Biased Denver Planned Parenthood coverage
The first red flag you’ll note re: this Denver NBC affiliate’s coverage yesterday (click to video link) of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ ambitious plan to build PP’s new largest abortion mill in the U.S., at 50,000 sq. ft., is there are only two talking heads in the picture: a news anchor and one interviewee, a PP proponent. Hello, balance?
The interviewee is Denver Post business columnist Al Lewis, who had no business writing a pro-abortion opinion piece under the guise of reporting on the Weitz Company, hired by PP to build the mill….
It would have been fine had Lewis focused solely on the pro-life tactic of picketing PP business partners, but he didn’t. When he delved into abortion advocacy, he shifted from what may very well be his forte, business, to an area of which he was obviously ignorant.
[T]he Weitz Company… is simply building a medical office building, and they’re comparing the Weitz company and all this rhetoric to the companies that built the Nazi death camps, and they’re saying the Weiz company has some hidden agenda to kill black people in Denver….
Why don’t they protest G.E.? I think G.E. makes the lightbulbs that go in the surgical rooms where these procedures occur….
When these people come into a private neighborhood and they start protesting in front of a house, they make quite a scene. It’s very disruptive to the neighborhood….
I think that they can make the project cost more, certainly. Obviously they’re going to have some security in place… fences in place….
These people have figured out that they can drag companies through the mud by their association with Planned Parenthood, which, by the way, abortions is a very, very small fraction of what Planned Parenthood does. In fact a lot of what Planed Parenthood does is prevent abortions through the education of contraceptives and sex education.
Had a pro-lifer been part of this interview to make it fair and balanced, s/he would have explained that being protested is not simply a “medical office building” (where have we heard that before? hint: Aurora).
S/he would have not let Lewis get away with calling abortions “these procedures.”
S/he would have explained the difference between a business that has no say whether PP buys its product, like G.E., and a business that is hired to help it.
S/he would have explained PP’s history of eugenics, its unbalanced ratio of aborting blacks to whites, and that the mill in discussion will be located in a black neighborhood.
S/he would have explained protesters aren’t causing PP to install security systems and fences, PP is doing so to build on its unmerited accusation that pro-lifers are violent,
S/he would have explained how comprehensive sex ed and loose distribution of contraceptives have increased the abortion business.
Finally, s/he would not have let Lewis get away with calling we pro-lifers “these people.”
Lewis’s column was more of the same.
At least the Denver Post has a blog for comments, which I was happy to make.
Another pro-Weitz/PP piece appeared today in the Rocky Mountain News. The Passionate Pro-lifer had this preface before excerpting quotes:
The term “Nuremberg Defense” was originally coined during the Nazi war crimes trials at Nuremberg after World War II. Nazi war criminals who were charged with genocide, mass murder, torture and other atrocities used the defense “I was only following orders” so frequently that the argument became known generically as “The Nuremberg Defense.”
From the article, about a picket at Weitz vp Gary Meggison’s home:
Neighbors Jim and Sarah Hopfenbeck, who were walking their dogs, passed by the demonstrators.
“We’re good Christians and we support our neighbors,” Jim Hopfenbeck said.
“I just ignore them,” Sarah Hopfenbeck added. “His job is what his job is. If anything, this has galvanized neighbors in support (of Meggison).”
Meggison said in a telephone interview that his firm is committed to the project.
“We’re more resolved than ever to build this facility and get it completed,” Meggison said. “Our business is building and that’s where we draw the line. These folks have crossed the line by attacking neighborhoods.”
I question Meggison’s understanding of the word, “attack.”
Here are some photos of determined pro-lifers picketing Meggison on October 21. Remember, we’re talking Denver….
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
What does it matter if it’s a black neighborhood? If I’m a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, is it going to matter to me, and is it going to matter to me what ratio of other women, of any color, have abortions?
Doug
What does it matter if it’s a black neighborhood? If I’m a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, is it going to matter to me, and is it going to matter to me what ratio of other women, of any color, have abortions?
It matters because not all women terminate out of a sheer desire (like you assume). Many terminate out of sheer desperation. Reasons including but not limited to:
1. Poverty
2. Abuse
3. Abandonment
The pro-life response to these problems is to help women who feel like they have no choice get the support they need so they no longer feel like they must kill their babies. The prochoice response is to take her money, kill her baby and leave here impoverished, abused and abandoned, just as she was before.
Abortion and oppression go hand in hand. The fact that historically oppressed/disadvantaged people get a disproportionate number of abortions just highlights the ongoing exploitation. Basically, these clinics set up shop in these black neighborhoods knowing that the poverty, abuse and abandonment will supply them with a steady influx of customers. They profit off of the exploitation of black women. They make no effort to change the circumstances of them women, but keep accepting them in the revolving door at 400 bucks per dead baby. Much like you’ll only find pawn shops and loan sharks in low-income areas (ready to prey upon the poor who need money for food and electricity), you’ll only find abortion clinics in minority areas, ready to prey on women that perceive that they could never support both themselves and a child.
Furthermore, Planned Parenthood’s founder made it abundantly clear that she wanted to exterminate the black population, and we shouldn’t take alarm to abortion mills being built almost exclusively in black neighborhoods?
