Today's election results

[Spock]

Ear>>>"The reason is in the quote. It isn't that they are opposed to the clinics per se, but rather because they use misinformation when counseling the women."<<<

Yes, I am sure that Planned Parenthood is a completely credible source as to the actions of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers.

Oh, btw-I forgot to mention that pro-life crisis pregnancy centers don't just work on the adoption front. If a mother chooses to keep and raise her child-they help with diapers/formula/advice etc-thus addressing the tired argument that pro-lifers don't care about the child after it is born.

[flockofseagulls104]

SSS>>>"And the term is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Many pro-choice women do not or would not get abortions themselves. They have no problem with women who choose to raise their children or put them up for adoption. They just don't feel they should make the decision for anyone else. It's amazing that many anti-abortion zealots rail on about how the government is making decisions and telling them what to do, when they have no qualms about doing so when the shoe's on the other foot."<<<

Bull crap-if this is true why are the pro-abortion TPTP STRONGLY OPPOSED (in their own words) to pro-life crisis pregnancy centers.

Planned Parenthood>>>"We therefore strongly oppose so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” (CPCs) because of the biased and often inaccurate and misleading information they provide to women seeking honest information about birth control and abortion. CPCs disrespect liberty of conscience and a woman's right to follow her faith's teachings."<<<

The reason is in the quote. It isn't that they are opposed to the clinics per se, but rather because they use misinformation when counseling the women.

Misinformation? I doubt very much they were asked to provide specific examples of what they consider misleading or innaccurate information. Or are we just supposed to take their word for it? I am sure PP has their own unique definition of misinformation. Just like so many on the left.

[silverscreenselect]

Misinformation? I doubt very much they were asked to provide specific examples of what they consider misleading or innaccurate information. Or are we just supposed to take their word for it? I am sure PP has their own unique definition of misinformation. Just like so many on the left.

From the AMA Journal of Ethics:

Why Crisis Pregnancy Centers Are Legal but Unethical

Crisis pregnancy centers are organizations that seek to intercept women with unintended pregnancies who might be considering abortion. Their mission is to prevent abortions by persuading women that adoption or parenting is a better option. They strive to give the impression that they are clinical centers, offering legitimate medical services and advice, yet they are exempt from regulatory, licensure, and credentialing oversight that apply to health care facilities. Because the religious ideology of these centers’ owners and employees takes priority over the health and well-being of the women seeking care at these centers, women do not receive comprehensive, accurate, evidence-based clinical information about all available options. Although crisis pregnancy centers enjoy First Amendment rights protections, their propagation of misinformation should be regarded as an ethical violation that undermines women’s health.

Drive down any highway in America, and you might see a sign: “Pregnant? Scared? Call 1-800-555-5555.” Most often, these signs are advertisements for crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). CPCs, sometimes known as “pregnancy resource centers,” “pregnancy care centers,” “pregnancy support centers,” or simply “pregnancy centers,” are organizations that seek to intercept women with unintended or “crisis” pregnancies who might be considering abortion. ... What might not be immediately apparent to someone seeking help at a CPC is that these centers take a distinct anti-abortion approach to pregnancy in that unintended or “crisis” pregnancies have two viable options, adoption or parenting. Multiple “undercover” or “secret shopper” surveys of CPCs and detailed reviews of the centers’ promotional materials and websites reveal that these centers give the impression of being medical clinics or having medical expertise. Often using neutral-sounding language, these centers offer to help women with free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, testing for sexually transmitted infections, and counseling on “all options” for pregnancy. In addition, pregnant women are often offered resources such as maternity clothes, diapers, and parenting classes. These centers often offer to give a “pregnancy verification” form, which women can use to enroll in prenatal care or to apply for government assistance with medical care (e.g., Medicaid or the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children).

CPCs, as a rule, not only discourage abortion but also refuse to provide referrals to abortion clinics, although they often provide “counseling” about “dangers associated with premarital sexual activity”. Women who visit CPCs typically do not realize that they are not in an abortion clinic and are surprised to find that abortion is not considered an option at these centers. As obstetrician-gynecologists, we have had several disgruntled patients come to us who were disappointed and felt deceived by the care that they had received at CPCs.

