client who comes in to obtain an abortion. How about in terms of revenue generated? Unless pp receives significantly more than 3% of their revenue from abortion, why would they not open their books to independent analysis so as to put the issue to rest? To some (pro-choice'ers) it wouldn’t matter if abortion generated 30% or 60% or even 90% of pp’s non-government granted revenue, but to others it might (and that may well be pp’s concern), seeing as how some experts believe that CHCs are better health care providers and yet the government provides around 40% of pp’s funding. As was pointed out earlier, pp doesn’t do mammograms because of the expense relative to the reimbursement rate. The contribution margin for mammograms is extremely low, sometimes even negative, whereas for abortions it’s estimated to be $400-$600 per procedure. And while “right-wingers” are lumped together as being opposed to “women’s rights to contraception,” it’s the left – and pp – who are vehemently opposed to a Republican proposal that contraception be sold as an OTC. Wouldn’t OTC status increase immediate availability to all women? Yes, but pp would stand to lose a lot of money. Women’s interests? Or self-interest?