It may not matter to the woman that is pregnant and does not want to be what percentage of oppressed women submit to abortions out of a lack of real options, but to socially-conscience people like you and me, we should take note of disparities between who aborts and who doesn’t. After all, abortion is always a sign that something is (perceived to be) a problem. Money, situation, etc. Thus, it can be deduced that these minority populations have more problems and that we should address them rather than saying, “So what?”
That is why location matters. Location, location, location.
See there’s the difference. I wouldn’t have told my husband to ignore “them” I would have been bringing them blankets and hot beverages! Really I would have been out there with them and thinking that living next to the person who is building the abortuary is almost as bad as living next to the building itself.
Neighbors Jim and Sarah Hopfenbeck, who were walking their dogs, passed by the demonstrators.
“We’re good Christians and we support our neighbors,” Jim Hopfenbeck said.
“I just ignore them,” Sarah Hopfenbeck added. “His job is what his job is. If anything, this has galvanized neighbors in support (of Meggison).”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Everone ignores pro-lifers.
We are halfway through the “40 Days of Life” and even the Aurora pro-lifers haven’t been able to maintain a 24/7 vigil.
If you just have a little patience, breath deeply and roll your eyes, the fetus-fetishists go home. (Just chant the new mantra; “Santorum… Santorum… Santorum…”)
Everyone does not ignore pro lifers. That’s why you refuse to leave and just ignore us.
Jim and Sarah aren’t good Christians, despite what they may think.
Laura- you SEEK OUT pro-lifers. Why else would you comment several times a day on Jill Stanek’s site?
*clapping for anon!!!*
heather, have you ever heard of “No True Scotsman’? Because you commit that fallacy constantly.
Try Pandagon, Laura. That’s more your speed.
No true Scotsman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
? Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia ?Jump to: navigation, search
No true Scotsman is a term coined by Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking ? or do I sincerely want to be right?[1]:
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Press and Journal and seeing an article about how the “Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again.” Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing.” The next day he sits down to read his Press and Journal again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing.”
Flew’s original example may be softened into the following [1]:
Argument: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
Reply: “But my uncle Angus, who is a Scotsman, likes sugar with his porridge.”
Rebuttal: “Aye, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
This form of argument is an informal fallacy if the predicate (“putting sugar on porridge” or “doing such a thing [as committing a sex crime]”) is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject (“Scotsman”), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.[2]
Just looked it up. I don’t get it.
Erin, why does Laura come here every day? I don’t care for sports, so you will never see me on a sports blog.
The pro-life response to these problems is to help women who feel like they have no choice get the support they need so they no longer feel like they must kill their babies.
What, exactly, would that help be, aside from encouragement and paying for a few boxes of diapers?
Laura- you SEEK OUT pro-lifers. Why else would you comment several times a day on Jill Stanek’s site?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For the same reason I poke hyenas with a stick – sheer perversity.
(You know, I worked at the San Diego Wild Animal Park for 14 months and NEVER warmed up to those things. I just don’t like ’em…)
@@
Now, Jill, Planned Parenthood wouldn’t be able to accuse pro-lifers of being violent if so many of you hadn’t shot doctors and bombed clinics. Remember Paul Hill? Eric Rudolph? James Kopp? Clearly, there’s plenty of merit to their claim that you’re violent.
It’s a logical fallacy that’s committed whenever someone does the, “Well, they’re not a REAL…” or,
“They’re not a true…’. It’s a fallacy used in a lot of politics to try and discredit opponents without actually making any point at all- which is what you do every time you say “BUT THEY AREN’T REAL CHRISTIANS!”
Heather- probably the same reason I do. I have an innate NEED to debate with people. It’s built into me. I’ve been doing it forever. *shrugs* Though I really do feel like lately something has happened to the folks on this site and it’s going from debate to mild hysteria, which is just kinda weird.
Well, it’s my opinion.
Erin, I really wasn’t questioning your participation. You are generally a respectful poster.
tp, you’re late. We have already discussed Paul Hill and Eric Rudolf.
heather- but logically, it’s fallacious.
Erin, no. Fallaciously, it’s logical. LOL! Couldn’t help myself. *snort*
Bah…you would have never survived my mock trial team! Lol!
Regarding the presence of pro-choicers here, I would just like to say thank you for putting up with us. I appreciate that you have not simply dismissed us as trolls.
As for why I am here, I enjoy the jousting on a topic I am passionate about, as long as it doesn’t get mean or personal in nature.
For anyone who gets tired of us, I ask: what fun would it be without somebody to debate? It seems to me that if everybody posting was in agreement, it wouldn’t be very exciting around here.
“even the Aurora pro-lifers haven’t been able to maintain a 24/7 vigil.”
NOT TRUE ~ the 24/7 vigil lasted for well over 50 days. The vigil now has been changed to the hours of operation of PP. We just had another huge rally Saturday and over 1000 people were there. A strong Pro-life presence is not going away!!
Ray, actually, I enjoy it when you are here. It is better to have both groups here.
Ray, 1:40p (and Laura): Thanks for saying thanks for us not dismissing you as trolls. And you’re right, this place would not be so interesting without you.
tp
In order for you to know pro-lifers bombed the clinics you must know for certain who the persons responsible were. I certainly hope you did your civic duty and turned these people in, since you seem to know who they are.