CPCs have received criticism from lawmakers, physicians, scholars, and reproductive rights organizations for many of their practices They strive to appear as sites offering clinical services and unbiased advice. Lay volunteers who are not licensed clinicians at CPCs often wear white coats and see women in exam rooms. They also purport to provide medical advice on a variety of issues, including sexually transmitted infections, early pregnancy, and abortion. Because centers are sometimes located close to abortion clinics and have names and logos similar to nearby abortion clinics, women could mistakenly seek care there rather than at the intended clinic. They also seek to target women who are most likely to seek abortion, particularly low-income women and women of color. These strategic practices appear designed to mislead abortion clinic clients.

Despite looking like legitimate clinics, most CPCs are not licensed, and their staff are not licensed medical professionals. CPCs that are not licensed medical clinics cannot legally be held to the privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which could lead to violations of client privacy. For example, client information might not be kept confidential, and information about pregnancy or abortion intentions might be shared with people outside the clinic.

Perhaps most worrisome, regardless of whether a particular location is licensed, CPCs engage in counseling that is misleading or false. Despite claims to the contrary, these centers do not meet the standard of patient-centered, quality medical care. The counseling provided on abortion and contraception by CPCs falls outside accepted medical standards and guidelines for providing evidence-based information and treatment options. For example, CPCs often suggest a link between abortion and subsequent serious mental health problems, while multiple studies have invalidated this assertion. Similarly, centers cite debunked literature showing an association between abortion and breast cancer. Although abortion has been shown to be safer than childbirth, it is portrayed as a dangerous or even deadly procedure.

Contrary to the claim that many CPCs make that they provide comprehensive services and offer women “all options,” most of these centers do not provide comprehensive women’s reproductive health care, abortion care, or referrals for abortion. For example, CPCs tend to avoid discussion of contraception and dismiss the role of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections.

The article is heavily footnoted, and each assertion is supported, usually by multiple sources. As usual, Flock goes off on a diatribe without bothering to do any independent research and, as usual, makes a complete fool out of himself. It took me about one minute to find this article, and there were over a dozen more like it with just a rudimentary Google search.

[flockofseagulls104]

Misinformation? I doubt very much they were asked to provide specific examples of what they consider misleading or innaccurate information. Or are we just supposed to take their word for it? I am sure PP has their own unique definition of misinformation. Just like so many on the left.

From the AMA Journal of Ethics:

Why Crisis Pregnancy Centers Are Legal but Unethical

Crisis pregnancy centers are organizations that seek to intercept women with unintended pregnancies who might be considering abortion. Their mission is to prevent abortions by persuading women that adoption or parenting is a better option. They strive to give the impression that they are clinical centers, offering legitimate medical services and advice, yet they are exempt from regulatory, licensure, and credentialing oversight that apply to health care facilities. Because the religious ideology of these centers’ owners and employees takes priority over the health and well-being of the women seeking care at these centers, women do not receive comprehensive, accurate, evidence-based clinical information about all available options. Although crisis pregnancy centers enjoy First Amendment rights protections, their propagation of misinformation should be regarded as an ethical violation that undermines women’s health.

Drive down any highway in America, and you might see a sign: “Pregnant? Scared? Call 1-800-555-5555.” Most often, these signs are advertisements for crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). CPCs, sometimes known as “pregnancy resource centers,” “pregnancy care centers,” “pregnancy support centers,” or simply “pregnancy centers,” are organizations that seek to intercept women with unintended or “crisis” pregnancies who might be considering abortion. ... What might not be immediately apparent to someone seeking help at a CPC is that these centers take a distinct anti-abortion approach to pregnancy in that unintended or “crisis” pregnancies have two viable options, adoption or parenting. Multiple “undercover” or “secret shopper” surveys of CPCs and detailed reviews of the centers’ promotional materials and websites reveal that these centers give the impression of being medical clinics or having medical expertise. Often using neutral-sounding language, these centers offer to help women with free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, testing for sexually transmitted infections, and counseling on “all options” for pregnancy. In addition, pregnant women are often offered resources such as maternity clothes, diapers, and parenting classes. These centers often offer to give a “pregnancy verification” form, which women can use to enroll in prenatal care or to apply for government assistance with medical care (e.g., Medicaid or the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children).

CPCs, as a rule, not only discourage abortion but also refuse to provide referrals to abortion clinics, although they often provide “counseling” about “dangers associated with premarital sexual activity”. Women who visit CPCs typically do not realize that they are not in an abortion clinic and are surprised to find that abortion is not considered an option at these centers. As obstetrician-gynecologists, we have had several disgruntled patients come to us who were disappointed and felt deceived by the care that they had received at CPCs.

