God forbid anyone has a baby!
Tess | 08.31.05 - 8:41 pm | #

If Planned Parenthood is making millions in profits, why are our tax dollars still going to them?
Tony | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 9:32 pm | #

In the better old days, they'd have those babies and name them Katrina.
Therese Z | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 9:42 pm | #

Call me cynical: I work in advertising (insert going to hell joke here ;) ) and just today reminded a client that 'any publicity is good publicity (though I sincerely hope that 'Dianysis' was an exception!)

Anyway, the source page for this information was part of an official Planned Parenthood site. It's just common sense to list one's contact info on one's own business/organization website. Not that I approve of their 'gesture,' any more than I approve of their everyday idea of 'healthcare;' I'm just saying they would have been lousy businesspeople to not include lots of info.

OTOH, a Google News search for 'planned parenthood hurricane katrina' turned up only a couple releases blasting PP for this gesture. Is it possible that the outrage is giving them more publicity than money could buy; and without that outrage, the 'story' may have gone virtually nowhere (or been 'not viable?') (Couldn't resist!)

My point is: could the published indignation have at least waited until if/after the info was published elsewhere?

Just my 2 cents.
Mark H | 08.31.05 - 10:11 pm | #

But with all this destruction, there has been a sudden upsurge in "unplanned" or "unwanted" pregnancies.

Planned Parenthood simply wants Katrina's destruction to be more complete and devastating by killing off the many unborn children that Katrina missed.
Brian K | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 10:40 pm | #

In PlannedParenthoodLand, when the going gets tough, the tough have sex. And omigosh, it might be UNPROTECTED! Gasp! Fetch the EC -- pronto! Erase the evidence!

Mark, I concede your two cents. But to me, that sounds like, "If we ignore them, they'll go away." I don't think they'll go away.

The ex-honcho of PP once said pro-lifers were like those annoying little bugs that won't leave you alone at a picnic.

Well, here's to gnat power! Even if we give publicity to things that would have otherwise passed unnoticed in the dark, it's part of a relentless effort to remind them that we're watching their every move.

You never know when one of these news releases will suddenly turn the light on for someone who buys the lie that PP does "so much wonderful work."
C.J. | 08.31.05 - 11:37 pm | #

Great point, C.J. Gnat power!
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.31.05 - 11:41 pm | #

Ooh, I feel a slogan coming on: 'Planned Parenthood: When Nature Strikes, We Clean Up'

Especially in this case, it works on so many levels!

I was hesitant to even post again, after my previous 'advice;' but now that the cat's out of the bag...
Mark H | 09.01.05 - 12:00 am | #

PP sounds like the vultures who circle over a dying animal. It will feast when the victim is at its most hopeless. New slogan for PP "Planned Parenthood, we'll kill your weak and helpless", done with a smile though.
Peter - Australia | 09.01.05 - 12:10 am | #

"Hi, is this Planned Parenthood of Houston? Yeah, I'm in need of some free emergency contraception ... 'cause I just got ****'ed over by a hurricane!"
saintkansas | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 5:51 am | #

I know the first thing that I'd be thinking about as I'm pulled off my roof after 2 days of horror watching my house crumble under me is SEX! Must have sex! Where can I get condomns - I don't need food or shelter, but I can't go without my emergency contraception!
cathy | 09.01.05 - 6:11 am | #

Cathy:
LOL! And ec is so much easier to supply than food and shelter. And I don't even want to think about where all this sex is going to take place, amongst the newly homeless.
Colleen | 09.01.05 - 6:45 am | #

Wow- I'm amazed by your willingness to attack PP over something I see as making a lot of sense. Considering that Katrina wiped out many people's worldly posessions, including their MEDICATION, (and birth control-- including EC-- is just that, medication), of course PP would do the right thing and jump in and offer free medication. I know the last thing I would want to be worried about in the aftermath of a hurricane is what on earth happened to my birth control pills and how I'm going to get a prescription for more. 'Cause like it or not, human beings naturally long for comfort in the aftermath of a tragedy of this scope, and sometimes sex is part of that comfort- regardless of whether they're in the best position to become parents or not. Not to mention- didn't you notice all the articles about people runnig around the Superdome with guns? Unfortunately, sometimes men with guns in desperate situations will rape just because they can. Maybe PP took that into consideration when making the offer of free BC. Give them a break- I saw no mention of free abortion anywhere (except by Dawn, of course). Birth control is not the enemy (nor is PP, but I suppose I can save that for another post).
Anonymous | 09.01.05 - 8:59 am | #

While I can see the abortion thing being a little off-kilter, can you REALLY blame couples for wanting to plan their families at this point in time? Do you really, honestly support a "quiver full" being born in the Astrodome of Texas, or in the street, or a Red Cross shelter? Can couples not limit their family size, ever, for any reason?
Katrina | 09.01.05 - 8:59 am | #

Don't worry about it colleen, I am sure planned parenthood can set up some privacy tents with free condoms. Oh and since pp condoms are the worst, they will be there with open arms when the people need abortions.
sarah | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 9:03 am | #

This scenario I laid out is about exactly what PP did after the hurricanes in FL last year.
sarah | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 9:05 am | #

Katrina, I am not trying to sound like a jerk here, but how long do you think pregnancy lasts? EC doesn't work on pregnancys where the child has implanted in the mothers womb. These children won't be born in the astrodome, they will be (would be?) born 9 months from now.
sarah | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 9:08 am | #

sarah--Was not referring to abortion, or anything that occurs after conception. If you notice, Dawn is takin issue with birth control as well as abortion, which, as many conservatives seem to be forgetting, prevents birth, not ends it.

Anyone who thinks women and married couples should just be "open to life" when they are stranded with no home, stuck in a shelter or a street that looks like something out of Calcutta, just has no heart, I'm sorry.

Is it possible in this day and age that I could support contraception but not abortion?
Katrina | 09.01.05 - 9:11 am | #

And precisely BECAUSE pregnancy lasts 9 months, that's a good reason to prevent it while you have no home. Do you think pregnancy is easy to go through while sleeping on a stadium floor or a shelter bed?

Again. not saying abort the existing pregnancies. Just let these poor women have some control over their childbearing. Anythin less is wrong and cold.
Katrina | 09.01.05 - 9:13 am | #

The taxpayer dollars subsidizing Planned Parenthood should be used instead for hurricane relief. It would be a much better use of our hard-earned money.
Rusty | 09.01.05 - 9:21 am | #

If emergency contraception is MEDICINE (in all caps, natch), what exactly is the disease it is prescribed to treat?
saintkansas | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 9:21 am | #

RE: CJ: "If we ignore them, they'll go away."

My computer had slowed down so much last night that I didn't even wait to see if my 'slogan' comment went up. Your comment wasn't up when I started typing.

So, I'd like to respond to that line. My point wasn't that we should ignore it no matter where it is posted; I was suggesting that by 'firing the first shot' of publicity, we have given them possibly more publicity than this 'offer' would have otherwise received. We turned it into a juicy story of conflict, and we know how the media loves that stuff. Before that, it was one tiny little detail in the lifes of people whose homes were underwater, had lost family or friends, didn't know when they'd get back to a normal life, etc. All very compelling stories. PP very possibly would not have gotten any media attention for days or more(one can hope,) leaving it unknown to many who would have been tempted by the offer. Once (and if) the media had released a story, I would have been all for buzzing around annoying them.

As for 'turning on a light' for someone: this particular stunt seems to be in perfect sync with the values of their supporters: 'Since birth control is a necessity of life, this is an act of charity on PP's part.' I fail to see how their offer conflicts with any other value of the BC/abortion crowd, as Dianysis did.
Mark H | 09.01.05 - 9:31 am | #

the BC/abortion crowd

Again. Can one support one without supporting the other? Did contraception of all kinds get added to the "baby killing" list while I wasn't looking?

Those who don't support abortion but do support preventing pregnancies ahead of time don't appreciate being lumped into one lousy "crowd."

Of course, the rate of any sex that would be going on in shelters or astrodomes is likely to be low, I'm sure. They're pretty public. The hurricane itself is probably a type of "birth control" in a way.
Katrina | 09.01.05 - 9:36 am | #

Well Katrina, EC can cause abortions, which is why it is lumped in with abortions, because there is no way for a person to tell if it will prevent fertilization or implantation.
As for birth control pills, the majority of them can also be abortifacient. The main goal of the pill is to prevent ovulation, but if they fail at that they also prevent implantation. There are a few brands of b/c (sorry I don't know which ones) that do only prevent ovulation and will not act as abirtofacients.
I myself am trying my darndest to prevent pregnancy for a year and a half or so until I can "afford" to have children (note I understand that one will never really be able to afford children, but right now my husband and I nearly go into debt just paying our own bills each month)and I tell you it is hard to do when you don't want to risk using abortifacients.
sarah | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 10:10 am | #

I wouldn't use abortifacients either. My man and I use condoms. Would those be a problem to distribute after a disaster, too? They do not kill any children.

too many people are confusing EC (after the fact) with regular BC (before).
Katrina | 09.01.05 - 11:19 am | #

Katrina, using condoms creates a mindset where a child is considered a "mistake." Most abortions are done after contraception failure.