Eric Rudolph also bombed a gay bar and something connected to the Olympics. I see no connection between any of these so I would guess Rudolph was just some sicko. Something like the unibomber.
The other two you mentioned were nothing more than murderers who have been punished. You will note that pro-life people had no problem with these killers being caught and punished.
Please name for me one legitimate pro-life leader that has supported violence in any form.
If you are white tp does the KKK represent you? Does the mafia represent all Italian Americans?
Does AlQaeda represent all Muslims?
TP, 1:19p: About your accusation of pro-life violence, I could respond no better than Mark Crutcher did in an October 11 blog post:
[L]et
What, exactly, would that help be, aside from encouragement and paying for a few boxes of diapers?
Posted by: Ray at October 29, 2007 1:11 PM
——————————————–
Ray, this is a question that comes up continually on this blog ie. what kind of help do pro-lifers provide for those who are pregnant and in need.
Having worked in this area for 8 years now, I can say that the amount of help and the services provided is overwhelming. I could go on for page after page about the types of help we offer and the services we provide. If you wish, I will be glad to post a comprehensive list of things that we do.
This is in stark ontrast to the kinds of things that Planned Parenthood offers, or actually, does not offer to a woman who is pregnant and in need.
When we talk to the women going into the abortion mills, more often than not we find that they only need someone to talk to and a little encouragement and they can get through fine. I wish that people and organizations who support abortion would only realize that and make an honest effort, difficult as that may be, to provide for her means.
NOT TRUE ~ the 24/7 vigil lasted for well over 50 days. The vigil now has been changed to the hours of operation of PP. We just had another huge rally Saturday and over 1000 people were there. A strong Pro-life presence is not going away!!
Posted by: Renee at October 29, 2007 1:41 PM
Hmmmm, talk about your biased coverage….”over 1000″ people is the SUPER generous estimate found on Eric Scheidler’s website. The Trib estimated “several hundred.”
I drove past, and while I agree that they had a good turnout, I would have guessed around 300 give or take a few ten. But really, what’s a 70% margin of error between friends? :-)
Mary, correct. Eric Rudolf did bomb the Olympic Park. Paul Hill has been executed, and Shelly Shannon is incarcerated. What does the Olympic Park and gay bars have to do with abortion clinic bombings?
Excuse me *Eric Rudolph* sp.
Carol ~ The Trib was there at around 9:30 am. Their photos and report were from early in the morning. The crowd continued to grow throughout the morning.
Also, there were three areas the people were grouped ~ the large picket along Eola, many groups walking around the block as well as a large group praying in front and behind the clinic. By the end, when the speeches were happening, the crowd was huge.
There is no need for me to pump up the numbers artificially. It was a huge turn out, and regardless of the exact number, it points out the commitment of the pro-life community is not waning.
I will also say that Paul Hill had plenty of supporters. Even in death, he still does. We need not bring up “The Army of God.”…..I don’t condone this violence, personally. However, let’s not forget that criminals have always had their fair share of fans/supporters. Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer had women showing up at their trials with hopes of dating them. So did the Richard Rameriez and Scott Peterson. Who can understand?
Having worked in this area for 8 years now, I can say that the amount of help and the services provided is overwhelming. I could go on for page after page about the types of help we offer and the services we provide. If you wish, I will be glad to post a comprehensive list of things that we do.
Andrew, is there a link to a site of one of the organizations that does this, and the services they offer, that you could post?
Hi Renee. Like I said, I’m not relying entirely on the Trib story. I live in the area and I did drive by around the time that Oakhurst got shut off. What I saw didn’t approach 1000.
It really doesn’t MATTER how many people were there! They were still there!
Just like the DC death march. Over 1 million women showed up. So?
Eh, I meant men and women.[[above post]]
Well, Carol, you quoted the Trib story, so I thought you put credibility in it.
It would be very hard to estimate the numbers of people present while driving by because the groups were congregating in numerous places.
But, either way, again, I was not trying to pump up the numbers artifically as you implied. I was there and gave my honest appraisal of the situation.
Hello Renee. I don’t believe I’ve seen you on board before. Welcome!
I was at the Rally on Saturday, and I would agree that the estimate of 1000 is about on the money. At 9:30, when the Trib was there, there were groups on a prayer walk around the block and groups still arrive by bus from the parking areas at two churches.
Erin
“It matters because not all women terminate out of a sheer desire (like you assume). Many terminate out of sheer desperation. Reasons including but not limited to:
1. Poverty
2. Abuse
3. Abandonment”
Jacqueline, it’s still “sheer desire.” Of course those may be factors, and if a given woman had a bunch more money, wasn’t abused or thinking her kid would be abused, wasn’t abandoned, etc., then that could well affect her desire.
……
It may not matter to the woman that is pregnant and does not want to be what percentage of oppressed women submit to abortions out of a lack of real options, but to socially-conscience people like you and me, we should take note of disparities between who aborts and who doesn’t. After all, abortion is always a sign that something is (perceived to be) a problem. Money, situation, etc. Thus, it can be deduced that these minority populations have more problems and that we should address them rather than saying, “So what?”
That is why location matters. Location, location, location.
Granted that economics, etc., often plays a big part in it, but that is a truism that really has nothing to do with “it’s bad to have an abortion provider there.” Agreed that with help people can have better lives – but that is true whether a clinic is present or not.
