Planned Parenthood

[TheNiche]

If this idea were accepted, and states refrained from defining where life begins on the reasoning that they were trammeling on the individual (as your whole argument against anti-abortion laws consists of), then no laws against murder could ever be justified, because any such law would require us to draw a line somewhere.

If drawing the line at conception is arbitrary, then so is drawing the line at childbirth.

I will refrain from arguing further until you can directly address and respond to this point.

Murder is prohibited except in such cases as where it is in the social interest to do so, such as out of self-defense, defense of property, during wartime, or as a punitive disincentive against certain crimes. A fetus brought to term requires an allocation of wealth and carries with it some risk to the health of the pregnant woman. Given that it could do material harm to the pregnant woman, perhaps abortion should be viewed as a case in which it would be in the social interest to commit murder (whether we define it as living that it can be murdered, or not). Similarly, if the woman is of the sort that she would condone murder of her fetus, it would strike me as probable that the fetus brought to term and raised by this woman (or by the state, for that matter) is probably going to be more of a burden to society than not, and that it would therefore be in everyone's best interest to allow the mother to terminate the pregnancy.

The same argument might be carried over and used analogously for severe and profound instances of mental retardation. If they are societal dead weight and the parents are unwilling or unable to provide for the dead weight or to find a third-party charity that will, then euthenasia (murder) is justifiable on the grounds that it is in the social interest to do so.

[memebag]

I think it's patently silly that you don't think people would be able to live in cities without birth control. Also, I have no problem with people having sex just for fun... I just don't think people should engineer sex to remove it of its natural consequence.

And I think it's dishonest for you to keep ignoring what I type.

As a matter of fact, I am. Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Detroit in 1950: all industrialized, none with widespread birth control. Nor was there much outcry that people needed more contraception, or that the daycares were overcrowded....

But that's not true. Contraceptive use in those cities was very high, and the demand drove the development of the birth control pill.

Sorry meme, I just don't buy that. But don't let that keep you from filling up another page of arguments trying to convince me of it.

And don't let history change your convictions.

Not true. Some cultures have cannibalism, but I think we can both agree that those cultures fall outside normal parameters.

No, we don't agree about that. Cannibalism is "natural" and withing the "normal parameters" of human culture.

I just can't understand your logic. Yes, other cultures have been obsessed with sex in history. And yes, were it not for contraceptives, sex would most likely still be a revered, sacred thing in our culture, as I would argue it was before birth control became widespread in the early 1960's. The two statements are mutually compatible.

But that isn't what you said. You said:

"If contraceptives had never been invented, then sex would still be a sacred, revered thing in our culture, not the everyday carefree pleasure device that it has become."

But you acknowledge that sex has been a carefree "pleasure device" long before the invention of modern contraceptives.

You said that each individual should be able to decide for his or herself when he or she thinks life begins.

I never did.

If this idea were accepted, and states refrained from defining where life begins on the reasoning that they were trammeling on the individual (as your whole argument against anti-abortion laws consists of), then no laws against murder could ever be justified, because any such law would require us to draw a line somewhere.

You're projecting some other "idea" onto what I said.

If drawing the line at conception is arbitrary, then so is drawing the line at childbirth.

Right.

I will refrain from arguing further until you can directly address and respond to this point.

Respond to what point? Something I never said?

[H-Town Man]

But that's not true. Contraceptive use in those cities was very high, and the demand drove the development of the birth control pill.

It was? Do you have statistics?

No, we don't agree about that. Cannibalism is "natural" and withing the "normal parameters" of human culture.

Cannibalism is not within the normal parameters of human culture.

But that isn't what you said. You said:

"If contraceptives had never been invented, then sex would still be a sacred, revered thing in our culture, not the everyday carefree pleasure device that it has become."

But you acknowledge that sex has been a carefree "pleasure device" long before the invention of modern contraceptives.

I said that sex would still be a sacred, revered thing in our culture, as it was pre-1960 relative to today. I did not say that sex had been a sacred, revered thing in every culture in the world throughout human history pre-1960, as you keep trying to twist my words to mean.

I never did.

You're projecting some other "idea" onto what I said.