Sarah, have you looked into natural family planning? Because it is supported by the Roman Catholic Church, instruction and materials on it may be acquired more inexpensively than other forms of contraception. The method known as the Creighton Model has been extensively tested and has the same effectiveness rate for perfect use as the birth-control pill.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 12:54 pm | #

If we really want to talk about what is wrong with any form of contraception, at least from my (Catholic) point of view, it is that it separates intercourse from having babies and raising children. From my viewpoint (again, a Catholic one), the two are inseperable. If you get married, you are ready to have children. If you have intercourse, you are ready to have children. Not ready to have children? Dont marry, and dont have intercourse.

Obviously this does not explain WHY the two are so intimately linked but there are many resources available for those who really want to learn.

Thank you
Antonio | 09.01.05 - 1:12 pm | #

Er, and as Ms. Eden says, NFP (natural family planning) is a quite appropriate way to forgo children for a while.
Antonio | 09.01.05 - 1:18 pm | #

Well Katrina, we might have been more heartened if we heard:

"Planned Parenthood is working to move meals and emergency care and emotional support into the areas most affected by Katrina(The Hurricane, of course)"

Instead of:

"Planned Parenthood is working to move condoms and PP brocurse and emergency abortions into the areas most affected by Katrina"

Fortunetely, those damned insect-like Christians who "only care about the unborn" are the ones actually providing all the meals, emergency care, and emotional support.

Where are all the people screaming "Seperation of Church and State!", where are they screaming "They are just spreading Anti-Abortion Propaganda!"?

Nowhere, because when the going gets tough, Planned Parenthood shirks back and shuts up, and the Christians come in to provide what people actually need.
Brian K | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 1:30 pm | #

If you get married, you are ready to have children. If you have intercourse, you are ready to have children. Not ready to have children? Dont marry, and dont have intercourse.

So unless a couple is ready to give birth within nine months of their wedding, and again 9 months after that, and after that, they shouldn't be married. Every married couple has ample savings in the bank to fund unlimited numbers of kids. Every married couple wants unlimited numbers of kids.

And all this also applies if they are homeless and stuck in a hurricane.

[Gratuitous sarcasm deleted--read comments rules, Katrina - Dawn]

Edited By Siteowner
Katrina | 09.01.05 - 2:08 pm | #

F everybody's I:

Catholic Charities, to which Dawn links in an article above, lists as one of their priorities assistance with prescriptions and medical care. I take this as evidence that groups other than PP are working to insure that no one has the added stress of trying to get a prescription filled at this time. I got this list from the letter they send out as a receipt of donations. I don't know if it's on the main site.

Now, I'm not sure whether BC would be covered by Catholic Charities. I doubt it, seeing I've never heard of the lack of BC being life-threatening. Probably, they're focusing on more direly needed meds. Nonetheless, they are working on it. Just so we know.
Kate B. | 09.01.05 - 2:09 pm | #

Brian K --- AMEN my brother!
Cathy | 09.01.05 - 2:14 pm | #

"And all this also applies if they are homeless and stuck in a hurricane."

SO far, I have not seen any pics on CNN of people boffing madly in the streets. This is not the New York blackout; this is a struggle for survival. I'm really not sure how many people are having sex in the city--on the streets, amidst the refuse. Frankly, I think PP would do better to provide a wider range of medical services, some that may actually address the needs of the people left in New Orleans. Get them out of the city, first, then worry about instructing them in sexuality or providing for their exercise of it later. Worry about getting people away from the theoretical gangs of looting rapists, and then work on the consequences of the theoretical rape. But maybe that's just me.
Kate B. | 09.01.05 - 2:15 pm | #

You still don't believe in the coming months that they should be allowed to plan their families, however. Married women are only good as population generators.

yeah Dawn, I'd say children CAN be inconveniences. Why do Catholics see children as little Christmas presents (the more the better), but never as mouths to feed? Why is avoiding childbearing until you have proper circumstances for raising your child such a bad thing? Why do Catholics hate responsibility?

[Sarcasm deleted again - Dawn]
Katrina | 09.01.05 - 2:21 pm | #

Katrina, that question has been asked and answered on this blog so many times our fingers are worn down to the bones.

If you review the comments on the post below this one (the one about fetal pain) you will find a lot of discussion that may make the issues clearer. Maybe Dawn can point out a couple of places in the archives where you can find more information.

In fact, I wonder if Dawn or one of her regulars might not create an FAQ that would answer the questions that come up again and again?
Colleen | 09.01.05 - 2:42 pm | #

I know the Church's logic for these things, so no need for FAQ. I really have no use for it, am deeply disturbed that most of America seems to be leaning toward legislating that view, and will be probably making my exit from this site soon after this post due to sheer anger and frustration.

I know WHY they make the policy, but I don't see it as practical, logical, or compassionate. I'm sorry.
Katrina | 09.01.05 - 2:44 pm | #

Are you sure you know why? I wouldn't have thought that those adjectives you used applied to the policy. Actually, I don't think that policy is the right word at all. The teaching of the Church in regard to contraception and abortion is part of a coherent philosophy of life.

While there is little disagreement about abortion in orthodox (little o not big O)protestant denominations, there is on the question of contraception. How all of this gets sorted out and applied to questions of public policy is a vexed question.

For right now, I am in agreement with those who think that PP would better serve if it brought food and water and helped with the evacuation. It can push its death agenda (with our tax dollars) later.
Colleen | 09.01.05 - 3:02 pm | #

Our culture seems to have a strange view on womans fertility, like we're all just popping with eggs and get pregnant just by casting a sideways glance. My hubbie and I have been trying to concieve since getting married (which was awhile ago) using NFP. Good timing, lots of openness, a pregnancy finally, then miscarriage, now still no other pregnancy in all that time of trying.

What folks who aren't on the same page with Catholic teaching fail to realize is that we believe that God will provide. We're not down here all alone, but God is here with us. We're not here being irresponsible. If there's good reason we abstain during the fertile times.

I've heard that Mother Teresa was teaching NFP to the women in Calcutta with huge success. What lots of people also don't know is that breastfeeding stops our ovulation too. So say you breastfeed 2 years, you've got some natural spacing.

Many say: you can't expect people to breastfeed, to learn NFP, blah blah blah. Why not? On the natural level, leaving religion out, don't YOU want yo know about your fertility????

Prayers to all touched by Katrina.
Sarah | 09.01.05 - 3:36 pm | #

Knowledge is power, right?
Sarah | 09.01.05 - 3:38 pm | #

My best friend will turn 50 in May. Last month her hometown recalled the destructive hurricane and flood that ruined that city 50 years ago. When I first got to know here and learned of her birthdate, I said with a wink, "you were a flood baby". She was. Her parents were newlyweds who were separated for several weeks while her father worked with the National Guard and her mom bunked with relatives. Once they got back together.... Glad PP wasn't there to "help".
MaureenM | 09.01.05 - 3:40 pm | #

"Oh and Kate? Two girls were already raped in the Superdome. But that's being open to life right? I mean, the rape was unprotected and everything."

Hadn't seen that--pardon me. However, the order of priorities is STILL:
1) Get EVERYONE, especially those girls, the f*** out of New Orleans.
2) Get them counseling.

I'm not going to discuss PP's motives. I simply think their time and money would be better spent working on the bigger problems first.

Oh, and Katrina? The Catholic Church does see children as mouths to feed. That's why its social encyclicals strongly advocate the right of workers to just wages, ownership of means, and humane working conditions. Because dignity is not the privilege of the rich and powerful. Again, it's an issue of the comprehensive philosophy of life. Under that philosophy, the priorities right now should be getting the hurricane victims someplace safe, getting them food, and getting them on the road to permanent lodgings and jobs. Everything else is going to have to be put hold temporarily.
Kate B. | 09.01.05 - 3:41 pm | #

i am not sure if this has been brought up yet, but many women also have to take BC pills because of the hormonal regulation due to problems with their periods etc. i am one of those women. if i am not on birth control, i have incredibly irregular bleeding, often run a temperature, and get pretty sick...i dealt with this for about ten years and then was tremendously helped by going on a BC pill. apparently, this is a condition that affects millions of women (historically T.S. Eliots wife was institutionalized for it as an extreme case of hysteria). I for one, am glad that medical science can treat this with hormones and that is one of the reasons I am also glad that women even in a disaster can have their medication.
slyvie | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 7:33 pm | #

Slyvie, I was on oral contraceptives for years due to irregular bleeding. They messed with my fertility to the point where I had no period at all.