CPCs have received criticism from lawmakers, physicians, scholars, and reproductive rights organizations for many of their practices They strive to appear as sites offering clinical services and unbiased advice. Lay volunteers who are not licensed clinicians at CPCs often wear white coats and see women in exam rooms. They also purport to provide medical advice on a variety of issues, including sexually transmitted infections, early pregnancy, and abortion. Because centers are sometimes located close to abortion clinics and have names and logos similar to nearby abortion clinics, women could mistakenly seek care there rather than at the intended clinic. They also seek to target women who are most likely to seek abortion, particularly low-income women and women of color. These strategic practices appear designed to mislead abortion clinic clients.

Despite looking like legitimate clinics, most CPCs are not licensed, and their staff are not licensed medical professionals. CPCs that are not licensed medical clinics cannot legally be held to the privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which could lead to violations of client privacy. For example, client information might not be kept confidential, and information about pregnancy or abortion intentions might be shared with people outside the clinic.

Perhaps most worrisome, regardless of whether a particular location is licensed, CPCs engage in counseling that is misleading or false. Despite claims to the contrary, these centers do not meet the standard of patient-centered, quality medical care. The counseling provided on abortion and contraception by CPCs falls outside accepted medical standards and guidelines for providing evidence-based information and treatment options. For example, CPCs often suggest a link between abortion and subsequent serious mental health problems, while multiple studies have invalidated this assertion. Similarly, centers cite debunked literature showing an association between abortion and breast cancer. Although abortion has been shown to be safer than childbirth, it is portrayed as a dangerous or even deadly procedure.

Contrary to the claim that many CPCs make that they provide comprehensive services and offer women “all options,” most of these centers do not provide comprehensive women’s reproductive health care, abortion care, or referrals for abortion. For example, CPCs tend to avoid discussion of contraception and dismiss the role of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections.

The article is heavily footnoted, and each assertion is supported, usually by multiple sources. As usual, Flock goes off on a diatribe without bothering to do any independent research and, as usual, makes a complete fool out of himself. It took me about one minute to find this article, and there were over a dozen more like it with just a rudimentary Google search.

OK, we've heard that side. Mostly opinion and conjecture IMO. To me, all this sounds like misinformation. But that's me. Now go and find and post what the other side has to say on the subjects they reference. Something you NEVER do. Then we can decide. I dare you.

I will bet you will post nothing but excuses.

[silverscreenselect]

OK, we've heard that side. Mostly opinion and conjecture IMO. To me, all this sounds like misinformation. But that's me. Now go and find and post what the other side has to say on the subjects they reference. Something you NEVER do. Then we can decide. I dare you.

I will bet you will post nothing but excuses.

Flock's usual response when I post a scholarly article loaded with source references that challenges his and Spock's off the wall statements. He wants me to find something that will support his point of view. Of course if he had something to support his opinion other than Spock, he would have posted it already.

[flockofseagulls104]

OK, we've heard that side. Mostly opinion and conjecture IMO. To me, all this sounds like misinformation. But that's me. Now go and find and post what the other side has to say on the subjects they reference. Something you NEVER do. Then we can decide. I dare you.

I will bet you will post nothing but excuses.

Flock's usual response when I post a scholarly article loaded with source references that challenges his and Spock's off the wall statements. He wants me to find something that will support his point of view. Of course if he had something to support his opinion other than Spock, he would have posted it already.

See, excuses. Why would I bother to post anything for you? You never even bother to read it. You just go merrily search for the contradictory material that floods the internet whenever something opposes the narrative. YOU FIND IT AND POST IT. The other side must have arguments to counter the allegations PP got published against them. It would do you good. Or at least show you have a semblance of objectivity.

[jarnon]

From the AMA Journal of Ethics:

Why Crisis Pregnancy Centers Are Legal but Unethical

This article raises a lot of questions. Do CPCs support women who decide to have a baby, or is their sole purpose to talk women out of abortions? Do they actually provide the maternity clothes, diapers, and parenting classes that they offer? And if they give pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, testing for sexually transmitted infections, and medical counseling, I would think they need a license.

[silverscreenselect]

OK, we've heard that side. Mostly opinion and conjecture IMO. To me, all this sounds like misinformation. But that's me. Now go and find and post what the other side has to say on the subjects they reference. Something you NEVER do. Then we can decide. I dare you.

