My god, finding out the tax status of a famous national organization is the hardest thing we’ve ever had to do.
The Colorado version of Media Matters uncovered a small but classic example of how the media is failing us by giving right wingers an opportunity to spout nonsense without following up with basic facts, no doubt out of fear that they’ll be accused of being the Librul Media. In this August 20th article by Karen Augé, anti-choice nut Leslie Hanks was given a platform to spout not one, not two, but three factually inaccurate claims without any follow-up correction of the facts.
Leslie Hanks, vice president of Colorado Right to Life, said her organization will continue its opposition to Planned Parenthood and likely would fight efforts to build a clinic.
“Let’s face it, they’re in the business to kill babies for profit,” she said. “First and foremost, they get young girls hooked on their birth control pills, which don’t work,” Hanks said.
Okay, let’s break down the three claims into separate bullet points, to clarify what information the reporter needed to fact check in order for this story to even approach responsible journalism.
- Planned Parenthood “kills babies”, i.e. performs abortions, for profit.
- Birth control pills “hook” young women, i.e. create a chemical dependency, like drugs such as heroin.
- Birth control pills don’t even “work”, i.e. birth control pills do not prevent pregnancy.
What’s killer is that these three claims are fairly easy to fact-check. It takes basically no digging to find out that Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization, which basically destroys the whole anti-choice theory that it’s a profitable industry based around making money by performing minor surgery at costs that are deliberately held as low as they can be to help out the neediest. It might take a little bit of digging to find out if birth control pills have some sort of addiction/withdrawal cycle, though with the drug being as popular as it is, if there was a serious addiction problem with it, you’d think there’d be some sort of treatment facilities to handle the millions of women who go off the drug every year for various reasons. (Is the maternity ward a “treatment facility”?) As for the failure rate of hormonal contraception, that information is widely accessible—the failure rate is very low, especially compared to every other form of contraception short of sterilization.
It’s good that reporters aren’t helping anti-choicers conceal that they are opposed to the prevention of unwanted pregnancies through contraception, which does serious damage to their strange claims that they’d like to reduce the abortion rate. (Note to idiots: You don’t reduce abortions by increasing the main cause of them, unwanted pregnancies. That’s like trying to reduce the auto fatality rate by banning seatbelts.) Still, the fact of the matter is that this he said/she said style of reporting that’s fact-free creates the wrong impression that it’s all just a matter of opinion, and since these ridiculous, fact-free claims are being trotted out in articles from reporters that are supposed to be trustworthy, it’s all too easy for some readers to think there must be some truth to them.
The he said/she said stories are deftly manipulated by right wingers wishing to push misinformation, as we all know too well from the swiftboating of John Kerry. And it’s tough to say how much assistance they get from sympathetic journalists (*cough* Nedra Pickler) who use this common format to openly peddle right wing misinformation with a quote-based plausible deniability. It’s increasingly difficult to tell a story that peddles right wing misinformation out of laziness/fear and one that peddles misinformation as an assist to the right just disguised as laziness. You can’t tell from this story if Augé feels herself pro-choice, anti-choice, or some hazy place in-between. But even if she means well, her careful avoidance of showing bias has the side issue of giving right wingers a place to spout lies and bullshit without basic correction.
63 Responses to “The bloggers vs. the MSM debate, neatly encapsulated in a post about reproductive rights”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
If birth control doesn’t work then I’ve had a 5-year streak of amazing luck while using them.
Either that or I’m infertile - which means I’ve wasted a whole lot of money on those damn pills (which don’t work anyway!!).
They literally get away with saying whatever the hell they want now. Anything.
I can sort of see an argument if the reporter thought the claims were self-evidently stupid. The problem is that a lot of people are very willing to buy anti-choice bullshit. Most of us have some degree of internalized sexism and sex-phobia, and the likelihood of accepting that these lies about the pill, etc. could be true tends to tailor neatly to the amount of uneasiness any one person has about sex and/or women having sex.
Not to mention the danger of anti-choice activists now pointing to the news article as a source “proving” their point of view. Newspapers have an important responsibility in these sorts of debates and it pisses me off that they fail to recognize that.