Now I am seeing a doctor who follows the Creighton Model natural family planning system. She first hooked me up with a Creighton Model instructor (whose lessons are less expensive than birth-control pills, BTW), who taught me how to chart my cycle.

After I charted my cycle for three months, my instructor told me and my doctor that my chart looked as though I had a progesterone deficiency. My doctor prescribed a series of tests, which showed that the instructor was right.

Now I'm on time-release progesterone, which costs the same as the Pill. I just started, so I can't report on it yet. But if it works, it will naturally correct my cycle, without messing up my hormones or my fertility.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 7:54 pm | #

Katrina's gone now, it seems, but I'm compelled to answer anyway.

"I'd say children CAN be inconveniences."

Dogs can be inconveniences. My new truck, with its monthly payment, can be, too. A house, with all the up-keep & repairs can be darned inconvenient when one would rather nap or read a book or watch the baseball game instead of stop the toilet form overflowing or mend the fence. Life is full of inconveniences.
That's just the way it is. Why single out kids? Kids are far, far more important than all the rest because they're made in the image & likeness of God!

"Why do Catholics see children as little Christmas presents (the more the better), but never as mouths to feed?"

Read John Paul II's Theology of the Body. That's why. Sorry so glib but it's all there in TotB. The short of it is that the marital act becomes an image of God's creation. The husband & wife are "sub-creators" working with God's plan, His will, rather than thwarting it & seeking their own will. (That's the very short of it!)

"Why is avoiding childbearing until you have proper circumstances for raising your child such a bad thing?"

What are those proper circumstances? Should a young couple wait to marry because the "circumstances" aren't right? Will they ever be? I'd submit that there's never a perfect time to get married, have kids, buy a house or a car, move to another city, change jobs, etc. It's like waiting to buy that PC until Windows has been perfected. Ain't gonna happen! To quote a cheesey bumpersticker: Life is what happens when you're waiting for something to happen!

"Why do Catholics hate responsibility?"

Hate responsibility? Hate? (That's a mighty strong word!) On the contraty, having a large family is a huge responsibility! My Dad worked 2 jobs because he & my Mom felt it was best if she stayed home with the kids - & there were only 4 of us! Frankly, one could say the same for supporters of abortion: Why do they hate the responsibility of the natural product of the sexual act? Why are they so anti-children? (Of course, I believe the majority of them do not; are not.)

So, why is the choice to terminate a pregnancy seen as being a more responsible choice than having a large family? It makes no sense. I saw a bumpersticker today that said: "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?" It's so ludicrous because it puts the choice before the life. The choice is all; the child is merely a by-product of the choice. Patently ludicrous.

If you're still lurking, Katrina, any thoughts?
Gene Branaman | 09.01.05 - 8:06 pm | #

ROFL. Catholics hate responsibility?

Last I checked, we wern't the ones exclaiming "Abortion is a way to take back your life from your past actions while allowing you to continue those actions indefinetely. Its win/win! You don't actually have to have a paradigm shift and fix the problems that led you to this point, and we get to milk money from you." Planned Parenthood is the purveyor of the philosophy.

Elective Abortion is the easy way out. It is no more responsible than dropping a newborn in a dumpster, and both are done for the same reason: some trumped up BS about "unwantedness".
Brian K | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 8:40 pm | #

I saw a bumpersticker today that said: "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?"

As if we trusted anyone with a child. . . .

Considering what they consider constraints on the "choice," they should consider a woman trusted with a child only when she has the rights of a Roman pater familias -- the absolute right of life and death over the child.
Mary | 09.01.05 - 8:55 pm | #

Sorry for the length of this post but.....

It seems these comments have gotten way off topic, and have failed to answer my original question. Why jump on PP for providing a service (free EC and BC) that is part of their mission statement and I have no doubt is greatly appreciated by some of those left dealing with the aftermath of the Hurricane. No, people aren't boffing in the streets- but they are having sex. Making sex during a crisis seem dirty and evil and wrong doesn't accomplish anything. Like I said earlier- people need ways to comfort each other (someone referred to their friend who was a post-flood baby, great for her parents, they prove my point) after a tragedy. And not everyone needing comfort is interested in parenting. They aren't evil because of that. People keep commenting "If PP really wanted to help" - like PP is the ARC. It's not. PP is not the national guard, the police force, or a disaster relief organization. It provides reproductive and family planning services. That's like asking the people at Safeway to run telephone wires. That's NOT THEIR JOB. This is a service that is within the scope of their mission. It would be one thing if PP were lining up women and forcing them to take the pills. It's an offer, one that women can refuse. Their choice. And no one has gotten into my earlier statement about the possibility of rape. It's happened, it will probably continue to happen, and like it or not, not every women in America ascribes to your Theology of the Body - they ascribe to "my house just got destroyed, i have kids I can't feed, and I just got raped. I can't get pregnant." Don't judge them, or PP, for doing what is best for them (and what I and many others would say is a right and moral and responsible decision.) It seems like everyone here is just looking for an excuse to hate on PP. Donate to the Red Cross (or do like me, and donate to both the ARC AND PP- thanks for that BTW, I would never have donated today had it not been for this post) and focus on helping the victims of Katrina in whatever way you can. PP is doing it the best way they can. And to the earlier poster who asked so sarcastically what disease BC treated, I will refer you to the woman who shared her story of medical problems that were effectively solved by BC and the merriam webster definition of "medicine"

1 a : a substance or preparation used in treating disease b : something that affects well-being (um, sounds like BC)

3 : a substance (as a drug or potion) used to treat something other than disease (like prevention of an unwanted pregnancy).

Does that answer your question?
Anonymous | 09.01.05 - 9:16 pm | #

You know what, Dawn?

Just ban me right now.

--- delete below this line if you must ---

Women are being raped in New Orleans tonight. You're moralizing about Planned Parenthood doing what they can to help people who are suffering.

You're the hellbound one, Dawn.

Give a little thought to the big f[deleted]g beam in your own eye.

Edited By Siteowner
Hamilton Lovecraft | 09.01.05 - 10:03 pm | #

Hamilton, you got your wish.

If I were willing to take the risk that you'd dip into your dirty diaper and smear your hate on my comments page again--which I'm not--I'd ask the question:

How does so-called emergency contraception, which is actually abortion, prevent rape?

Incidentally, people who cuss in comments are not only being juvenile and rude, they're preventing others from reading what they write. Many computers, especially in offices, contain software that blocks pages containing obscenity.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 10:10 pm | #

I've been a reader here for months, but have rarely felt the need to comment. I generally enjoy this site and learning differing points of view. Even though my own stance on most subjects is very firmly entrenched due to my belief system - I still feel like I learn something about opposing points of view that helps me to see those that hold those views as people rather than stereotypes.

But - I wish all who have commented here (both sides of each argument) would just step back for a minute and read what they have written. What I have read here is, frankly, nauseating. None of it appears to be constructive. Which is sad, and very out of character for this site. Can't we be better than this?
Tori | 09.01.05 - 10:19 pm | #

Tori, what exactly did you find nauseating? People can't improve unless you tell them what's wrong. I'm not a mind reader.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 10:21 pm | #

Dawn, Comments sections in general can be a weird animal. I know from my own experience of participating in forums that these things can certainly spiral.

A poster comments, and that comment,taken by itself, seems pretty harmless. But to someone coming in later, who sits and reads the whole thing in its entirety - it often comes across wrong or distasteful. I am totally willing to admit that maybe by coming in at this point and reading all 49 comments, as I did, skewed my perception of this somewhat. It comes across to me that many of the comments up towards the top were belittling to the people going through this tragedy. I am sure it was unintentional, but that is how it comes across.

I share in common with you almost every belief you state. I agree with you on most stands that you take. I admire your passion, your professionalism, and most of all your Faith. However this just came across as you using the situation as another opportunity to bash PP. Do I agree they are "bash-able" - yes. But just because we "can" do something doesn't mean we "should".

Do I think PP truly serves a useful purpose? No. Do I think they should be supported by my taxpayer dollars? Absolutely not. Do I think they are wrong and misguided? Yes.

But people who are wrong and misguided can still do some good. I think it is important to remember that although we can be sickened by PP as an organization - we should not lose sight of the fact that there are people who work there who think they are doing good - think they are helping in this tragedy in whatever way they can. Just as not every member of every church holds every single tenet of that church - not every person connected with PP agrees with (or maybe even is aware of) the full breadth of foundational beliefs of that organization.

God is in control if we let Him be. He is so huge that he can take an evil situation and turn it to good. I don't know how - but he does. I've probably stated this poorly and apologize if I was unkind. That was not my intent.
Tori | 09.01.05 - 10:45 pm | #

Well guess what, PP may not be in the business of providing aid, but us regular folks aren't in that business either, and somehow we have managed to pull out of our own pockets money for relief.