I will bet you will post nothing but excuses.

Flock's usual response when I post a scholarly article loaded with source references that challenges his and Spock's off the wall statements. He wants me to find something that will support his point of view. Of course if he had something to support his opinion other than Spock, he would have posted it already.

See, excuses. Why would I bother to post anything for you? You never even bother to read it. You just go merrily search for the contradictory material that floods the internet whenever something opposes the narrative. YOU FIND IT AND POST IT. The other side must have arguments to counter the allegations PP got published against them. It would do you good. Or at least show you have a semblance of objectivity.

This is what you first posted on this subject:

Misinformation? I doubt very much they were asked to provide specific examples of what they consider misleading or innaccurate information. Or are we just supposed to take their word for it? I am sure PP has their own unique definition of misinformation. Just like so many on the left.

Planned Parenthood may or may not have provided specific examples but I didn't "take their word for it." I provided that article which contained over 30 well-documented reference sources. And I had another dozen articles to choose from as well on Google's front page alone. Now you say it's my responsibility to do what you couldn't be bothered to because you were too busy trashing Planned Parenthood in particular and the left in general, namely search for something that supports your point of view. Flock, you can't think, research, reason, or write coherently. But there's one thing you excel at and that's continually moving the goalposts whenever you're proved wrong.

[kroxquo]

OK, we've heard that side. Mostly opinion and conjecture IMO. To me, all this sounds like misinformation. But that's me. Now go and find and post what the other side has to say on the subjects they reference. Something you NEVER do. Then we can decide. I dare you.

I will bet you will post nothing but excuses.

Flock's usual response when I post a scholarly article loaded with source references that challenges his and Spock's off the wall statements. He wants me to find something that will support his point of view. Of course if he had something to support his opinion other than Spock, he would have posted it already.

See, excuses. Why would I bother to post anything for you? You never even bother to read it. You just go merrily search for the contradictory material that floods the internet whenever something opposes the narrative. YOU FIND IT AND POST IT. The other side must have arguments to counter the allegations PP got published against them. It would do you good. Or at least show you have a semblance of objectivity.

The thing is, SSS's link is not "allegations [Planned Parenthood] got published against them." It is a well-documented, peer-reviewed, scholarly study by one of the leading medical organizations in the world. The issue of credibility comes into this. Supporting you arguments with sound, credible facts is one of the basics of debate. In a court of law, it is not the job of the defense to present the prosecution's case as well. In debate, the idea is that you make your argument and present supporting material. If you have opposing material from a source that would come close to the AMA in terms of credibility and scholarship, present it. I'll be happy to read and consider it.

[BackInTex]

I’m sure PP encouraged folks to get the Covid vaccine. Told them if they get it they won’t get sick.

[earendel]

Ear>>>"The reason is in the quote. It isn't that they are opposed to the clinics per se, but rather because they use misinformation when counseling the women."<<<

Yes, I am sure that Planned Parenthood is a completely credible source as to the actions of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers.

I didn't say that. I have no first-hand experience with either, but I do have second-hand experience. From that I maintain that although the counseling centers do work to provide assistance if a mother decides to keep her child, the information they provide on abortions is inaccurate at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.

Oh, btw-I forgot to mention that pro-life crisis pregnancy centers don't just work on the adoption front. If a mother chooses to keep and raise her child-they help with diapers/formula/advice etc-thus addressing the tired argument that pro-lifers don't care about the child after it is born.

Not all pro-lifers, I'm afraid, and I'm sure you know that.

[earendel]

Misinformation? I doubt very much they were asked to provide specific examples of what they consider misleading or innaccurate information. Or are we just supposed to take their word for it? I am sure PP has their own unique definition of misinformation. Just like so many on the left.

Some years back a friend became pregnant by her physically and emotionally abusive husband. She was considering a divorce and with limited job skills and two children to support, she didn't want to have a third. I took her to one of those pregnancy counseling centers. She was told that abortions were dangerous, that they caused breast cancer other types of cancer, that they could render her infertile, etc. That kind of misinformation is still being spread.

[flockofseagulls104]

Misinformation? I doubt very much they were asked to provide specific examples of what they consider misleading or innaccurate information. Or are we just supposed to take their word for it? I am sure PP has their own unique definition of misinformation. Just like so many on the left.

