Is this it? The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion
In fact, 1 in 6 women who get abortions self-identify as pro-life evangelicals. (No cite right now, but I can get one tonight if requested and I have the time.)
Well, all very well to say that, but I think it’s safe to say that if it were proposed that certain rights not be extended to people of a certain culture, upbringing and so on, it would very quickly be identified whether as a matter of fact this tended to weigh unduly on black people.
Similarly, if we’re to say “Adoptees are grossly over-represented among serial killers! Fie upon adoption!”, are we therefore to say “Children of divorcees are grossly over-represented among criminals! Fie upon divorce!”?
Well, to be fair, if I’d read something like that the story and even the quote would be likely to stay burned in my memory just from the horror of its casual cruelty.
The more likely explanation is that he read it on some lefty blog and assumed it to be true. You get a lot of that kind of crap on lefty/righty blogs. Too many people around here uncritically accept anything that reinforces their world view.
Hey, if I wanted to be fair, I’d be in GD, not the Pit.
I think lots of us (I, for one) DO say, if not “Fie upon divorce” then “Divorce is not without it’s harmful effects on children and those harmful effects should be carefully considered and attention raised about them so they can be mitigated.” I don’t see why we shouldn’t pay similar attention and try to similarly mitigate the negative effects of adoption. Simply pretending that it’s all rosy doesn’t make the problem go away.
Right. If the negative side of abortion should be pointed out to women before they have one, then the negative side of adoption shouiild be pointed out to women giving up their child for adoption.
Because it’s not their job. This may come as a surprise to you but women’s clinics are not law enforcement agencies. Their job is only to provide medical services and to protect the privacy of the patients.
Like you said, the clinic denies that the girl told them she had been raped. Why would the clinic be expected to report something which had never been reported to them?
If you read the story, it was a lot more ambiguous than that (and the girl with the camera was an anti-abortion activist who was intentionally TRYING to get a worker to tell her to give her age as 16 instead of 15), but even if the worker straddled a line, it was only one employee of one clinic and it was not indicative of clinic or industry policy.
Once again. Planned Parenthood is not a law enforcement agency. Their job is to take care of their patients, not grill them about who got them pregnant.
In nearly all jurisdictions, health care workers are mandated by law to alert state officials of suspected abuse. So yes, it is their job. I’m sure that comes as a surprise to you.
I’m sure you don’t want to suggest that we only enforce the laws we like, hmm?
Cite for the California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act.
I agree. Who’s talking about not extending rights, exactly? I’m simply suggesting it can be used to suggest that there are bad aspects of said culture, upbringing, etc. I’m not suggesting any course of action. And I point out again that the fact that they may be black has no more connection to it than their shoe size or favourite colour.
Yes, of course we are. It’s called “being able to recognise the bad in a situation”. Does this mean we ban divorce? Of course not! Just as means we don’t ban adoption. But it is certainly worth taking into account; and measures aside from banning could come into play. But certainly we must take into account the bad of a situation. It’s called realism.
I think you’re fighting an argument that isn’t there.
No, it is NOT their job to “investigate” which is what you were complaining they hadn’t done. They also have a duty to protect the privacy of their patients. If the patient does not claim abuse, then there’s nothing to report.
Well, to be fair, there’s probably more than just “they claim abuse” that they’d need to report. If someone turned up repeatedly covered in (different) bruises, I suspect they’d have to report it as suspicious even if they claim otherwise. It’s more “obvious potential evidence of abuse” versus “investigating for potential evidence of abuse”.
Let’s say that this story is true as written. If a worker at MickeyD’s spat on burgers as he put them together, would that mean MickeyD’s believed spitting on burgers was a good thing? Of course not. But you’re asking why Planned Parenthood believes statutory rape is a good thing, on the basis of what one local PP clinic’s staff worker is alleged to have done.
Right. And if a fifteen-year-old girl turns up pregnant and says her 23-year-old boyfriend did it, you have an obligation to call in Social Services or the police and let them sort it out.
That’s enough evidence on the face of it.
Asking her to lie about her age on the forms so that that kind of trouble can be avoided isn’t at all appropriate, wouldn’t you agree, Diogenes?
Does it say in the story that she told them who the father was? I can’t read the story.
Moto; while your steadfast determination to get Diogenes to admit that sometimes people are bad is admirable, you seem to have missed all the people calling you out on your attempt to create a false equivalence. Could you address those points, please?
Yeah, Mr, Moto. I think that’s wrong. Why don’t you open a separate Pit thread instead of hijacking this one?
You’re probably right. I’ll drop the issue.
Sure. That employee had a legal obligation to report it and was violating clinic policy in seeming to encourage the fake 15-year old to fudge the paperwork. So what? How does that prove anything about PP?
The story doesn’t even prove that the employee thinks that statutory rape is “good,” it just shows (at most) that she had a misguided impulse to protect a scared kid. She may have been afraid that the girl (or to be more precise, the character created by an anti-abortion activist trying to create a scandal) would go out and try to self-abort if she couldn’t be assured that her (fictional) boyfriend would be safe from prosecution.
The fear that too much questioning will cause girls to avoid legal clinics and attempt to self-abort is a valid one and does not bespeak an endorsement of statutory rape.
Certainly not most. But years ago when I was anti abortion-rights I had this very conversation with someone. I mentioned adoption as a valid alternative to abortion and this woman revealed that she was adopted and reiterated her opinion that abortion was a better option.
Adoption is not and has never been an alternative to being pregnant.
But, sticking to the OP, it’s a sick individual who would want the safest form of a medical procedure banned in favor of one that has a higher risk of killing the patient.
Course it’s probably easy for people like Billy Graham to feel that way - they know it can never happen to them. It’s amazing how acceptable risks change when they can’t ever apply to you.