If this sentence... "My argument is that any definition of when life begins involves someone drawing a line for someone else." ...was not intended to imply that you think it is wrong for a government to say when life begins, what exactly was it supposed to mean?

Would you have any philosophical objection if a law were made that defined life as beginning at conception and protected it at all stages thereafter?

[H-Town Man]

And I think it's dishonest for you to keep ignoring what I type.

This is a good thing to say when you've been cornered into a ridiculous position, such as thinking it's impossible for people to get along in industrial cities without contraceptives.

[TheNiche]

Cannibalism is not within the normal parameters of human culture.

There is no such thing as human culture. There are human cultures, plural. And cannibalism is not abnormal in some of them.

I agree that cannibalism is not within the normal parameters of Western European cultures. There are exceptions, however, where cannibalism is acceptable. For instance, it is considered OK if done in a survival situation, which is a case where cannibalism is justified because it is in society's best interests.

...just like murder is sometimes justified because it is in society's best interests. ...or abortion.

[memebag]

It was? Do you have statistics?

Not on hand. Do you?

Cannibalism is not within the normal parameters of human culture.

Sure it is. Look at all of the human cultures that have ever existed. Was cannibalism part of any of them? Then it's normal.

I said that sex would still be a sacred, revered thing in our culture, as it was pre-1960 relative to today. I did not say that sex had been a sacred, revered thing in every culture in the world throughout human history pre-1960, as you keep trying to twist my words to mean.

You claimed a causal relation between the invention of contraceptives (assuming you mean the pill here, since contraceptives were invented thousands of years ago) and sex becoming a "carefree pleasure device". That relationship doesn't exist. Sex has been a "carefree pleasure device" long before the pill.

If this sentence... "My argument is that any definition of when life begins involves someone drawing a line for someone else." ...was not intended to imply that you think it is wrong for a government to say when life begins, what exactly was it supposed to mean?

It means just what it says. You said "My point was that it is a bad idea to have to draw a line somewhere." I'm arguing that any definition of when life begins (including yours) involves drawing a line. I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm saying it's unavoidable.

Would you have any philosophical objection if a law were made that defined life as beginning at conception and protected it at all stages thereafter?

Philosophical? I don't understand. I would object to it on pragmatic grounds, not philosophical grounds.

This is a good thing to say when you've been cornered into a ridiculous position, such as thinking it's impossible for people to get along in industrial cities without contraceptives.

Again, that isn't what I said. See previous post for clarification.

[H-Town Man]

Not on hand. Do you?

Not on hand, but I'd be willing to bet that it wasn't used by more than a small fraction of families.

Sure it is. Look at all of the human cultures that have ever existed. Was cannibalism part of any of them? Then it's normal.

So if only one culture in the history of the world practiced cannibalism, cannibalism is normal? I'm speechless.

You claimed a causal relation between the invention of contraceptives (assuming you mean the pill here, since contraceptives were invented thousands of years ago) and sex becoming a "carefree pleasure device". That relationship doesn't exist. Sex has been a "carefree pleasure device" long before the pill.

You keep reading things into what I say. I claimed a causal relation between contraceptives becoming widespread in the 1960's and sex becoming a carefree pleasure device in our culture. I did not say that 1960's America was the first time in human history that sex was treated as a carefree pleasure device.

I would dispute your use of "has been" in your last sentence. It "had been" solely a carefree pleasure device in certain cultures in human history, but it was not solely a carefree pleasure device in American culture before 1960. The pill changed its position in American culture, as well as the cultures of most other western nations.

No wonder in 1928 Margaret Mead had to go all the way to Samoa to find a culture that exhibited her ideal of sexual libertinism, something she could have found by staying right where she was in 1968.

Philosophical? I don't understand. I would object to it on pragmatic grounds, not philosophical grounds.

On what pragmatic grounds would you object to drawing the line at conception?

Edited November 14, 2008 by H-Town Man

[H-Town Man]

Leaving the office for the weekend - this will be my last post on this thread. The people still arguing are not likely to ever be convinced by me of anything, and at almost four pages, I think this discussion has run out its useful life (if it ever had one).