Maybe PP could donate a portion of its massive profits to help. As far as I'm concerned "store credit" -in the form of abortifacents and condoms does not count in a city where the most likely form of sex is rape, and I know rapists don't exactly follow the "safe is sexy" mantra.

These people need food and water floated in, not plastics and pills.
Brian K | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 10:48 pm | #

don't YOU want yo know about your fertility????

Unfortunately, Sarah, I think the only thing most people want to know about their fertility is how to stop it. :/
Tony | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 11:38 pm | #

While you are entitled to your personal opinion about the appropriateness of birth control, it's best to stay out of the business of couples who choose to use it. Like it or not, distribution of condoms, birth control pills, and other contraceptives is a public health issue, and couples who need them should have access to them. They are lucky that PP is stepping up to the plate when so many other things have gone wrong.

The US military even issued condoms to soldiers in order to stem the spread of STDs. Why? Soldiers debilitated by syphilis or other diseases would have harmed the war effort and sparked a public health crisis at home when soldiers returned.

Really, this is a public crisis of massive proportions, and it's not the time to start lecturing people about their choices of birth control methods.

This objection is so petty, it's akin to complaining that the refugees are resting their elbows on the table while eating or complaining that the refugees are using poor grammar when speaking to reporters, or, for that matter, complaining that they're thanking the wrong god for saving them-- a petty imposition of your personal values during a time when they really aren't welcome or relevant.
Constantine | Homepage | 09.01.05 - 11:58 pm | #

I would like to strip away all the ideologial bull****, and ask a very simple and practical question:

Do you (Dawn, the anti-PP posters) think that women who have lost their homes, lost everything they have in the world, maybe lost family and friends, probably facing months (if not years) of life as refugees, and WHO HAVE BEEN RAPED WHILE FLEEING FOR THEIR LIVES, should be forced to have their rapists' babies?

Please note that I am not asking if YOU would have that baby - that would be your choice and I respect that. Please also note that I am not asking if they SHOULD have those babies, because we all have our opinions regarding what people SHOULD do. I am asking if these women, who are autonomous human beings, facing a crisis, after having been raped on top of emotional and physical loss, whould be FORCED by people who "know what's best for them" (not an actual uote - just an indicator of the attitude I see here) to have their rapist's babies. Because that's what denying them EC would accomplish.

And please - respond to my actual question (which needs to be answered - the situation is real and happening right now - http://www.latimes.com/news/ nati...mostemailedlink, par. 5) not to the "should, ought, might" or to what you would personally do.
Butterfingers | 09.02.05 - 12:49 am | #

For those who are on birth control pills, transferring their prescriptions or finding doctors to write new ones is going to be awfully difficult, given the situation - as is of course true of any prescription medicine under these circumstances. Planned Parenthood, therefore, is providing a useful service. Whether or not you approve of what they do, what they're doing is analogous to supplying heart medication under emergency conditions.
Dawn, that oral contraceptives were not useful to you for your bleeding problem does not mean that they are not useful to other women. That is, there are women who genuinely use OC for medical purposes other than avoiding conception. I'm a little puzzled, also, that you refer to time-release progesterone as "natural" but consider OC unnatural. In both cases you're putting hormones into your body that weren't already there.
Food and water are good and excellent things for those in need, but the refugees also need to think about their futures, which are very uncertain at the moment. Those who are using contraception to avoid producing a baby at a time of uncertain personal security are, it seems to me, acting with the same goal as a couple who use NFP to avoid conception; either NFP has less efficacy in preventing pregnancy than it's touted as having, or it is used with the same aim, that of preventing conception (yes, I know some couples use it to enhance the chances of conception; those aren't the couples I'm talking about). Several posters here are talking as if avoiding conception, per se, is wrong; is it not then equally wrong for the NFP couple?
Ledasmom | 09.02.05 - 1:04 am | #

Butterfingers, nobody is "forcing a woman" to bear a child. You speak as though the child were some evil parasite. To say that women are "forced to bear children" makes it sound like the child itself is holding a gun to the woman's head.

A child is a life. We have a responsibility to protect life, whether we choose it, or whether criminal circumstances impose it on us.

It's like saying you were "forced" to carry an ill Katrina victim to the hospital because someone threw the victim in your face.We can and should do all we can to prevent crime, but once it's committed, we have no right to murder the victims because it's too much trouble to save them.

As I've written, let's look at your question, starting with the words "emergency contraception."

It is not contraception.

It is abortion.

According to a U.S. Department of Health Web site and the Web site of the manufacturer of Plan B, "emergency contraception" works in one of three ways:

* By preventing ovulation,
* By preventing fertilization, or
* By preventing implantation, or—in the government's words—"stopping a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the wall of the uterus."

Note the word "fertilized egg." The government's Web site defines a pregnancy as occuring when the egg implants; hence, in the government's words--as in Planned Parenthood's--"emergency contraception" does not end a pregnancy.

But regardless of whether the woman is quote-unquote "pregnant," the fact remains that emergency contraception is meant to destroy a dividing embryo that is a genetically unique individual.

That is not just killing a single sperm or a single egg. That is abortion....

It is typical of Planned Parenthood to go after the weakest victims....A woman who has been raped has already been through a traumatic experience. To then take advantage of her when she is most vulnerable and tempt her to destroy her child is truly sick.

The idea that women who are raped should abort their children contains within it the idea that the offspring of the rape is somehow vile in its very nature and deserves to be destroyed....

A rape victim cannot erase her own experience. For her to abort her child, either via "emergency contraception" or via another kind of abortion, she would have to believe that her own unwillingness to have further pain precludes her child's right to live, and that any emotional pain she might have from the abortion would be less than what she would experience if she bore the child....

No, I can't imagine what it would be liked to be raped and carry my assailant's child. But I can tell you one thing. That unborn child would not carry the evil of its father. It would be like any innocent baby—any child who deserves to live and not be destroyed.

It's important also to consider the nature of "emergency contraception" versus other methods of abortion. A woman who is under great emotional stress following a rape is vulnerable to a well-meaning person's suggestion that she take a pill and be rid of her child. That same woman, a few weeks later, might realize that she was wrong to have the embryo expelled from her body. But by then, it would be too late. She would be left with not only the rape in her memory, but also the knowledge that she herself had caused the extermination of a human being.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.02.05 - 1:11 am | #

Ledasmom, the issue is not whether something is "natural," but whether its intention is to alter the body's chemistry so as to prevent conception. Time-release progesterone, correctly prescribed, corrects and restores fertility. In addition--and the reason I'm taking it--it does not wreak havoc with hormones the way oral contraception does. It makes my body work the way it's supposed to--instead of turning me into some sterile cyborg.

In answer to your other question, the Church frowns upon using natural family planning if the goal is to avoid having children for the couple's entire life together.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.02.05 - 1:15 am | #

When people have been deprived of food, water, sleep, dry clothing, and a place to sleep, the last thing on their minds is sexual activity. There are some needs that take precedence over others in a situation like this.

If PP would help by donating some of the huge profits (that they make from destroying life) and contribute to providing for the victims' basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter (needs necessary for their survival right now), that would be a genuine sign that their motives are altruistic rather than self-promotional. Most companies right now are donating money for these BASIC NEEDS to keep people ALIVE -- which is the bottom line.

People can survive without sex, without birth control pills, and without morning after pills, but they cannot survive for long without sustenance.
Jean | Homepage | 09.02.05 - 1:21 am | #

Daw, thank you for your response....but you haven't answered my question. You once sgain told me how I (and other people) SHOULD regard pregnancy and potential babies. But that's not the way things ARE. People sometimes DON'T WANT BABIES. and telling them that babies are always loved and wanted doesn't really change the fact that THEY DON'T WANT THEM. Because they are refugees in a crisis. Because they were raped. Because they didn't ask for someone to impregnate them by force with a child they are not ready for and don't want.

Butterfingers, nobody is "forcing a woman" to bear a child. You speak as though the child were some evil parasite. To say that women are "forced to bear children" makes it sound like the child itself is holding a gun to the woman's head.

If someone doesn't want a child (oh...say ME under such circumstances), then by not letting me terminate the pregnancy (abort the baby, if you want), you are forcing me to have that child.

For a person who does not want a baby, who is traumetized by rape and has nothing to her name in the world...then yes, a baby is not joy but a disaster.

You cannot decide for other people how they are to regard their pregnancies. The way you fel and believe is all nice and well for YOU...but you cannot apply it to everybody.

A woman is a refugee, homeless and destitute. She was raped. She doesn't want that baby. By denying her artificial contraception you are forcing her to have ababy that she doesn't want.