That’s just bad reporting. You might as well just copy some press release (and how often does that happen? too often).
It’s one thing in a live interview where the interviewer does not want to get bogged down disputing every second sentence, but in a written article, they should do some WORK and point out the facts.
This is why you can’t take MSM squeals about bloggers seriously.
But, Amanda, usually when a quote is used to show the self-evident stupidity of something (especially when the issue at hand is factual accuracy), the reporter will at least try to throw in a “sic” or something.
What Incertus Brian says is borne out by what Bill Moyers reported in the first episode/documentary in his new PBS series. (You all saw that, right? The thing whose name I’ve forgotten, about how the media colluded in selling the war? Maybe it was called “Selling the War”?) The Bush administration leaked its misinformation to the media. The media picked up on it and the leaked info was reported in the NYT. Then Cheney went on Sunday-morning TV and said his story had been “pretty well confirmed” by the Times, but it was completely circular–the same story from the same source, showing up in two places and thus being touted as independent confirmation.
Let a couple unopposed “Planned Parenthood’s shareholders are raking in huge profits and by the way, the pill doesn’t work” slip in, and yes, suddenly the anti-choicers have “independent confirmation” of their bullshit.
Anti-choice groups have been pushing scientific lies for years - remember the abortion causes breast cancer meme? The mainstream media has gone out of its way to accommodate these lies: I’ve seen anti-choice activists on CNN and NBC news go completely unchallenged. So I don’t believe it’s entirely about she said/he said journalism. I think the news media has been trying for a while to 1) prove that they are not ‘librul'’ and 2) satisfy their corporate investors. The whole thing has become about ideology and ratings — screw the facts. When bloggers come along and question them, and say “hey, you didn’t investigate to find the truth”, the media responds with “who are you to question the great Oz?”
The mainstream media lost any claim to a intellectual high ground long ago.
Wow, the anti-choice brigade apparently isn’t well-acquainted with reality? What a shocker! Colour me knocked over with a feather.
Not.
As to the question at hand, however, I think a big part of this is the modern media approach of thinking that showing “both sides” of an “issue” is good journalism.
It’s not. For a start it’s an oversimplification of any issue, whether or not something even is an “issue” to just assume it merely has two sides.
Further, the uncritical equating of both sides as somehow equally valid that is a consequence of such an approach is REALLY bad journalism, because in a lot of cases, you’re then lying to your audience, as sometimes, when there even are two opinions about something, it’s perfectly natural for one side simply to be WRONG, and the other to simply be RIGHT. Good journalism involves investigating the claims made, not merely allowing them to be parroted.
Also, with the current way media journalism operates, are oppositional arrangements even the best form for an audience to get information? I honestly don’t think so. When you have shorter and shorter news bites, showing two people effectively yelling at one another doesn’t convey information in the slightest. Even when one side tries to be rational and reasonable in such a forum, it’s the irrational loud and obnoxious one that “wins”.
Course, one could also argue that that oppositional arrangement has nothing to do with journalism and everything to do with mere entertainment and feeding your audience’s egos in order to keep them watching, but hey, I’m not a media critic.
You’re right to castigate the journalist for this, and a couple people are on to the fact that fear causes journalists to write like this. I’d like to make the explanation even clearer. Any editor worth his salt is going to remind his journalists that injecting their own opinions into an article is editorializing, which is inappropriate for a news article. In avoiding editorializing, the jounralist might make the mistake of considering fact checking coming close to editorialising. It’s not of course, especially if you write it in with correct citations. The journalist should go to Planned Parenthood, or perhaps the IRS. You can ask an IRS agent if Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit. The IRS would say “No, Planned Parenthood is a non-profit.” The journalist then cites the IRS agent properly.
I wonder if these idiots even know how much an abortion costs. It’s like $400 or something — which must be virtually at-cost. You can’t get two fillings at the dentist for that price. Christ, the bastards make more profit on one single sonogram — which costs close to a grand — than they would on several abortions, I’m sure.