[TheNiche]

Leaving the office for the weekend - this will be my last post on this thread. The people still arguing are not likely to ever be convinced by me of anything, and at almost four pages, I think this discussion has run out its useful life (if it ever had one).

Like Memebag said earlier today, "I think its dishonest of you to keep ignoring what I type."

Clearly we disagree philosophically, but is your silence to be interpreted as consent to the policy proposal? Or are you just blowing me off because you think I've been "cornered into a ridiculous position"? That'd be a very convenient cop-out on your part.

[editor]

Like Memebag said earlier today, "I think its dishonest of you to keep ignoring what I type."

Clearly we disagree philosophically, but is your silence to be interpreted as consent to the policy proposal? Or are you just blowing me off because you think I've been "cornered into a ridiculous position"? That'd be a very convenient cop-out on your part.

He did that to some of the things I wrote, too. I'm OK with it though -- I agree that this thread has probably run its course.

[Vertigo58]

It was on the news last night!

It was noted that its within a stones through (pardon the pun) from the main U of U campus central. This will be so convenient for the protesters.

News even noted that it is sooooo visible from 45. Maybe they should leave the drive-thru teller lanes intact for those in a rush. Couldn't help it kiddoes.

Let the games begin!

http://www.39online.com/pages/landing_news...&feedID=155

Edited November 18, 2008 by Vertigo58

[tertiary77u]

Oh jeez....

I think people have too much time on their hands.

[Larissa]

DRIVE THROUGH: Since 93% of services provided by Planned Parenthood are preventive services, things like contraceptives,exams and such, a drive through pharmacy like they have at other places where prescriptions are dispensed - i.e. CVS or Walgreens - would not be unreasonable, although there are no plans for such.

LOCATION: The current location on Fannin is a block from Houston Community College Central Campus, which has a large minority population, and has tens of thousands of students - so the "moving near a college, or minorities" arguement is simply wrong. The new location is farther from both UH and TSU than the old location is from HCC.

There is a separate thread to discuss the issues of Planned Parenthood services.

[Vertigo58]

Resurfacing and I am afraid it wont be the last time.

This place was on the news about a week ago. There were several church leaders from various denominations in total & serious protest of its location, etc. The story said it will be the largest in the world!? It just sounded outragious. Now Houston will be known as the place to go to get rid of your troubles. Not exactly something to be proud of is it. Whats next souvenirs? You can bet your high dollar that there are more (larger) protest's in the works. Oy vey!

Time to start snapping pics of all the hoopla.

Ok, here is one article:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5990832.html

Edited January 28, 2009 by Vertigo58

[sevfiv]

Now Houston will be known as the place to go to get rid of your troubles.

If that's the general perception, it is one of ignorance.

As far as more protests, you're unfortunately right...

[editor]

The story said it will be the largest in the world!?

Let's not spread any unwarranted rumors. That's not what HAIF is for.

Peter Durkin, president of Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas, said the new building will be big: six stories and 75,000 square feet. He described the claim that the building will be the largest center of late-term abortions in the Western Hemisphere as "nonsense."

Only one of the six floors will be for clinical space, he said. Most of the building, he said, will be used for administration and family planning.

[ihop]

This place was on the news about a week ago. There were several church leaders from various denominations in total & serious protest of its location, etc. The story said it will be the largest in the world!? It just sounded outragious. Now Houston will be known as the place to go to get rid of your troubles. Not exactly something to be proud of is it. Whats next souvenirs? You can bet your high dollar that there are more (larger) protest's in the works. Oy vey!

Time to start snapping pics of all the hoopla.

Ok, here is one article:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5990832.html

Per that article, isn't part of the size an effort to comply with state law? Sounds like they're being damned if they do, damned if they don't.

State law since 2003 requires abortions carried out during the 16th through 24th and one-half week of pregnancy to be performed in a licensed ambulatory surgery center. Planned Parenthood's clinic on Fannin in Midtown does not qualify for such a license, and it is allowed to perform abortions only on mothers through the 15th week of pregnancy, Durkin said.

The clinic in the Gulf Freeway building would qualify as a licensed ambulatory surgery center.