True. Also true: Providing for a live child is a lot more expensive that providing for a dead one. The statistics released by Planned Parenthood are as believable to me as pro-life advocate statistics are to you. We can pull a money-ball on this one, citing statistics ad nauseum. Sam, there is a right and a wrong here. We just disagree on where the line is drawn. I wish I could offer you a "Here is the line, cross it to this side and you are right or cross it that side and you are wrong." I can't. I can only decide for myself trusting my feelings.
It's not just Eastern Europe or Asia where human life is so devalued. It's world wide. Look at the people who are putting their kids in dryers and microwaves or the guy who punched his 17 month old daughter for knocking over his Xbox, or the people who got fooled by a radio prank and wanted to give up their baby for one night with a complete stranger in order to get a PS3. The value of having children and a strong family has been serisouly devalued. Society just doesn't have the same reverential attitude towards raising kids as it used to. They're now used as bargaining chips by people to get more money out of their spouse. I don't even want go into what's up with Florida and the pervs there.
And a lot more profitable for doctors. No, the stats in their annual report are the same statistics that the Anti-abortion propaganda machine uses - they just spin them in a differetn way. They take the net income from the annual report ($67 million) and use it to declare how "profitable" abortion is - what they leave out is that the abortions themselves aren't profitable, rather they lose money. You can feel hoewever you want - but you're wrong if you think profitability is why abortion is still around. It's simply not supported by facts.
What about makers of the morning after pill? I don't think everyone who does abortion does it for the money. I'm positive that there are those involved in the field who do it because they believe they're helping someone. However, I don't think you can make this kind of statement, because it would be very hard to convince me that the drug companies who make this product do it as a humanitarian gesture.
Really, "most (abortion) doctors barely break even." -- Ummm, I have trouble believing that. As for the second bold face, if that were absolutely true, the abortion question would disappear because doctors would say, "Sorry. Next!" There are not too many Albert Schweitzers out there -- profit is the American way.
to anyone who knows anything about Planned Parenthood. What do they do with that $784 million? Is that in the form of real estate? investments? cash? does it get donated to worldwide HIV programs? Any light shed would be helpful.
As an aside, there is a Pro-Life movement -- not anti-abortion. I do not refer to the opposition as "Pro-Death." Let's not debase the discussion, allowing each faction to be called by their preferred names.
This is the same guy who was whining about slaughter of innocents last friday, now begging for decorum? You think abortion should be outlawed - you're anti abortion. I'm not going to buy into your marketing campaign. If you want to call me pro-death, fine. I can't wait to eat some dead fetus soup for lunch. Whoopie. That's why I said: Prove it. Thus far you haven't been able to.
Wait a minute - so Sam replies to your silly assertion with data, to which your only reply is "I don't believe you." ??!?! Wooooo - now that's convincing!
In South Dakoto there are almost no doctors who will perform abortions because of their beliefs and threats so a Minneapolis OBGYN flies out to SD to do abortions every week out of her own pocket because she believes that women in SD should have access to medically safe abortions.
I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you, so I'll provide my rationale again. Sam uses what I consider tainted data from Planned Parenthood. He has already alluded to the fact that he doesn't believe in data from Pro-Life organizations. So, yes, I am dismissing his "facts."
I'm using their annual report - which is exactly the same data anti-abortion groups use against them to create the impression that it's profitable. The annual report is a legally mandated public filing. The financial statements therein have been audited prior to being put in there. You have thus far provided zero evidence to determine that they're "tainted"; That's just a small part of the boatload of evidence against your point, such as Sishir Chang's anectdote about the doctor who covers S.D. on her own dime. Similarly - it's pretty obvious to any intuitive thinker that abortion, what with the fact that it's a one-time procedure, which has all sorts of additional costs folded in that aren't there for other procedures, like bullet proof vests, lest some zealous pro-life soldiers take matters into their own hands, isn't going to be real moneymaker for the shrinking number of doctors that perform them. Thus far there's no evidence of your claim that the abortion industry is a profit center. All available evidence indicates that it's not. Your subsequent posts are the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "i'm not listening! i'm not listening!"
Priceless. He does not believe the data from "pro-life" organizations because an actual intellectual person can *gasp* look at the annual report themselves and subsequently gauge how the anti-abortion movement is twisting the numbers. Hell, Sam even tells you how this is being done. Go look at it. Page 24 here (EDIT, sorry page 22 of the report, 24 of the pdf). For the record again thumbs, I don't really care about planned parenthood. Over and out.
I followed up a on the SD situation and there are actually no doctors who will perform abortions in SD but there are 4 doctors who rotate going out to SD from Minneapolis. Here is a CNN story about one. This story doesn't mentioning her paying out of her own pocket for the trip but I recall a local news story about her where she said she did and also that flying out to SD also takes time away from her own practice in MN which is more lucrative than going to SD. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/31/griffin.abortion/
Generally I think that there is a significant percentage (5%?) of doctors who work it this way - they work mostly at their own practice but then go and do volunteer or low pay work because they genuinely are good people. I know of several here in Houston who do work at various public clinics. I don't think these doctors get the attention that they deserve because there are also alot of money grubbers and ego-maniac doctors out there.
^ I agree and my point was to counter the argument that doctors are doing abortions purely for profit. A lot of doctors actually perform abortions because they think it is the right thing and are willing to do them at a loss.
What data are you using to draw this conclusion? I see an organization which promotes abortion making a modest profit (about 5%) overall. BTW, aren't abortions down? Their net worth increases by some $35,000,000 from the previous year. Virtually all of their expenses are either organizational salaries (medical services) or self-promotion (Sex Ed, Policy, Field Services, Management, Fundraising, Organizational transfers, and the Guttmacher Institute). Surely there are some unselfish expenses: saline, bandaids, paper clips, paper, lights, chairs, desks, tissues etc. It's a self-sustaining bureaucracy.