Doug
What, exactly, would that help be, aside from encouragement and paying for a few boxes of diapers?
I’m glad you asked, Ray. I actually am distrubed at places that through diapers at women. I work for an organization that offers free classes ESL, GED, certifications in MS software, certifications in Adobe software, free college credit programs in computers, job placement, housing, food, as well as clothes/diapers/etc. Our goal is self-sufficiency, and helping women get marketable skills like computer certifications is a step in the direction. An abortion does nothing to stop poverty, abuse and neglect. She’ll just be bleeding while she remains impoverished and abused. We offer women a way out.
Basically- list all your reasons for needing to abort and we will effectively deal with them.
And Ray, encouragement and love really is all that some women need. It shouldn’t be deningrated, especially since it makes a beautiful alternative to baby parts in a jar.
Jill, 1:57pm
Very informative. I certainly have not heard an iota of outrage or protest over the deaths of these people, but then, they don’t work at abortion clinics.
Jacqueline, it’s still “sheer desire.” Of course those may be factors, and if a given woman had a bunch more money, wasn’t abused or thinking her kid would be abused, wasn’t abandoned, etc., then that could well affect her desire.
No, it’s not “sheer desire.” Sheer desire is when you know you have the capacity to care for a child and you choose not to birth one because it will interfere with your lifestyle. When a woman is told “have an abortion or I’ll beat it out of you” and she aborts a child she wanted, that’s not sheer desire. When a woman wants to have a child but doesn’t believe she can feed and house the baby and aborts a child she’d rather have had, that’s not sheer desire. That’s desperation.
I’m surprised, Doug. Many pro-choicers are about why women need abortions. You think women just want abortions, and that shallow rationale is reason enough for you. Both ideologies are bunk, but one is far more sympathetic.
Granted that economics, etc., often plays a big part in it, but that is a truism that really has nothing to do with “it’s bad to have an abortion provider there.”
It’s preying on the most vulnerable. That’s why it’s bad to have an abortion mill there.
That’s why it’s bad to have an abortion mill there.
Caveat: It’s bad to have an abortion mill anywhere. It’s just indicative of the soulless agenda of Planned Parenthood to put the mill in a location where the desire the destruction of their enitre key demographic.
Ray, here are just two links to get you started.
I work for a Catholic pro-life organization in Dallas and we work closely with numerous social service agencies and other groups in providing for women’s needs.
The first group is the St. Vincent de Paul Society in Dallas. Their website is http://www.svdpdallas.org.
Even a cursory look through their web site can give you an idea of the amount of things that they do for thousands of people here locally. We refer pregnant women to them on a regular basis for the services they provide.
Also, Catholic Charities Dallas does much the same but works with immigrants and other kinds of situations. Their web site is http://www.catholicharitiesdallas.org.
Keep in mind that when I refer to the pro-life movement helping women, we are talking about more than just “talking her out of abortion.” The other side to that is breaking the cycle of abusive relationships, drug dependency etc (as Jacqueline mentions above) that keep her coming back to the abortion mill. It is a destructive cycle that our culture has not adressed with the brutal honesty it needs to.
Hey, Andrew,
I was talking about Project TurnAround, where I work. I didn’t even know about St. Vincent De Paul. That’s awesome.
I did a presentation to the Gabriel Angels a few weeks back on all we offer at PTA. Add Carol Everett’s project in Pleasant Grove and there is a lot of help available for pregnant women in any situation.
It’s not quite “tossing diapers and encouragement” at women, is it? :)
Many pro-choicers are about why women need abortions.
Posted by: Jacqueline at October 29, 2007 3:18 PM
Many are about why men need women to have abortions.
This from a pro abortion website
http://www.alternet.org/rights/28366/
My friend Matt, like many men in my life, has been part of more than one abortion. When he was younger, he was “knee-jerk pro-choice.” If an unplanned pregnancy occurs in high school or college, he figured, of course you have an abortion. That’s just commonsense. He didn’t revisit that with any sort of introspection until the first abortion, “but I wasn’t in love with [the woman in question]. We had no future together. I was comfortable saying we need to abort,” Matt concludes. “I gave her money. She didn’t express any need for me to be there with her.”
He says, bluntly, that the abortion last year felt “more like murder,” and that he was disgusted at himself for being the reason his girl was at Planned Parenthood, confronting scary toothless protesters and enduring this awful procedure. The circumstances had changed — Matt did have a future with the woman he got pregnant with the second time, although having a baby just then, a few months into their relationship, wasn’t a good idea at all.
Mostly, though, it felt unseemly and immature to be there. “I sat at the clinic with all of these younger guys and I thought, ‘I am too old to be here, man,'” says Matt, now thirty-eight. “When do I stop giving myself the out — that is what abortion feels like — a free pass. But it’s not totally free. There are emotional consequences, and as you get older the sense of taking responsibility for your actions grows.”
Jacqueline,
I remember a PCP client of mine many years ago. A frightened and overwhelmed young woman who discovered she was pregnant. She did check out an abortion after meeting with me. She was so enraged by the condescension of the abortionist and his refusal to give her any info on fetal development that she called me back. She was determined to have her baby.
It was a sad and lonely pregnancy, but we stayed in touch and I gave her the support I was best able to.