I wonder if these idiots even know how much an abortion costs. It’s like $400 or something — which must be virtually at-cost. You can’t get two fillings at the dentist for that price. Christ, the bastards make more profit on one single sonogram — which costs close to a grand — than they would on several abortions, I’m sure.
Sorry.
In avoiding editorializing, the jounralist might make the mistake of considering fact checking coming close to editorialising.
Except, of course, that if a liberal source was interviewed in an article like this and said something so obviously incorrect, it would inevitably be pointed out.
I’ve found that one characteristic of all anti-choicers is a fundamental misunderstanding of what “non-profit” even means.
I like Flying Fox’s suggestion.
I’m glad to see that the comments on the Denver post page are almost all from reasonable, thinking people.
Wow, the anti-choice brigade apparently isn’t well-acquainted with reality? What a shocker! Colour me knocked over with a feather.
*snort*
Thanks so much - now there’s tea spattered all over the keyboard and monitor.
Sticky mess, mumble mumble, damned antis, mumble grumble…
I also like this gem from the article:
Wow, to think how many times I escaped death!
Amanda wrote:
“I can sort of see an argument if the reporter thought the claims were self-evidently stupid.”
This is actually what thought the author was doing. When I read the article myself that’s certainly what I thought of the speaker.
This is still a problem though, as Sarah in Chicago points out:
“As to the question at hand, however, I think a big part of this is the modern media approach of thinking that showing ‘both sides’ of an ‘issue’ is good journalism.
“It’s not. For a start it’s an oversimplification of any issue, whether or not something even is an ‘issue’ to just assume it merely has two sides.”
I lived in South Africa during the bad old days of apartheid. I remember reading American media reports about things I had actually been present at and witnessed (e.g. the Boipatong massacre) in which they would do the two sides thing by quoting, say, a local resident and maybe a minister talking about how the vigilantes attacked, they were assisted by police armored cars, etc.
Then they would quote a police spokesman or some right-wing white farmer who lived nearby saying the “bleks” were fighting amongst themselves, the police had nothing to do with it, etc etc etc.
A reader unfamiliar with the situation could come away thinking the truth lay in the middle somewhere, when in actuality the resident and the minsiter were 100% correct, and the policeman and the farmer were completely full of shit.
I know there are good reasons for journalists to present the various sides of an issue and there are potential liabilities to — what do you call it? — editorializing journalism, but there’s got to be a better way to report than this.
Maybe someone smarter can tell me what it is.
Im with the idea that this was intentional on the part of the journalist- the pro-lifer probably offered a number of possible quotes- some bland, some technical accurate, etc- and the journalist chose the most obviously stupid, ill-informed, and incendiary. I mean, virtually *everyone* understands that the Pill works most of the time.
Thus, the pro-lifer was exposed as an ignorant idiot, while preserving the appearance of journalistic balance. I say kudos.
Don’t get me wrong, Id love to have a real media that examined both sides’ claims against the facts- but in this environment where the MSM is constantly losing ground to the internets, they will tie themselves into loops before they’ll piss off a significant group. If the truth is going to happen, it’ll have to happen in the new media.
Sorry,I’m still laughing at the concept of someone actually thinking that one can get “hooked” on birth-control pills.Mah ribs HURT now!How can ANYONE take these people seriously?
Any editor worth his salt is going to remind his journalists that injecting their own opinions into an article is editorializing, which is inappropriate for a news article. In avoiding editorializing, the jounralist might make the mistake of considering fact checking coming close to editorialising. It’s not of course, especially if you write it in with correct citations. The journalist should go to Planned Parenthood, or perhaps the IRS. You can ask an IRS agent if Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit.
Alternately, the reporter could ask the person making the ridiculous assertion where that information came from. “Birth control pills are addictive? Can you tell me where you got that information?” or “What exactly do you mean by ‘birth control pills don’t work’? Have you contacted the FDA with this information?”
And if the person can’t cite any sources, or cites sources that are questionable, perhaps the reporter could, I don’t know, not give that person a forum to spout blatant falsehoods and bullshit talking points!