So I would like a direct respones, not based on ideals and wishful thinking - are you in favor of forcing these women to bear their rapists' babies?
Butterfingers | 09.02.05 - 1:25 am | #

Butterfingers, I've already answered your question the only way it can be answered. Asking me if I'm "in favor of forcing" the birth of babies is like asking me if I'm still beating my wife. You're defining terms that I refuse to recognize. See the Harris Protocol (linked in my comments rules at the left-hand side of the blog) for more information on proper debate and discussion in comments threads.

As I've written before, abortion advocates like yourself really believe that a woman should not be "forced to bear" any child--that even if she's made the decision to have sex, she should still have the right to end her unborn child's life. So why, then stress the evil of bearing the "rapist's babies"--as though the babies were not the women's as well? It implies that the baby itself is worthy of death because of who the father is.

Abortion advocates like yourself will say that the rapist took away the woman's choice to have sex--"what about the woman," etc. If the pregnancy is not life-threatening, then the ultimate question is one of how many people are going to be left standing. Are two people going to live, or one? The rape victim is going to have trauma no matter what. To add to her trauma the trauma of an abortion or of taking a pill to kill her embryo—and thereby cut two lives down to one—is evil.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.02.05 - 1:37 am | #

A group of 8 or 32 or 128 dividing cells is not a baby, it is a clump of cells. The fact that it is genetically unique does not make it is person. It doesn't think, react, or even feel anything around it. Your belief that it is morally equivalent to a human being and that removing it is murder is not logical. It is. . .I'll be generous and call it religious, but I could also call it deliberately obtuse and dishonest. The fact that you would inflict an unwanted pregnancy on a homeless woman for the sake of proving a point is disgusting to me.

There have been numerous reports of rape in stadium in New Orleans and I'm sure that there were many more unreported in the chaos. The main thing Planned Parenthood is giving these victims is peace of mind. The last thing they need to be worrying about is how to feed, clothe and medically take care of another child now that they are homeless and jobless.

Women need to care for their real live children, need to be free to relocate and rebuild their lives. That means being free of the physical and mental anguish of an unwanted pregnancy.

Worry about helping the survivors with housing and food, instead of wasting energy being shocked at Planned Parenthood's offers of assistance.
Claire | 09.02.05 - 1:51 am | #

The fact that you would inflict an unwanted pregnancy on a homeless woman for the sake of proving a point is disgusting to me.

So, Claire, being pro-life is morally equivalent to being a rapist. I'm sure that's news to the Blessed Mother Teresa .

Since you've decided that up to 128 cells is not a person, at what point is it wrong to kill a child--excuse me, "clump of cells"--before it's been born? Ever?

The main thing Planned Parenthood is giving these victims is peace of mind.

Peace of mind after an abortion? I'm sure that's news to the thousands of members of Silent No More.

The last thing they need to be worrying about is how to feed, clothe and medically take care of another child now that they are homeless and jobless.

If I read you right, homeless women would be much happier if someone would just reach into their wombs with a sharp curette and kill their babies. No more worries!

Of course, you're right in that Planned Parenthood wouldn't be able to help mothers with food, clothing, and medicine. But plenty of crisis-pregnancy centers and other organizations would.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.02.05 - 2:15 am | #

Everyone is trying to help the victims of this disaster, Planned Parenthood is giving what it can. There probably isn't going to be a huge demand for pap-smears in the next few days.

And the birth control is needed. Women refugees are isolated and vulnerable, if there is one thing we have learned from refugee movements all over the world it is that rape and coerced sex explode in these situations. Men have lots of opportunity, police are too busy preventing food riots to track down and punish offenders and the general laws of society tend to break down. I would counsel all women in the refugee camps to immediately start taking birth control to protect against pregnancy in the case of possible rape. If you are in an area recieving refugees get training from the Red Cross and volunteer.

Children of rape are still children and deserve love and respect. Pregnancies resulting from rape, however can be a cruel burden to bear and should be avoided.

Dawn, do you object to women being raped preventing pregnancy? Would you order a women about to be raped to beg her attacker to remove his condom? Must every act of sex result in pregnancy regardless of circumstances?

Many women leaving New Orleans right now will be refugees for a long time, without garaunteed housing, employment, income, healthcare or food. Many have small children that are completely dependent on them for care. Why would you have them increase their already heavy burdens with an unwanted pregnancy? How can diverting energy from existing children to create new ones be considered the better choice?
Claire | 09.02.05 - 2:17 am | #

Children of rape are still children and deserve love and respect. Pregnancies resulting from rape, however can be a cruel burden to bear and should be avoided.

Mom: "Claire, I love you and respect you. But my pregnancy with you was a cruel burden to bear and should have been avoided."

I'm not asserting that you're the child of rape, but that your argument is self-conflicting.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.02.05 - 2:21 am | #

Thank you for responding so promptly, you have insomnia too?

I don't think rapists and pro-lifers are morally equivalent. I didn't say that.

The dividing line between baby and non-baby isn't clear. That's the whole problem. Pro-lifers want it to be clear, demand that it be clear. Sperm and egg uniting is an easy line to draw, so you draw it. It makes the debate easy. "Here is black, here is white! That is murder and this is harmless. This is a person and those are just aimless cells!"

Unfortunately it doesn't make much sense. Why is a group of say 100 cells the same as a baby? Because it is genetically unique? Because it has potential? It doesn't have potential. If you have a fertilized egg in a test tube it will divide to about 30 cells if it is really lucky. It is the woman that gives it potential, the woman's body that radically changes, in some ways permanently, her body to give it form and substance. Her body gives it the ability to grow, to grow a brain, a heart, eyes and ears. Saying that a morula is a human being just doesn't make any sense. If I were defining a baby I would have to say I would put it at around 24-25 weeks. At that level of development the brain is just beginning to develop its cerebral cortex.

Also, what does that comment about Mother Teresa even mean?

As for the Silent No More ladies, I'm sorry that they had such a traumatic experience. I hope that they find peace. But their grief doesn't outweigh the anguish of women desperate for their abortions. It is analogous to saying that some men come back from war permanently damaged, emotionally shattered, therefore, no men should ever join the army. The experience of some doesn't justify removing the choice from everyone.
Claire | 09.02.05 - 2:39 am | #

Claire, men who join the army do so to save lives.

What you say about an embryo could be said of a baby. Put a baby in a test tube and it won't grow either. It could also be said of the infirm. We need outside protection and sustenance at many points in our lives--not just while in the womb.

P.S. In answer to your question about italics--you did it right the second time, but you need to put a forward-slash before the i to end them. I can't show you because the HTML won't display.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.02.05 - 2:44 am | #

Men join the army for many reasons. I don't think many of them join to save lives in the absolute sense. They might join to protect American lives. War is essentially about deciding what is worth more than lives.

Anyway that's a whole different discussion that doesn't relate to the meat of the analogy. The analogy was used to illustrate that although a given activity can cause trauma to some individuals, that doesn't mean that the activity should be banned for all individuals. I thought the war analogy most apt because almost nothing can create the same intense emotions as those described by the members of Silent No More, war seemed to fit the bill.

You invoke that orgnaization often, but it is not a compelling argument. Women who were pro-choice and became pro-life are not inherently more reliable than pro-life women who become pro-choice.

Anyway, I've got to hit the hay. I would like to continue this discussion tomorrow if that's possible. Pleasant dreams.
Claire | 09.02.05 - 3:25 am | #

One last thing before I go:

A baby can be fed by anyone, an elderly person can be cared for by anyone in the community. A pregnancy can only be sustained by one woman. She cannot take a break; it constantly weighs on her mind. The idea that a woman should be forced to sustain someone against her will and without compensation (indeed in America pregnancy often comes with heavy socially imposed penalties) is rather shocking when you think about it, even if the fetus is considered a human being. As I've stated before I do not consider all fetuses to be people so to me the idea is even more outrageous. What's next? Should organs taken from the poor against their will? If it will save a life, surely that justifies everything.

You still haven't made a compelling case for why a 32 cell morula is a person.

Good night
Claire | 09.02.05 - 4:13 am | #

One day I'll remember to log in the first time 'round... that's me above.

[Sorry, Butterfingers - I saw the anonymous comment and deleted it because, from the tone and the fact that it was anonymous, I thought it was a troll. Please repost under your moniker and--as long as it's within the comments rules--it'll stay. - Dawn]
Butterfingers | 09.02.05 - 4:29 am | #

Oh - one more thing.

To add to her trauma the trauma of an abortion or of taking a pill to kill her embryo—and thereby cut two lives down to one—is evil

How about letting HER make the choice? because, y'know, women are independant moral agents, capable of telling right from wrong. Just because they disagree with you, does not mean they are "wrong," it just means they think differently. And you should tell them what you think, explain to them why you believe abortion/contraception to be wrong...and then let them make the choice and decide whether abortion is a further trauma or the only possible choice for them.