She had her baby and kept her. She also returned to school, attending the local tech college. She gave a presentation on our CPC to her class and how much help and support she received during and after her pregnancy. I was deeply moved by this, but most important, it was obvious we had made an important difference in her and her child’s life.
Mary,
Kudos to both of you- To her for making the right, althought not the easiest, choice and to you for doing all you could for her. :)
Mary, you’re a doll!
Jacqueline and Heather,
Thank you both. I only wish I had had more success stories like that. They didn’t all have such happy endings.
We have a couple of CPCs in our city but since they are run by certain religious groups, they have refused to accept my offer to volunteer as I’m not a member of their religions. I guess that is their right. There are other opportunities though so I do try to take advantage of them.
Mary,
May I ask what you are and who won’t accept you?
ARRRRG I hate schooooool
…otherwise, I can participate in this discussion. forgot to finish that thought.
Hi PIP!!!!
This lady in this interview looks clueless, or is in on the lie. The guy is a twit who needs a good a**-kicking.
hey heather :)
I am writing a paper and for some reason I can’t get what I want to say into words. It’s very frusterating.
I understand!
yay! Almost done. I only wish I was a good enough writer to pump this out fast (and well)!
Jacqueline,
It was several years ago. At the time I was Missouri Synod Lutheran. One group was strict Catholic the other was another branch of the Lutheran faith, not Missouri Synod. Both had religious requirments for their volunteers. I certainly respect this as their right to do so but I think they lost out on a lot of dedicated volunteers. Since I do not personally see this as a religious issue it was a surprise to me. The CPC I had volunteered for was not religously affiliated and had both religious and non-religious volunteers.
Doug,
Is that why there are a disproportionate amount of liquor stores in poor neighborhoods, too?
Ray,
I for one am thrilled that you and all the other pro choice people come to our board. We welcome you, and the opportunity to swap thoughts on a subject that we too are passionate about.
The beauty of Jill’s is that 99% of the posters exchange their ideas respectfully.
Doug,
You have said that you use mostly cerebral arguments because otherwise it would turn into a mud slinging contest. But you and Enigma are the only too posters that keep “yourselves” out of the argument, and yet you can see that rest of us, who fight from our hearts, for the most part, do not have much mud on our faces. Sometimes egg, but rarely mud.
Erin,
I’m sorry that you feel we have all gone “hysterical”. Care to elaborate. If it’s due to that post I put up the other day, I do apologize.
It was more in reaction to Esther than a personal dig to you. You know I love you, and sincerely want your happiness. I never, ever, ever meant to hurt or offend you. I did get “mildly” hysterical that day tho. For some reason, I got going, and just kept running with it. And I dragged you into it, when you had nothing to do with it. Again, I’m sorry.
Other Erin,
Welcome, welcome, welcome.
As you can see, we have an Erin here already and she has been posting for as long as I’ve been on the board. We love her and have been through a lot with her. She may be on the “wrong” side, but she has wormed her way into our hearts nonetheless.
If you continue to post here, (and I hope that you do), would you mind adding something to your name so that we know which Erin you are? We have the same issue with our Lauras. You’ll notice that there is PL(ProLife)Laura, and just Laura.
Thanks.
“Jacqueline, it’s still “sheer desire.” Of course those may be factors, and if a given woman had a bunch more money, wasn’t abused or thinking her kid would be abused, wasn’t abandoned, etc., then that could well affect her desire.”
No, it’s not “sheer desire.” Sheer desire is when you know you have the capacity to care for a child and you choose not to birth one because it will interfere with your lifestyle. When a woman is told “have an abortion or I’ll beat it out of you” and she aborts a child she wanted, that’s not sheer desire. When a woman wants to have a child but doesn’t believe she can feed and house the baby and aborts a child she’d rather have had, that’s not sheer desire. That’s desperation.
Sure, it may be desperation, but it’s still desire at work. It’s a sad case, definitely, but if a given woman wants to avoid the beating more than she wants to continue the pregnancy, then that’s her choice. Saying that somebody would rather have a baby if they had more money doesn’t change anything – there are an unlimited number of possible hypotheticals; but if reality is that the woman doesn’t want to continue the pregnancy, on balance, for whatever reasons, then she’s not going to, willingly.
……
I’m surprised, Doug. Many pro-choicers are about why women need abortions. You think women just want abortions, and that shallow rationale is reason enough for you. Both ideologies are bunk, but one is far more sympathetic.
Want/need = no big difference. Any “need” will go straight to desire.
……
“Granted that economics, etc., often plays a big part in it, but that is a truism that really has nothing to do with “it’s bad to have an abortion provider there.”
It’s preying on the most vulnerable. That’s why it’s bad to have an abortion mill there.
No, it’s not “preying.” It’s providing a service for which there is a demand.
Doug
Is that why there are a disproportionate amount of liquor stores in poor neighborhoods, too?
MK, there tend to be more but smaller stores in neighborhoods where lots of people don’t have cars, etc.
If there is a higher per-capita consumption of booze and/or a higher percentage of people that drink, then that will support more stores too – just supply and demand at work.
