# Unwanted kids and AIDS patients save money! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 18, 2011, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860 "2011-02-18T22:42:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/61 "2011-03-01T16:22:55Z")
Talk about admitting facts not in evidence. No, there isn’t any indication that the fetus was dying, nor would we expect it to be dying at that point in a pregnancy where the mother had that medical condition. And given that the person who wrote that wasn’t a healthcare provider of any stripe, much less to this woman, that claim falls under the category of “extraordinary”. But hey, whatever gets you through the day. If the self serving justifications of people who weren’t involved, either in the medical care or the administrative actions that followed, carry more weight to you than the published reports of the actual actors as the problem unfolded, then I’m not sure what else there is to discuss here. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Weird\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@The\_Weird\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Weird_One)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2011, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/62 "2011-03-01T18:04:47Z")
Returning to the topic of Planned Parenthood, I noticed this quote in the Huffington Post article linked to on the first page of the thread: > [@](#): > > No federal funds are used by Planned Parenthood for abortion services, and such services make up a tiny fraction of its operations. That certainly makes a good argument in favor of continued federal funding, but I wanted to be able to back it up, so I went to PP’s website and found their [2008-2009 Annual Report](http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_AR_011011_vF.pdf) (warning: PDF). On page six they have a pie chart that shows each service they offer as a percentage of total services provided during 2008. Abortion accounts for 3%. Contraception and STI (STD) testing accounted for 35% and 34%, respectively. As for the second claim, it turns out that the current bill would not just pull federal funding from PP, but would completely eliminate [Title X](http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familyplanning/index.html), “the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services,” which is where PP’s federal funding comes from. One of the stipulations for organizations receiving Title X funds is that the money cannot be used to fund abortions (actually, it’s [a bit more complicated (PDF)](http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/abortion_title_x.pdf), but that’s what it boils down to). So, the supposed aim of this bill - to ensure that PP doesn’t use federal money to fund abortions - is moot, since that restriction is already in place. If the bill passes, it will ONLY affect PP’s other services, which, as mentioned above, are heavily contraceptive. Thus, one likely effect of this bill would be an increase in unplanned pregnancies, and a correspondingly higher number of abortions. ---
**Author:** ![Beniamino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@Beniamino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beniamino)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/63 "2011-03-02T13:51:37Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Talk about admitting facts not in evidence. > > No, there isn’t any indication that the fetus was dying, nor would we expect it to be dying at that point in a pregnancy where the mother had that medical condition. I respectfully disagree. You’ll recall, from Dr. Lysaught’s paper: > [@](#): > > Moreover, the life of the fetus was equally in peril due to the pathologies of right heart failure and cardiogenic shock. Oxygen delivered to the placenta and fetus is dependent on maternal arterial oxygen content and uterine blood flow. Decrease in maternal cardiac output and decrease in blood oxygenation can adversely affect fetal oxygenation; the uterus and placenta number among the organs becoming hypoxic during this crisis. Further, maternal hypotension may constrict the uterine artery, decreasing blood flow to the fetus.5 > > Therefore, on November 5, 2009, mother and fetus were both in the process of dying. Due to the age of the fetus, there was no possibility that it could survive outside the womb. Nor, due to the mother’s heart failure and cardiogenic shock, was there any possibility that the fetus could survive inside the womb. In short, in spite of the best efforts of the mother and of her medical staff, the fetus had become terminal, not because of a pathology of its own but because of a pathology in its maternal environment. There was no longer any chance that the life of this child could be saved. This is crucial to note insofar as it establishes that at the point of decision, it was not a case of saving the mother or the child. It was not a matter of choosing one life or the other. The child’s life, because of natural causes, was in the process of ending. > [@WhyNot](#): > > And given that the person who wrote that wasn’t a healthcare provider of any stripe, much less to this woman, that claim falls under the category of “extraordinary”. You’re changing the rules mid-game. Number one, this is a theological question, and an Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies at a Jesuit University is certainly qualified to opine on that front. Number two, Her recitation of the “facts” of this case is far more detailed than I’ve read in any of the news reports that have come out, so it’s obvious that her access to information regarding this case was far greater than you or I are likely to have. She has done actual research and applied theology to the facts as they have presented themselves; she has not simply compiled a story from press releases. _ **She does this for a living.** _ If you happen to think that you yourself have enough information to conclude within a reasonable degree of professional certainty (a) that the child could have survived outside the womb in this case, or (b) that the abortion was not medically necessary to save the mother’s life, you’re certainly welcome to think that, but I’ve not come across anything that would lead me to believe that either of these conclusions are plausible. > [@WhyNot](#): > > But hey, whatever gets you through the day. If the self serving justifications of people who weren’t involved, either in the medical care or the administrative actions that followed, carry more weight to you than the published reports of the actual actors as the problem unfolded, then I’m not sure what else there is to discuss here. Why would the report of a disinterested theologian be any more suspect than the “self-serving justifications” of people who _ **were** _ involved? And besides, the “published reports of the actual actors” all said precisely what this theologian is saying, namely – (a) the child could not have survived outsidethe womb, and (b) the abortion was medically necessary to save the life of the mother. Therefore, the procedure was theologically justifiable. I’m _ **agreeing with you** _ that, as far as I can tell, taking this incident and this incident alone, and barring any other relevant facts known only to the parties themselves (patient, hospital, ethics board, bishop), the Bishop of Phoenix’s condemndation of the medical procedure seemed a bit hasty. Let he who has never jumped to a conclusion cast the first stone… A medical procedure on a pregnant woman may ethically be performed if it results in the death of the child where the both the mother and child would die without the procedure, and the life of the child could not be saved in any case. Full stop. This seems like a fairly uncontoversial position. I’m wondering whether a lot of what’s popping up in this thread (abuse, bigotry, “Papist Whore of Babylon”-type talk, etc.) is simply a manifestation of visceral contempt for all things Catholic, and an existential terror that the Church just might be right about something. or… Abortion is a horrible, horrible thing. It’s the taking of the most innocent and defenseless of lives in cold blood. If you really stop to think about it, what’s really going on every day in this country – infanticide in the service of “convenience” – it’s devastatingly heartbreaking. I suspect that in order to take the position that “individual liberty” must be taken to its grotesque logical conclusion (curiously, though, absenting any such consideration of “liberty” from the aborted child, who, presumably, would “choose” to not be dismembered and sucked through a tube), one would have to muster up equally ardent passions in order to tamp down the cognitive dissonance (i.e. pangs of conscience) that would otherwise rise up. Hence, the vehemence and dripping vitriol found here and in other fora (IRL and in internet play-land) where the topic is “debated”. That being the case, I would wholeheartedly concur with your sentiment: “I’m not sure what else there is to discuss here.” Between life and death, one is not likely to find common ground. I suspect, however, that America will soon enough realize the horrors that _Roe v. Wade_ have wrought and take appropriate remedial action. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860/64 "2011-03-02T14:47:58Z")
> [@The\_Weird\_One](#): > > So, the supposed aim of this bill - to ensure that PP doesn’t use federal money to fund abortions - is moot, since that restriction is already in place. If the bill passes, it will ONLY affect PP’s other services, which, as mentioned above, are heavily contraceptive. Thus, one likely effect of this bill would be an increase in unplanned pregnancies, and a correspondingly higher number of abortions. Opponents of Planned Parenthood, if they bother to respond to these facts and not just screaming about abortion, would probably argue something about the fungibility of money: Keeping them in “business” keeps them able to perform abortions. If they are destroyed, they cannot perform abortions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwanted-kids-and-aids-patients-save-money/571860.md?page=3)