The problem with this “he said/she said” format is that the “he” who gets to go first always wins. If the reporter went to PP or the FDA to refute the claims, all the reader remembers is “He said PP makes money; PP said ‘nuh-uh!’ or some such.” This is why we get this bullshit about dems/progressives/liberals “only criticizing Bush and never offering solutions”: because we always have to respond to bullshit talking points!
As long as it’s “he said/she said”, “he” gets to control the terms of the debate: the topic, the scope, the framing, and the “civility” level. And “she” has to argue within those terms, or if “she” doesn’t, “she” gets painted as “unhinged” or whatever.
I call shenanigans.
Well, there are some people who have suggested just such a thing:
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/2003_archives/002587.html
“Replace seatbelts with a metal spike” is an argument you are bound to come across if you talk to enough glibertarians and/or pointy-headed economists.
Incidentally, one of my economics professors actually espoused this idea. Of course, he also believed that the World Bank killed President Kennedy, so……
Oh, I’m hooked on BCPs, all right. If I don’t take them I get incapacitating cramps, day-long migraines, suicidal depression. Um…wait a minute, though, I had those symptoms before I took the Pill, they weren’t caused by my ceasing to take it. If Leslie Hanks wants to take my BCPs away from me, she has to do it herself, in person, face to face, and I get to run after her with a rusty shovel.
And the very idea that the Paid Media is All About Fact Checking and Vetting is downright hilarious. They need to get their heads out of 1975 already; let’s face it, even Bob Woodward isn’t Bob Woodward anymore.
Well, General Woundwort, you’re being a bit hyperbolic.
When seatbelts were made mandatory in vehicles, the fatality rate rose. The “metal spike” theory poses that the seatbelts made people feel safer, causing them to drive more recklessly and thus, get into more fatal accidents.
The idea is that if you replaced seatbelts with metal spikes, people would drive a lot more carefully and get into far fewer accidents.
It’s just a way to demonstrate the fact that some regulations have unintended consequences.
As for the failure rate of hormonal contraception, that information is widely accessible—the failure rate is very low, especially compared to every other form of contraception short of sterilization.
As long as we’re in the business of correcting inaccuracies, IUDs (some of which are hormonal and some of which aren’t), have better effectiveness rates than most forms of purely hormonal birth control, such as the pill, and that the pill has lower effectiveness rates than other forms of birth control. Of course, all of these forms are pretty damn effective. But the 90-92% effectiveness rates reported for the pill with “typical use” are lower than I’m comfortable with and a good reason to always use backup or a different BC option altogether.
The problem is that is a load of manure. The fatality rate did not rise; it stayed fairly constant per capita, and went way down per mile driven. With miles driven on the rise, people are on the road a lot more and thus exposed to more risk. Don’t even get me started on the fact that mandatory seat belt laws were enacted alongside speed limit increases.
The “metal spike” theory actually demonstrates how shallow statistical interpretation and use of a limited set of data can create any result you want, regardless of reality.
It is a pathetic, half-thought out idea that is supposed to demonstrate unintended consequences, and in a way it does: I have met several people who actually buy into the idea (which was not, I think, an intended consequence of the original example).
If you don’t think there are people out there who believe you could reduce the auto fatality rate by banning seatbelts, you need to get out more often. They are, unfortunately, out there, and some of them even teach at renowned institutes of higher education.
Amanda, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. You really should read With God On Their Side by Esther Kaplan. Most certainly the average Pandagonian here is better informed than most on women’s health/reproductive issues, etc., but this book Will. Scare.The.Crap.Out.Of.You.
What you’re saying, Meowser, is that they can have your BCPs when they pry them from your COLD, DEAD HANDS.
If Leslie Hanks wants to take my BCPs away from me, she has to do it herself, in person, face to face, and I get to run after her with a rusty shovel.
I don’t have any BCPs, but may I also chase Leslie Hanks with a rusty shovel?