Doug
MK: You have said that you use mostly cerebral arguments because otherwise it would turn into a mud slinging contest. But you and Enigma are the only too posters that keep “yourselves” out of the argument, and yet you can see that rest of us, who fight from our hearts, for the most part, do not have much mud on our faces. Sometimes egg, but rarely mud.
It’s all the same, down deep – it’s all thoughts, whether we say “cerebral” or not. It’s all desire when we get to the bottom line. I really don’t think Enigma and myself “keep ourselves out” – if asked, do we ever refuse to give our opinion or our feelings?
Jill’s blog is great – there is very, very little stuff that I find objectionable as far as mudslinging.
Doug
but if a given woman wants to avoid the beating more than she wants to continue the pregnancy, then that’s her choice
Do you hear yourself? You would make women choose between a beating and a baby. I would rescue the women from the abusive situation. You would say, “If you want your baby bad enough, you’ll endure the beating.” I don’t think any woman wants a beating, and beyond that, beating women (or anyone) should not be acceptable. When will you see that your pro-choice beleifs are not pro-woman?
Do you hear yourself? You would make women choose between a beating and a baby. I would rescue the women from the abusive situation. You would say, “If you want your baby bad enough, you’ll endure the beating.” I don’t think any woman wants a beating, and beyond that, beating women (or anyone) should not be acceptable. When will you see that your pro-choice beleifs are not pro-woman?
Oh please, Jacqueline. You brought up a situation which I said was sad and agreed that it may be desperate. I’m not “making” anybody do anything. Agreed that the beating is unacceptable – has nothing to do with being pro-choice or pro-life.
Doug
Doug, I can’t believe you just said that!
Doug, some friend you would be. I helped a woman escape an abusive relationship. She loves me to this day! I could have turned a blind eye and said, “AW, to heck with her.”
Doug, you said QUOTE:
“but if a given woman wants to avoid the beating more than she wants to continue the pregnancy, then that’s her choice”
You said that if any woman wants to avoid a beating more than she wants to have a baby- essentially, making her choose between a beating and her baby, then that’s her choice.
How is that not coercion: “I abort, then I don’t get beaten. If I keep my baby, I get beaten. Which do I desire more?”
Sadistic, no?
So this prochoice ideology coerces women into abortions they don’t want by failing to provide them options that they do want.
Doug, some friend you would be. I helped a woman escape an abusive relationship. She loves me to this day! I could have turned a blind eye and said, “AW, to heck with her.”
Heather, you’re being ridiculous.
Why? For helping someone escape abuse? Doug, would you have told her to “stick it out?” or how about “suck it up?” You are being ridiculous!
Doug, this guy was so violent, she feared for her life. I mean it! So, better to leave the woman alone, right? None of my bees wax. Doug, I found an apartment for her, and she and I became very good friends. I took her food shopping, gave her rides, helped her to furnish her place, and I expected nothing in return. She ended up meeting a great guy. They are still together. Her happiness was what mattered to me. It gave me great satisfaction.
Doug, you said QUOTE:
“but if a given woman wants to avoid the beating more than she wants to continue the pregnancy, then that’s her choice”
You said that if any woman wants to avoid a beating more than she wants to have a baby- essentially, making her choose between a beating and her baby, then that’s her choice.
How is that not coercion: “I abort, then I don’t get beaten. If I keep my baby, I get beaten. Which do I desire more?”
I didn’t say it wasn’t coercion. I said it was a sad situation. It’s definitely coercion.
……
Sadistic, no?
On the abusive guy’s part, yes.
……
So this prochoice ideology coerces women into abortions they don’t want by failing to provide them options that they do want.
Nope – pro-choice is for letting her do what she wants. The abusive guy is definitely not pro-choice for the woman.
Doug
Doug, would you have told her to “stick it out?” or how about “suck it up?”
Heather, for Pete’s sake….. All I said is that Jacqueline’s example is one that bears out that short of physical compulsion we do that which we want the most, or that for which we have the least distaste, among our available choices.
I’m not saying it’s a “good” situation. Heck no – it’s a terrible situation. The guy is being against the woman’s free choice.
My point is only that she is still picking the one that she wants the most, the one that she feels the least negatively about. Sometimes there are no “good” choices.
Doug
Doug, this guy was so violent, she feared for her life. I mean it! So, better to leave the woman alone, right? None of my bees wax. Doug, I found an apartment for her, and she and I became very good friends. I took her food shopping, gave her rides, helped her to furnish her place, and I expected nothing in return. She ended up meeting a great guy. They are still together. Her happiness was what mattered to me. It gave me great satisfaction.
Heather, I’m glad to hear that.
*confusion*
Heather, I’m glad that you are well satisfied in that case. I’m glad she is happy now. I have no desire to see her suffer. Jacqueline’s example had no really good way to go, but it did turn our well for your friend.
Jacqueline’s example had no good way to go? How about holding the abuser responsible for his actions and punishing him accordingly? How about helping the woman find the nearest shelter where she can get the protection, support, and counselling she needs?
Maybe then we can start talking about choices.
Heather,
Kudos to you for the help you gave your friend.
This woman owes so much to you, though I know you do not see it from that perspective.
Mary, between getting beaten and having an abortion, the woman may not find either one good.
Doug, what woman would find beatings good? You have really lost me. Mary, thank you.
Jacqueline’s example had no really good way to go, but it did turn our well for your friend.