You keep telling me what is right for everybody, all the time. Thank you for your kindnes....but I believe in my ability - and the ability of other human beings - to decide for ourselves, based on our personal circumstane and st of beliefs.
Butterfingers | 09.02.05 - 4:33 am | #

Claire- "The dividing line between baby and non-baby isn't clear. That's the problem."

Is the dividing line between plant and flower clear? Are flowers alive? Are plants alive? Are sprouted seeds alive?

Is the individual the Great Divider?

Is killing about taking a life?

May we predict correctly that you, as the politically correct person you are, respect animal rights
more than fetal rights?
Older and Wiser | 09.02.05 - 6:36 am | #

The rape victim is going to have trauma no matter what. To add to her trauma the trauma of an abortion or of taking a pill to kill her embryo?and thereby cut two lives down to one?is evil.

Because the rape victim who becomes pregnant as a result of her attack and then is forced to carry the pregnancy to term WON'T suffer trauma as a result of her attack? Because you've never met ANYONE who had an abortion and wasn't driven to insanity? 'Cause I've met several women who've had abortions, including one that was pregnant as a result of rape. And you know what they all said- "It was the best decision I ever made." No one said that women MUST abort a pregnancy that results from rape. She just should have the choice. That pregnancy is no better or worse than any other, just potentially way more traumatic. And as for your EC as abortifacent comparison- you said yourself that there were three methods by which EC prevented pregnancy. Only one of those prevents implantation. I bet the likelihood of that happening is fairly small....soooo you are willing to deny the other groups of women- women who haven't ovulated yet or haven't had their egge fertilized-- suffer just because they MIGHT have had their oh so precious egg fertilized? Come on now, really.

Fertility is an amazing power. One that should be wielded with care and caution - and by the one person (the women) who will ever truly be affected by it...let her make her decisions.

And maybe PP is making a corporate donation to relief efforts- you don't know yet, do you?
Anonymous | 09.02.05 - 8:29 am | #

Not this damn "Forced to Bear!" trash again.

We find abortion morally abhorrent.

We seek legislation to restrict abortions to serious situations, rather than have it used as retroactive birth control.

Rape is in my estimation(and in others) not a viable reason. Any woman who has had an abortion after being raped and claimed "it was the best decision I ever made" have no context because they do not know the outcome of the alternative to their choice.

Moreover, "rapist's baby" is bull----. What, the rapist is suddenly going to fly out of his dark corner and take this baby away from his/her mother and raise them to be just like daddy? I don't think so.

Rape is a crime, it needs to be reported and it needs to be punished worse than murder. There is no such thing as a "rapist's baby". Rapists do not raise the children they create, they aren't even responsible enough to follow a basic law and we would brand their foreheads with an iron if I had my way.

The whole problem is Planned Parenthood and its pro-abortion ilk have stigmatized all children as worthless(clump of cells), but rape babies get it the worst because they are for some reason considered the property of a criminal(rapist's baby). PP just gives women a place to vent and that venting conveniently leads to Planned Parenthood making huge profits. If Rapists are evil, PP is moreso because they take advantage of raped women when they are most vulnerable by promising them a magic abortion that will "take it all away", when in reality it does nothing but kill a child to increase PP's bankroll.

The point: Even if abortion is illegalized, that doesn't "force" women to bear, they could always take it into their own hands and see for themselves what abortion is, instead of having PP provide clean surgical spots for baby-killing. Having to do the dirty work yourself gives you context, and PP clinicians who perform the procedures detach themselves from reality to do it, its the only way they can sleep at night.

At an earlier point, we were discussing cell count as a basic for humanity?

So how many cells is enough? 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384, 32768, 65536, 131072, 262144, 524288, 1048576? (The pattern, if you haven't noticed, is an increase by a factor of 2.)

Is there any quantifiable number that we can call "human"? Test tube babies are irrelevant to abortion, abortion deals in the killing of living and growing human beings, not as test subjects in Dr. Stemcellsteins lab. The 2 scenarios are wholly incompatible.

[Brian - I realize this is a heated topic, but please don't make me have to edit out profanities. Also, calling an argument "trash" is outside the Harris Protocol--there are other ways to say that an argument doesn't hold up. Thanks - Dawn]
Brian K | Homepage | 09.02.05 - 9:49 am | #

"I would counsel all women in the refugee camps to immediately start taking birth control to protect against pregnancy in the case of possible rape."

It wouldn't be effective for another month, however (at least, that's how your average BC pill worked, last time I checked. Women who start are counselled to keep using condoms for a month, until the pill builds up in their systems.).

Whether or not one supports the use of EC or abortion, whether or not one thinks aborting the child of rape is a viable option, those questions are not,IMO, top of the list right now. Get everyone out of the Superdome--get them out of the dangerous situation and into someplace more secure. Then get these women professional counselling and get the attackers behind bars. Since the raped women, if pregnant, would have months left in which to abort, the offer of EC loses its immediacy. Getting these women into secure places where they can think calmly, without looking over their shoulders at their attackers, is the only way we're really going to be able to empower them to make any choice. Thus, I think distribution of EC or BC right now is a red herring. However, since PP does have doctors on its staff, get those docs into the troubloe spots to provide all available medical care.
Kate B. | 09.02.05 - 1:24 pm | #

Birth control pills are NOT MEDICATION. I have endometriosis, one of the few conditions that a birth control pill treats, as an unintentional side effect. Now, I use real medicine to control my disease and I don't require an abortifacient to do so. Other options exist- options that don't kill children or promote a worldly view of sex.

EC is especially NOT MEDICATION. What disease does it treat?
JacqueFromTexas | Homepage | 09.02.05 - 2:22 pm | #

Obviously it treats the condition known as childinutero.

Its a disease that affects only women and its only cure is to donate to Planned Parenthood so they can continue procuring "medication" for this horrible disease that eventually results in a terrible financial burden that, if not wanted, is merely garbage.
Brian K | Homepage | 09.02.05 - 7:15 pm | #

Um, walking through floodwaters contaminated with sewage is not exactly wonderful for womens' gynelogical health. PP does more than dispense birth control; they can diagnose and treat conditions like vaginosis.
Anonymous | Homepage | 09.02.05 - 8:35 pm | #

Once again: the fact that you do not use BCP as medication does not mean that they are not useful as such for certain conditions.
Kate B., you're assuming that there's no difference to the woman in question between EC and an abortion; physically that is certainly not true, and many women who don't consider an abortion acceptable may consider EC acceptable (regardless of the percentage of failed implantations versus prevention of conception, EC does not work by failure of implantation in all cases and many people do not consider pregnancy to have started until implantation). It seems to me callous to dismiss the feelings of the individual woman on this subject and tell her she can abort later if she doesn't want to be pregnant.
Ledasmom | 09.02.05 - 9:06 pm | #

I still haven't heard a diredt answer from anybody.

Yeah Brian, Dawn, I get the fact that to you having a baby is grand, even if that baby was conceived by force, by rape, in an experience of unequaled trauma.

I get the fact that to you nobody is ever "forced" to bear children, it's a natural function of having sex (and getting raped, of course).

I get that you think that abortion is wrong. I get it.

Now get THIS. Those are all YOUR OPINIONS, OK? and while living in a democracy is all about forcing all people to live by the rules of the majority, I would like to point out that polls show that you are not yet the majority (the majority of Americans are pro-contraception).

And nack to my questiopn...once again leave all your theorizing alone, and tell me what is going to happen, de facto, right now, in a real situation that's out there, where women and girls, after losing everything in the world are getting raped and pregnant and DON'T WANT THE PREGNANCIES which have invaded thier bodies against their wishes.

So, by denying them EC, or access to regular BC for protection against future rape which is going to happen, we all know it) - you are forcing them to bear those babies. No "if, what" or "maybe" about that.

So please, all of you, I would like, FINALLY, to have my question answered directly [demeaning sarcasm deleted - Dawn]-

Are you in favor of forcing these women to bear their rapists' babies agains their wishes?

Edited By Siteowner
Butterfingers | 09.03.05 - 12:20 am | #

Well Butterfingers, you might as well ask us if we are in favor of forcing soldiers shoot the thugs in New Orleans against said thugs wishes.

Its a loaded question, and your intent with asking such a question (and your lack of respect for us as shown by your whole "pwecious gifts" routine) is as such to prove us as either A: hypocrites or B: cruel.

I refuse to answer such a question. Once again, these women are not de facto being forced to do anything. "Forced" implies, well, FORCE, the active doing something to cause directly something else.

What good is PP's abortifacents and rubbers to people whose LAST thought is currently on sex. Moreover, if we can't get food in, how do you propose we give out such things when people aren't even getting access to food and water. Its ridiculous, can't PP drop the party line for a moment and provide the first aid and other stuff people need as a prerequisite?