I’ve been needing to chase rightwingers with rusty shovels for six goddamn years…
Another side of this is when reporters don’t interpret ‘code’ words. An example of how this works is discussed in this article. Politicians are allowed to use phrases that let supporters know where they stand without letting the general public know (the example here is “I fought to define life as beginning at conception rather than at the time of implantation.” which implies that they are against contraception but most people will not notice). The reporters either know or should know, but they don’t report it.
I should have noted that I found the article via TPM.
Now you’re moving the goalposts, General. Originally, you said people actually advocated putting the metal spikes in cars. When I called you on the exaggeration, you changed it to, “removing seatbelts.” Two different things.
And I didn’t say I agreed with the metal spike theory, that’s just my understanding of it.
I dislike the phrase “typical use”, because that implies that the averages are from all users. “Typical use” is the group that uses the pill sporadically. They separate out good/perfect users first and then turn to those who skip pills for their “typical” numbers.
Amanda knows what I’m about to bring up.
Remember Chris Danze? He was opposed to bringing a Planned Parenthood clinic to Austin. Then the organization came up with an idea: have people donate to the Austin site through Danze’s name. I was thrilled to hear about that. Planned Parenthood of Colorado should take a script from their Austin sisters and ask for a donation in Leslie Hanks’ name.
I am so sick and tired of the bald lies
coming from the anti-choice douchebags. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization, unlike the National Right to Life, which profits off the exploitation of women by treating women as baby-making machines. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood has much better health care services than any hospital on Earth, and they care about women much more than hospitals. So, if there is anyone making a profit for any reason, it is the hospitals and the National Right to Life that are making profits, by disrespecting women.
What you’re saying, Meowser, is that they can have your BCPs when they pry them from your COLD, DEAD HANDS.
Actually, what I’m saying is that without my BCPs, the warmth or aliveness of my extremities is something I’m not likely to notice.
I don’t have any BCPs, but may I also chase Leslie Hanks with a rusty shovel?
You take the window, I’ll take the door.
The he said/she said stories are deftly manipulated by right wingers wishing to push misinformation,
They constantly play these games because it’s so easy: they don’t have to prove anything, they don’t really have to make any serious argument; they just push their storyline out there, with the proper amount of wild-eyed breathlessness to convey the impression that somehow they must have a point! Reporters will pass it on because of their idolatrous worship of so-called objectivity (the “careful avoidance of showing bias,” as you say), which is in fact only a matter of finding the median between Democrats/liberals and Republicans/conservatives, with Democrats forming one half and Republicans making up the other. This almost always favors the right, as one half tends to be moderate, consensual and eager to please our media wisemen, whereas the other half revels in over-the-top bombast that still succeeds in wooing said wisemen, who in the end mostly worry about their paycheck and their standing in the right circles.
Once the right-wing story is out there frolicking in the news, without having been questioned or picked apart, conservatives have successfully muddied the waters. And that’s their goal — not to convince people, but to make them doubt. Who said what? Which opinion seems more earnest? What the hell, they’re all the same; all corrupt anyway, so I’ll just vote for a potential drinking buddy, etc. The minimalist vibe is the selling point: as their credibility is, for the most part, fucked, they won’t argue that the Republican Party is honest or competent — they’ll only warn you about the dangers of voting for the baby-killing homo commies. They won’t argue that their bogus, faith-based explanations of the world are based on solid evidence — they’ll simply make the claim that actual science is just as silly. The only impression they have to get across is that Democrats and liberals in general suck just as much as they do.
Of course, this works — to the extent that it does; the last election has shown that these tricks certainly aren’t infallible — because of a lazy, compliant media, but also because people — mostly folks without much in the way of ideological underpinnings — like to hear this. They won’t have to reassess their opinions or their voting behavior; they’ll just seize on these talking points to keep doing whatever they were doing before, and to keep thinking that they’re open-minded independents.
Huh. Went to PP in Austin and never knew who to thank for the site being there in the first place. I’ll send out a “Thank You” card to Danze tomorrow… Anyone know similar info for Baltimore’s PP site? I’m gonna need some stamps.
I’m not all familiar with Planned Parenthood but
isn’t that a 4th inaccurate claim? Since Planned Parenthood is a lot more than abortions for what I’ve heard.