Yeah! What Mary said!
Doug, what woman would find beatings good? You have really lost me.
Heather, nobody said anything about a woman finding beatings good. I already posted this to you:
“Jacqueline’s example is one that bears out that short of physical compulsion we do that which we want the most, or that for which we have the least distaste, among our available choices.”
If she has less distaste for one versus the other, she’s gonna pick it.
I see your point about desire, Doug. My point is that wouldn’t shouldn’t be compelled to choose between two undesirable things like beating and abortion. Supporting abortion but not alternatives corrals women into such dichotomies.
Pro-lifers rescue such women not just for the sake of the baby, but her own. This is why we have mentoring programs like Project Gabriel, to help women long after they’ve chosen life.
Definitely agree, Jacqueline – they should not be forced to choose between those two. I don’t think they should be forced any way, really. Pro-Choice here.
Doug
Definitely agree, Jacqueline – they should not be forced to choose between those two.
But without help, they don’t have other choices. Why is the help limited to pro-lifers? Why aren’t your pro-choice brethren opening maternity homes and providing prenatal care?
There are plenty of pro-choicers who provide prenatal care. As for maternity homes, or places where women can escape abuse, I’d say there are some helping there too.
Doug, 2:40PM
Your point is…. what?
Mary, that it’s hardly correct to assume that no pro-choicers are involved with prenatal care and places where women can escape abuse.
Name a few places, Doug.
Doug,
Where did I ever said anything about PC people not being involved in prenatal care or abuse shelters?
Mary, it was in response to Jacqueline’s question:
Why aren’t your pro-choice brethren opening maternity homes and providing prenatal care?
The answer then being that some of them are.
Doug, who and where?
Heather, I know none of those places personally. Yet the only way that what I said could be untrue is if no pro-choicers are involved. Do you really think that zero are?
Well, backing up your claim is up to you.
Dealt with on the other thread, H.
Jacqueline, it’s still “sheer desire.” Of course those may be factors, and if a given woman had a bunch more money, wasn’t abused or thinking her kid would be abused, wasn’t abandoned, etc., then that could well affect her desire.
No, it’s not “sheer desire.” Sheer desire is when you know you have the capacity to care for a child and you choose not to birth one because it will interfere with your lifestyle. When a woman is told “have an abortion or I’ll beat it out of you” and she aborts a child she wanted, that’s not sheer desire. When a woman wants to have a child but doesn’t believe she can feed and house the baby and aborts a child she’d rather have had, that’s not sheer desire. That’s desperation.
I’m surprised, Doug. Many pro-choicers are about why women need abortions. You think women just want abortions, and that shallow rationale is reason enough for you. Both ideologies are bunk, but one is far more sympathetic.
Granted that economics, etc., often plays a big part in it, but that is a truism that really has nothing to do with “it’s bad to have an abortion provider there.”
It’s preying on the most vulnerable. That’s why it’s bad to have an abortion mill there.
Posted by: Jacqueline at October 29, 2007 3:11 PM
………………………………
That would be up to the people of Denver. Ever even visited there? Not easily bought people Jacq. Do you know the difference between 3/2 beer and real beer Jacq? Where the Bronco stadium is? The location of Molly Brown’s home?
Jacqueline:
No, it’s not “sheer desire.” Sheer desire is when you know you have the capacity to care for a child and you choose not to birth one because it will interfere with your lifestyle. When a woman is told “have an abortion or I’ll beat it out of you” and she aborts a child she wanted, that’s not sheer desire. When a woman wants to have a child but doesn’t believe she can feed and house the baby and aborts a child she’d rather have had, that’s not sheer desire. That’s desperation.
Do you hear yourself? You would make women choose between a beating and a baby. I would rescue the women from the abusive situation. You would say, “If you want your baby bad enough, you’ll endure the beating.” I don’t think any woman wants a beating, and beyond that, beating women (or anyone) should not be acceptable. When will you see that your pro-choice beleifs are not pro-woman?
I see your point about desire, Doug. My point is that wouldn’t shouldn’t be compelled to choose between two undesirable things like beating and abortion. Supporting abortion but not alternatives corrals women into such dichotomies.
Pro-lifers rescue such women not just for the sake of the baby, but her own. This is why we have mentoring programs like Project Gabriel, to help women long after they’ve chosen life.
But without help, they don’t have other choices. Why is the help limited to pro-lifers? Why aren’t your pro-choice brethren opening maternity homes and providing prenatal care?
You made some excellent posts here the last few days!!!
There are plenty of pro-choicers who provide prenatal care. As for maternity homes, or places where women can escape abuse, I’d say there are some helping there too.
Find me some. Find me so pro-choice organizations that help women in their pregnancies. I’m not asking for individual pro-choice people in organizations, but PRO-CHOICE organizations that support choices other than abortion.
Where did I ever said anything about PC people not being involved in prenatal care or abuse shelters?
That was I who said that, Mary. And I stand behind that you can’t find a pro-choice organization conducting social services for women in crisis pregnancies. They leave that up to us, while simulataneously trying to shut us down.
Heather, I know none of those places personally.
I known dozens of such places personally. I work at one such place. I started another such place. Of course, they are all pro-life.
Yet the only way that what I said could be untrue is if no pro-choicers are involved. Do you really think that zero are?