If people are getting raped, they aren't in a safe place and thus aren't getting aid period, never mind PP's abortifacents and rubbers, and nevermind the fact rapists won't care anyway. If they are in a safe place its a mere hop skip and jump to either Houston's or Baton Rouge's PP clinics.

I mean really, how much good do you think rushing condoms and diaphrams to the scene in NO will do? Do you really think there are people having sex in the flooded streets? Its ludicrous. The people need sustinence and shelter, not sex aids.

And again I point back to this whole "rapist's baby" argument being ridiculous. Do rapists swarm out of hell on delivery to reclaim the babies their sperm created months ago? I doubt it. The fact is, the rapists will never see these babies and have no ownership of them, to call them "rape babies" is simply a Pro-Choice propaganda tool to make such babies sound inherently evil due to the nature of their father. PC elements even stoop so low as to claim that rapist's have ownership over a baby which clearly they do not have ownership of, or even care for.

[btw. Dawn, sorry about my earlier outburst, I'll try to keep it clean.]
Brian K | Homepage | 09.03.05 - 12:40 am | #

The point: Even if abortion is illegalized, that doesn't "force" women to bear, they could always take it into their own hands and see for themselves what abortion is, instead of having PP provide clean surgical spots for baby-killing. Having to do the dirty work yourself gives you context, and PP clinicians who perform the procedures detach themselves from reality to do it, its the only way they can sleep at night.

Ok, this is one of the major reasons pro-choicers worry about criminalization. In the ten years after Roe vs Wade maternal deaths from botched abortions dropped 70% The remaining botched abortion deaths are almost entirely due to women "doing their own dirty work" because they can't afford an abortion at a clinic. This attitude is the one that makes feminists hate pro-lifers, many don't want to reduce abortions, they just want to punish the women who feel they need them. Conservatives in the senate often show this attitude. They've rejected time after time measures that would actually help women, such as providing prenatal care for poor women or pursuing open adoption plans like in Oregon. This attitude is sickening.

There has never been any evidence that EC prevents implantation (or the Birth Control pill for that matter). And the newest study done suggests that it doesn't. And since we're talking about EC it is just like an egg in a test tube since it isn't attached to the mother and doesn't in any way resemble a baby.
Claire | 09.03.05 - 1:47 am | #

Also the birth control pill starts working after six days, not one month. If you start on the first day of your period it starts working immediately. People generally start the pill at the beginning of their cycle because otherwise they can get spotting, but they won't ovulate after six days on the pill.
Claire | 09.03.05 - 1:51 am | #

There has never been any evidence that EC prevents implantation

Then why does the manufacturer's instructions list preventing implantation as one of the ways Plan B works?
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.03.05 - 7:04 am | #

"Ok, this is one of the major reasons pro-choicers worry about criminalization. In the ten years after Roe vs Wade maternal deaths from botched abortions dropped 70%"

Considering the numbers of coat-hanger abortions have been speculated and those speculations were exaggerated beyond belief, as stated by those who have turned to the PL movement from the PC movement, I wonder where such a statistic came from.

"The remaining botched abortion deaths are almost entirely due to women "doing their own dirty work" because they can't afford an abortion at a clinic."

Considering abortions are provided for by our taxpayer money and insurance, "can't afford" isn't really an excuse. We already have government programs for the poor which stifle the middle class, what more do you want us to do?

>>>This attitude is the one that makes feminists hate pro-lifers, many don't want to reduce abortions, they just want to punish the women who feel they need them.>>>

And those feminists have a scewed perception of what abortion is. Show them a video of an abortion procedure, they say "get that thing out of my face!" not "Look! Glorious FREEDOM for women!" I'm not interested in pleasing feminists I'm interested in saving lives. I have no compassion for murderers who are "forced to kill" "because they are poor", just as I don't buy that I'm a horrible person because some woman somewhere decided to take it in her own hands to take someone else's life. Worse than such botched abortions are the ones done with taxpayer money under the veil of "choice". Those who do-it-themselves reap the fruits they would have given to others.

"Conservatives in the senate often show this attitude. They've rejected time after time measures that would actually help women, such as providing prenatal care for poor women or pursuing open adoption plans like in Oregon. This attitude is sickening."

And yet, in the Clinton years and times before the Democrats and Liberals owned the Congress and the White House... and they did nothing, nothing at all.

Detroit has been run by democrats for 50 years, and its still the poorest city around. You'd think with all these promises to improve lives you'd think they would have done something by now.
Brian K | Homepage | 09.03.05 - 9:01 am | #

Its a loaded question, and your intent with asking such a question (and your lack of respect for us as shown by your whole "pwecious gifts" routine) is as such to prove us as either A: hypocrites or B: cruel

If you think that giving a straight answer to a straight (and no, not "loaded") question maked you look like iether A: a hypocrite or B: cruel, you should think about your answer, shouldn't you?...

I refuse to answer such a question. Once again, these women are not de facto being forced to do anything. "Forced" implies, well, FORCE, the active doing something to cause directly something else?.

They have been raped. That is not force? their bodies were invaded, and they are now pregnant, which they did not and do not want. That is not force? There is a quick and easy solution to ridding their bodies of the unwelcome invader (for that is that it is TO THEM) - EC. By denying that solution, you are, in fact, forcing them to bear those babies. That is force.
Or maybe you are not aware that denying medical treatment is a criminal act? according to your logic, it shouldn't be - we're just letting nature take it's course. Apparently you think that by denying medical treatment to somebody, you are not actively killing them. Ah well.
And no - I am not comparing pregnancy to illness or injury. Pregnancy is unique, but in it, something happens to the human body, something that, in this case, was unwanted, and is still unwanted, soetimes to the point of loathing an trauma. You are forcing that loathing and trauma to continue by denying medical options. For the sake of your moral comfort. Nice.

What good is PP's abortifacents and rubbers to people whose LAST thought is currently on sex

Tell that to the girls who were raped. I'm sure they'd be delighted. And FYI, one of the first human responses to trauma is sex. People are very much having sex in the Astrodome and in ruined buildings. Remember what happens 9 months after major wars, natural disasters, or blackouts? yeah. That.

And again I point back to this whole "rapist's baby" argument being ridiculous

To you. First, come to me after having been raped and stuck with the consequences for 9 months, then we'll talk. I mean, for God's sakes, people sometimes hate a particular food because it brings back a bad memory...and here we are talking about a live reminder of just about the most traumatic event a woman (or a man, though no possible pregnancy for him) can undergo. Maternal love is not instinctive. It's learned and chosen. You can't force these women to be mothers, and you shouldn't - it's not your trauma, it's not your body, and it's only YOUR PERSONAL MORALS that are - yes, say it with me - telling you to force those women to have babies they don't want.

It doesn't matter how you see things. It matters how THEY see things.
Butterfingers | 09.03.05 - 9:47 am | #

As opposed to the memory of ahaving an abortion and regretting it forever. Having the child and raising it can prove that good comes out of bad. Just killing it off is risking an ebtire lifetime of regret.

Motherhood is learned and chosen? What a load. You think parents just "choose" to be parents and that makes them good? Parenting isn't a skill you can learn, its different with each child, and even if you "want" your children, you can still be a bad parent to them.

And what about Fatherhood? You can be a father without any form of choice at all. If your girl wants to keep the baby, well too darn bad for you eh? Our Grandparents managed without EC and apparently our parents for the most part did just fine.

"They have been raped. That is not force?"

That is force on the part of the rapist, not us.

"their bodies were invaded, and they are now pregnant, which they did not and do not want. That is not force?"

That is consequence, not force.

"There is a quick and easy solution to ridding their bodies of the unwelcome invader (for that is that it is TO THEM) - EC."

There is also a Quick and Easy solution to getting a promotion: Kill all the other applicants and cover it up well. Quick and Easy does not equal moral or just.

"By denying that solution, you are, in fact, forcing them to bear those babies. That is force."

Oh no, I'm not denying them any solution. They are perfectly capable of getting an abortion with their own hands. I'm not strapping them down, I simply don't want killings to be "safe 'n legal" at PP's killshops.
Brian K | Homepage | 09.03.05 - 12:11 pm | #

Brian, did you know that a woman's body will flush out hundreds of fertilized eggs in her lifetime, naturally, before she even knows they were there? Guess that makes God the biggest abortionist ever.
Norah | 09.03.05 - 7:05 pm | #

Do you simply mean that they fail to implant?

Would you mind clarifying, and possibly, present some evidence?
Alex Jordan Harris | Homepage | 09.03.05 - 7:10 pm | #

I think Norah is referring to what is termed a "chemical pregnancy"- I found this on a parenting site but there's tons of information about it on the web if anyone is interested:

"A chemical pregnancy is the clinical term used for a very early miscarriage. In many cases, the positive pregnancy test was achieved before the woman's period was due but a miscarrige occured before a heartbeat was able to be seen on an ultrasound.