This was back in 2004, Louise. I have the book The War on Choice and it talks about how they used Danze’s own tactic against it.
If Nedra Pickler wants to advance fraudulent information as fact, or publish opinions as facts without disclaimers, then she and the Associated Press should prominently note, at the head of Pickler’s “reports” that they are not news articles but opinion pieces.
I have no problems with bias or views that aren’t my own having wide distribution. I do object to material that is invented or so distorted it qualifies as invention being passed off as news.
As a news agency, the Associated Press should know better than to pass off this dreck as news to subscribing papers and then onto readers as corroborated, fact-checked news. If it hasn’t been verified and corroborated, acting as if it has been is quite simply FRAUD.
It’s news fraud, and it’s business fraud on the paper and on the reader, both of whom pay for a service they are not receiving. The AP and Pickler are pandering to an organization which is literally defrauding organizations and consumers out of their right to services and out of their money without their consent or compliance.
They should be called out on this and Pickler should be disciplined. She should also be stripped of any privileges and access that legitimate reporters have to conduct their work as journalists.
(I’m a hardass about keeping a distinct line between reliable news and whatever it is that Lou Dobbs does — performance art? — so I’d also like to see Pickler challenged and denounced in the public square or, next best, in a prime time electronic forum of some sort.)
“Kill babies for profit.” My God, it’s one thing to slur abortion providers as baby killers but to slander capitalism is uncalled for.
/sarcasm
Hey Amanda, we spoke briefly at Yearlykos.
It you look at the comments at colorado.mediamatters.org, the anti-choicers are still trying to push their crap even after being handed their asses. It’s really amazing. Some cultural anthropologist would probably have a field day studying them.
Either that or I’m infertile - which means I’ve wasted a whole lot of money on those damn pills (which don’t work anyway!!).
ha, sarah, i’ve thought that so many times in the last five years myself. i kinda wonder for real — what if it’s been for no good reason! but no way to find out except, well..
anyway, thanks amanda for writing this. it happens all the fucking time on lots of topics (and my personal beef is lame articles about gender in national papers’ “science” sections) but i get too sick of it to rant. but ranting should happen. so, yeah.
One thing that absolutely infects the media is the use of abortionist or abortion doctor instead of using the proper term, which is OB/GYN. This really bugs me.
The Abortion-O-Thon is on,
Gentlemen, start your chainsaws!!
Seriously, abortion is like carpet bombing enemy civilians in wartime. It can be argued that it is necessary at times, but it is never not morally disgusting. What sort of person makes a living off slaughtering unborn babies, anyway? A distant relative of Vlad the Impaler or the Emperor Caligula?
@ Eric:F#*K OFF!
Well, Eric, when I had my abortion, I paid some money, went in, went out sans fetus, took my shakier-than-me boyfriend home, went on with my education and my life, didn’t have to marry said boyfriend. The procedure wasn’t particularly fun or cheap, but I didn’t expect it to be a fun day out, really.
If I’d know there were people obsessed with women getting their kicks from having abortions, I’d have asked for the remains, echewed my vegetarian status, and had it spread on toast. Rally, you are too ridiculous.
And that would be *really*.
Eric, your last name isn’t Rudolph, is it?
What sort of person makes a living off slaughtering unborn babies, anyway?
A Straw-OB/GYN, Eric.
You would be hard-pressed to find any OB/GYN who only does abortions. OB/GYNs make their living off of “providing reproductive health care to women”, a tiny percentage of which is “performing abortions.” Planned Parenthood is the exact same way, except they are a non-profit organization.
The only people in the US who “make their living” off of abortion are folks like Terry Randall who milk the issue for donations so they can afford million-dollar mansions.
Can we discuss the political party affilation of most of the organizations that have gotten taxpayer money for doing abstinence only education? Not only a huge fundie welfare scheme in and of itself, but by increasing the need for abortion, keeps the money rolling in for Terry and friends.