I think that zero pro-choice organizations are. I’m sure there are some prochoice individuals working in battered womens shelters, etc. My point is: Where is the prochoice movement supporting choices other than abortion? Where are they helping women out of bad life situatioons vs. just killing their kids and leaving them in such situations?
Let’s look at Jane’s Due Process for example. They help underage girls circumvent parental notification laws because they girl is abused and that abuse might escalate if the abusers know about a pregnancy. So this organization procures an abortion and leaves her in an abusive home. How about asking her what she wants, finding a maternity home, foster home, adoption plan, help with single parenting? At the least, she should be removed from danger, not aborted and thrusted back into danger.
See, this is what I see pro-choice organizations doing: supported the abortion choice and none other.
Thanks, Bethany. I’ve gotten little to no work done in the past couple of days also!
Jacqueline, 9:25am
Excellent point about the young women left in abusive homes. I can remember when the president of our local PP was wailing about the “need” for abortion since the incidence of domestic violence increases during pregnancy.
Are these people blind or stupid? Are they so fixated on abortion as a solution to everything that they overlook the most obvious? The problem is the abusers, get it? The abusers! It isn’t the abuse victim who is supposed to abort or do anything else to appease her abuser.
Pro-lifers in our state did something truly constructive where abuse is concerned. In our city, the local mother’s and infants home could not take in minors without a court order. This posed a problem for pregnant girls and minor mothers who could not seek needed shelter. Pro-lifers took action and our governor signed a law enabling minor pregnant girls, who truly have reason to fear abuse or with a family history of abuse, to seek shelter in these homes without a court order. This would certainly include pregnant or parenting minors who have been thrown out of their homes. Their families will know where they are, if they even care to know.
These girls, and sometimes their families as well, will be protected, counselled, and assisted as needed.
I love you, Mary!
Pro-lifers took action and our governor signed a law enabling minor pregnant girls, who truly have reason to fear abuse or with a family history of abuse, to seek shelter in these homes without a court order.
See, that’s what I’m talking about! Pregnancy aside, we help WOMEN.
Right you are Jacque and Mary. Doug, an abortion is not going to help a woman escape a violent relationship. Caring people and shelters will! Abortion will just kill the woman’s baby, and she will return to her abusive cycle. She’ll probably wind up pregnant again. The only answer is for her to leave the abusive relationship.
Sally: Do you know the difference between 3/2 beer and real beer Jacq?
Sally, being from Ohio, I know something about 3.2 beer. It was what is now the “dim and distant past” for the younger generation, back when dinosaurs walked the earth…. cave men…. cavewomen sockittome sockittome sockitome okay just kidding.
Anyway, there was a time when Ohioans between the ages of 18 and 21 could buy “low-power” beer, i.e. 3.2% alcohol or less. I’m gujessing this is what you are referring to.
No booze for those under 18. Over 21 – you could buy the hard stuff.
The thing is – most of the “regular” beer like Budweiser, Miller, etc., sold at the time only averaged 3.6%! So, the “3.2” stuff was only a tad less, and drinking 9 versus 8 of the “high-power” stuff would yield the same results.
Idiot legislators.
Doug
Thanks, Bethany. I’ve gotten little to no work done in the past couple of days also!
Well, Jacqueline, at least we saved the world from the “Pee-Ball” room at Chuck E. Cheese.
Bethany, to Jacqueline: You made some excellent posts here the last few days!!!
You both impress the livin’ heck out of me. I didn’t even start arguing abortion or really thinking about it until I was 37. Not a big deal but I see how much good thinking you’ve both done.
J., you gotta get your work done but there is much value in the arguments.
Sally, being from Ohio, I know something about 3.2 beer. It was what is now the “dim and distant past” for the younger generation, back when dinosaurs walked the earth…. cave men…. cavewomen sockittome sockittome sockitome okay just kidding.
Anyway, there was a time when Ohioans between the ages of 18 and 21 could buy “low-power” beer, i.e. 3.2% alcohol or less. I’m gujessing this is what you are referring to.
No booze for those under 18. Over 21 – you could buy the hard stuff.
The thing is – most of the “regular” beer like Budweiser, Miller, etc., sold at the time only averaged 3.6%! So, the “3.2” stuff was only a tad less, and drinking 9 versus 8 of the “high-power” stuff would yield the same results.
Idiot legislators.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at October 31, 2007 10:40 PM
……………………
Back in my Flintstone days in Illinois, a 19 year old could drink beer or wine of any potency. “Hard stuff” was allowed at 21. Living so close to the Wisconsin border where anyone over the age of 18 could drink anything, many of course did so. 3.2 beer was unheard of in my neck of the woods. What self respecting German, Irish, Dutch, Scottish, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian…..would drink watered down beer let alone accept the insults implied by the offering. The beers of choice in my neck of the woods would have been Miller High Life at a ABV of 4.7. I can’t imagine Schlitz, Hamms, PBR…. having an ABV of 3.6. Wouldn’t sell where I come from. Can’t imagine German Ohioans putting up with such an isult to beer.
Well, Jacqueline, at least we saved the world from the “Pee-Ball” room at Chuck E. Cheese.
That’s a bi-partisan effort that we all can support. That also is going to be my platform when I run for either Miss America or Mistress of the Universe.