Chemical pregnancies are very common. 50 to 60% of first pregnancies end in miscarriage very early in pregnancy. Most occur without the woman even knowing that she was pregnant.


Most chemical pregnancies are due to chromosomal problems in the developing fetus. Other possible causes are inadequate uterine lining, uterine abnormalities both congenital or acquired like fibroids, low hormone levels, luteal phase defect or certain infections."

Edited By Siteowner
Anonymous | 09.03.05 - 7:50 pm | #

this site seems awfully big on the Harris Protocols, whatever they are. they seem rather an excuse for siteowners to silence comments they don't appreciate. that's purely the whim of any siteowner, so i don't complain about that. it's not my bandwidth.

however, i hope this question will get through:

it's patently obvious that discussion over women forced to bear children resulting from rape is not going to get us anywhere. so let me ask this: what, exactly, is supposed to happen to this clump of cells/child, and to this unwilling mother, once the pregnancy comes to term?

pro-life advocates care deeply, passionately, overwhelmingly about the doings and happenings inside a woman's body, but all the welfare-of-the-baby handwringing tends to fade once the child is actually born. i see lots of people drumming away on keyboards and waving signs and slapping bumperstickers on their cars in support of illegalising abortion. i don't see many cars with bumperstickers advocating pre- and post-natal care, social support systems for mothers, affordable health care for children, better schools... why is that? does life begin at conception and end at birth as far as the pro-life crowd is concerned? is that where Personal Responsiblity is supposed to kick in for all those women who had to go and have sex, willing or no?

babies, already-born ones, are dying on national television, filmed live in front of the superdome. is it rational to expect a woman to bring a child into this world under such conditions? or nine months later, when she's still likely homeless herself? strike that. babies, already-born ones, die every day. older kids, too. or go hungry, or are sick. who is fighting for them?

that's why i always wonder what fights like these are really about. they seem more about control than about child welfare. maybe i'm wrong. correct me if i am.
halation | 09.04.05 - 1:00 am | #

Butterfingers, try again with the comment where you messed up the ital--and please, no ad hom this time.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.04.05 - 1:31 am | #

Actually, statistically speaking, it's abortions that are the norm and pregnancies that are anomalies....

[I deleted the response to Norah because she's still banned until she writes me to assure me she may be trusted to follow comments rules. Also, this comment used to be a couple of comments down, but I accdentally juggled it and can't put it back--sorry. - Dawn]

Edited By Siteowner
Butterfingers | Homepage | 09.04.05 - 3:50 am | #

Butterfingers, try again with the comment where you messed up the ital--and please, no ad hom this time.

Sorry, Dawn - I do try, but sometimes I get a bit carried away...so:

As opposed to the memory of ahaving an abortion and regretting it forever. Having the child and raising it can prove that good comes out of bad. Just killing it off is risking an ebtire lifetime of regret.

Says you. How about we let the women decide if they are going to belong to the "regret ever after" group or not? there are plenty of women who have anortions and never regret it, and who are you to tell them how they will feel?

Motherhood is learned and chosen? What a load. You think parents just "choose" to be parents and that makes them good?

Check out the thread that Dawn is starting now. And yes - humans have little to no maternal instinct. Unlike lower mammals, where maternal behavior is instinctive, humans learn how to take care and love children, it's part of our socialization. Giving birth does not autmatically make a woman a mother, other then in the most technical of senses.


And what about Fatherhood? You can be a father without any form of choice at all.

The father's choice ends at ejaculation (like you tell women - don't want babies, don't have sex!). A woman has 9 more months of choice. Why? because women bear the burden of carrying the pregnancy to term, with all the physical and emotional upheavals that come with it. Women also run the risk of childbirth (10 times more dangerous then abortions, folks). When men can choose to carry the baby instead of the mother...they get more of a choice. Simple biology.

Our Grandparents managed without EC and apparently our parents for the most part did just fine.

Our grandparents also did without antibiotics, and if my Mom had had my sister 5 years before she actually did (1985), she would have died of complications in childbirth.

They have been raped. That is not force?"

That is force on the part of the rapist, not us.

Ah, but then what happens to the "you made a choice to have sex, now live with the consequences"? These women did not choose to have sex, so why are they living with somebody else's consequences?

"their bodies were invaded, and they are now pregnant, which they did not and do not want. That is not force?"

That is consequence, not force.

Says you. How about we say that the consequences of rape are whatever the woman raped chooses, rather then what you decide is best for her?

There is also a Quick and Easy solution to getting a promotion: Kill all the other applicants and cover it up well. Quick and Easy does not equal moral or just.

When you show me where the equivalent of the raped and pregnant woman is in this analogy, I'll respond to it.

Oh no, I'm not denying them any solution. They are perfectly capable of getting an abortion with their own hands. I'm not strapping them down, I simply don't want killings to be "safe 'n legal" at PP's killshops.

You do realize you are hereby admitting that you care neither about the women, nor about the babies you profess to try and save? how can you say "They are perfectly capable of getting an abortion with their own hands" nd still have any claim to any sort of moral position? Look, Brian, I really do try to see the other side, and the reason I respect anti-choice people is that I honestly think their opinions are based on their own set of values and morals, but...you have just supported every single pro-choice feminist who says that you (general, anti-choice "you") don't give a f*** about women or babies - only about controlling women and their bodies.
Butterfingers | 09.04.05 - 8:45 am | #

Evolutionarily speaking, if mother love is not instinctive, how did we survive as a species? Now as rational creatures, I do see that we might have a more nuanced view of the young (I am pretty sure my stray cat adoptee didn't worry about how she was going to be able to afford her young; or more accurately, how I was going to afford her young) but mother love could hardly be strictly a learned behavior or our species would never have survived.

On the subject of fertilized eggs which fail to implant ... sigh. I guess that is one of those things on which we will have to admit that we cannot come to agreement. To me, the failure of a fertilized egg to implant, or, once implanted to come to term naturally, seems to me to be so different from deliberate abortion that there simply is no way to compare them.
Colleen | 09.04.05 - 9:50 am | #

Evolutionarily speaking, if mother love is not instinctive, how did we survive as a species?

Just like we survived not knowing how to walk, talk, and eat (ask breastfeeding mothers how hard it is sometimes to get a baby to nurse...). We are herd animals, and much of our survival dpends on elders teaching youngsters. It's not only us - other primates are the same way: Chimps who are not socialized don't know what to do with a newborn (read Jane Goodall and her observations of chimps).

That's why humans (and other higher mammals) only have one (usually) offspring at a time - because there is so much to teach a baby before it can survive. With animals that have instinctive behaviors (hens, cats, dogs), the litters are much larger, the instincts are much stronger, and time to independance is much shorter.
Butterfingers | 09.04.05 - 11:46 am | #

http://www.fu-berlin.de/dahlem/D...hapter% 2008.pdf

Read the above. It's nice and short, and basically says that hormone triggers are all nice and well - but very much dependant on the socialization and previous experience of the mother.
Butterfingers | 09.04.05 - 11:50 am | #

I recommend reading "The Stationary Ark" by Gerald Durrell to anyone who can find it; it concerns the running of a zoo (the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust) and mentions the difficulty of finding gorilla males that know how to mate, and gorilla females that know how to care for infants - neither behavior develops properly in gorillas who haven't seen it done, and those who are raised in captivity often haven't. The females could be taught, by humans, how to care for their young.
Ledasmom | 09.04.05 - 12:44 pm | #

I think the explanation, your are offering, Butterfingers, is or may be circular. The old teach the young. Of course. But someone had to go first. Unless you want to argue that we have been here from all eternity, somehow, some instinctual responses have to be hardwired.

Now I am aware of the problems gorillas in captivity have displayed and find it interesting. But I am not sure that a handful of examples proves anything one way or another, though they are suggestive and interesting.

I mean, if the gorilla babies were allowed to die, would the mothers eventually figure out that the babies need care? Would the "instinct" kick in at an older age? I plain don't know.
Colleen | 09.04.05 - 4:14 pm | #

I think the explanation, your are offering, Butterfingers, is or may be circular. The old teach the young. Of course. But someone had to go first.

It's called "evolution" and "natural selection." It may have been different once, but we evolved, and complex pack behaviour (I'm sorry about the eariler mistype - humans are "pack animals" and not "herd animals") evolved as well, and since it's viable - we survived.

It's like asking how humans survived without the instinct to nurse - a human baby may nurse when put to breast, but it cannot find the breast, and putting a baby to breast is far from instinctive.
Butterfingers | 09.04.05 - 11:57 pm | #