“Let’s face it, they’re in the business to kill babies for profit,” she said. “First and foremost, they get young girls hooked on their birth control pills, which don’t work”
She also seems to be suggesting that Planned Parenthood is a manufacturer of birth control pills (that’s how “their” parses in the sentence), making “getting hooked” is also a profit source.
Sorry, but abortion is just morally disgusting. It’s like masturbating to the image of someone shoving a chainsaw in a baby’s face. Only total sickos and psychoes work in the abortion industry. It’s basically Murder, Inc, and they make the Nazis look like Boy Scouts.
Why is it that the top killers in the Abortion Industry, the ones with the most confirmed kills, are almost exclusively male? Could it be that women are too kind and sensitive to kill another woman’s baby for profit? A real man might take up Big Game hunting for a living, knowing that standing his ground against a charging rhino or elephant means death if he muffs his shot. What does the abortionist risk in killing a baby maybe one 100th his size? Absolutely nothing, it takes about as much courage as shooting a bunny rabbit. Working in the abortion industry is the ultimate sicko fantasy. You get to murder human beings, buy a nice Mercedes-Benz, and take absolutely no risk in the process. Killers for hire - That’s all the abortion biz has to offer.
Eric, just relax, shut your computer down, and wait for the men in the white coats to come and help you…
It’s like masturbating to the image of someone shoving a chainsaw in a baby’s face.
so like, in terms of morality valence, if
abortion = masturbating to baby-face-chainsawing
then
masturbating to abortion = masturbating^2 to baby-face-chainsawing
and
abortion > baby-face-chainsawing
this is fun, albeit kinda pointless.
I don’t know, there’s just something about the whole abortion scene that just creeps me out. It’s like something out of a Bret Easton Ellis novel, psychoes and nutcases killing for the pure joy (and money) of it. Sorry guys, but the whole thing is just sick and twisted. Wouldn’t we, as a species, be better off if we didn’t routinely kill off our own offspring in the womb?
No, Eric, we wouldn’t. As I mentioned, at best, I’d have no degree. I’d be dependent on someone I never intended to marry. I’d not have the life I had now.
I’m really glad that I had my abortion. I knew exactly what I was doing. The doctor was an instrument of my will. He didn’t cajole, blackmail or otherwise force me to get rid of something in my body the size of a chickpea. I asked him.Do you get it? You keep talking about evil doctors so you can ignore the person who actually needs this service, and who has good reason to want it. Pregnancy at some stages of your life can absolutely ruin it, sometimes even end it. Everybody knows this. You know this. Crack open a few novels from this century, then the last century. Read a few plays from whichever time you like. The chances are, if the subject of pregnancy comes up at all, the fact that it is risky, dangerous and potentially ruinous for the woman will also come up. Society is not, and hasn’t been for a long time, friendly to pregnant women.
And your assertion that there are no women doctors who perform abortions is absolute rubbish.
I just wanted to add something: if it creeps you out, Eric, don’t have an abortion. It is not mandatory. Evil doctors are not going to come and flush out your abdominal cavity. Leave it to the owner of wombs to decide what they want to do.
But, why have abortions in the first place? What’s wrong with adoption, for instance?
Eric, let’s make it very simple…
Unless you have a uterus residing inside your body, it’s not your concern what women who do have uteri do with them.
The fact that you or others are personally squicked out by somebody else’s abortion means precisely zero.
All over the world, there are men and women doing things that you would not personally like. They eat food you would find disgusting, wear the “wrong” clothes, believe in the “wrong” god(s), live in the “wrong” place, have the “wrong” skin color, speak the “wrong” language, have relationships of which you would not approve, have the “wrong” kind of sex, use birth control, raise their kids the “wrong” way…
There’s 6.5 billion people on Earth and I’m sure only a relative handful live in a way you would approve. Get over it…
Eric, I’m stubborn so I’m revisiting old threads to get the last word in.
Adoption would have solved none of my problems. It would have put my health at greater risk than an abortion. It would have caused far more heartache for me and my family. It was never an option.
I’m older and financially independent and financially secure. If I found myself pregnant again, I’d talk with my partner, see how he felt about it, as well. I might keep it or have another abortion. Adoption is still not an option.