Some years back a friend became pregnant by her physically and emotionally abusive husband. She was considering a divorce and with limited job skills and two children to support, she didn't want to have a third. I took her to one of those pregnancy counseling centers. She was told that abortions were dangerous, that they caused breast cancer other types of cancer, that they could render her infertile, etc. That kind of misinformation is still being spread.

Let's get real here.

Any time I have any kind of medical procedure, or get a prescription, or even watch a commercial for some drug on TV, I am told of all the risks, because the lawyers, who rule our country, insist on it.

Any kind of surgery has risks.
And the American Cancer Society acknowledges that there is a slight risk of breast cancer due to the hormone level changes, and states that there is no easy way to conduct any credible study of the kind that PP is trumpeting. They also state that the exact cause and effect is not known. Not by them, and certainly not by PP.

And the Mayo Clinic acknowledges there is a slight risk of infertility with getting an abortion depending on what kind of procedure is performed, which doesn't exist when you decide not to.

So bringing these facts up when trying to convince a woman not to kill her baby (Which, I'm sorry, is exactly what she is doing) is relevant. I think it's more relevant than to be told "Don't take XXX if you are allergic to XXX". If they are not discussed when PP performs an abortion, then we need to get the lawyers involved.

But I would imagine that the main argument to convince a woman not to kill her child is to have them see it and hear it's heartbeat, which I understand is the main reason they change their minds. I would be willing to wager PP avoids doing that at all costs.

https://www.lifenews.com/2015/03/05/78- ... ltrasound/

So let's stop acting as if PP is the be-all and know-all on these matters. They have a big dog in the fight, and as Project Veritas showed, they are not the most credible source of truth on this subject. And we won't talk about the history of PP unless you want to go into that. If PP had any statues, they would have been torn down a long time ago.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-life ... q-20058551

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prev ... -risk.html

Of course, no one on this site would care to present both sides when they find the contradiction they were looking for.

[silverscreenselect]

Any time I have any kind of medical procedure, or get a prescription, or even watch a commercial for some drug on TV, I am told of all the risks, because the lawyers, who rule our country, insist on it.

Any kind of surgery has risks.
And the American Cancer Society acknowledges that there is a slight risk of breast cancer due to the hormone level changes, and states that there is no easy way to conduct any credible study of the kind that PP is trumpeting.

Legal abortions in this country are performed by doctors and they inform patients of the risks involved in an abortion. There are slight health risks involved in having an abortion but it's far safer for a mother, even when healthy, to have an abortion that to bring a baby to term. And for women with various health problems already, having a baby can be highly risky. The "counselors" at these clinics are not doctors and there are no restrictions on what they can say or show women.

The risk any person accepts in continuing a pregnancy to term exceeds that of an early safe abortion by literally an order of magnitude. If women like my patient have no other option than to carry a pregnancy to term, the United States, which already ranks last out of all developed nations in maternal health, will only deepen its ongoing maternal mortality crisis.

The risk any person accepts in continuing a pregnancy to term exceeds that of an early safe abortion by literally an order of magnitude. If women like my patient have no other option than to carry a pregnancy to term, the United States, which already ranks last out of all developed nations in maternal health, will only deepen its ongoing maternal mortality crisis.

The controversy surrounding pregnancy termination is exceptional in its treatment of abortion as anything but a medical procedure. By juxtaposing the risks of pregnancy against the safety of abortion, the scientific backwardness of limiting access to abortion care is exposed. Allowing states to ban abortions creates many more questions than it answers: Will women with health conditions be able to exercise their reproductive health rights to protect themselves from harm? How will the treatment of other obstetric conditions such as incomplete abortions or ectopic pregnancies be affected? Lives will hang in the balance as states navigate these issues. Even a seemingly “safe” pregnancy is not without significant risk.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -abortion/

[flockofseagulls104]

Any time I have any kind of medical procedure, or get a prescription, or even watch a commercial for some drug on TV, I am told of all the risks, because the lawyers, who rule our country, insist on it.

Any kind of surgery has risks.
And the American Cancer Society acknowledges that there is a slight risk of breast cancer due to the hormone level changes, and states that there is no easy way to conduct any credible study of the kind that PP is trumpeting.

Legal abortions in this country are performed by doctors and they inform patients of the risks involved in an abortion. There are slight health risks involved in having an abortion but it's far safer for a mother, even when healthy, to have an abortion that to bring a baby to term. And for women with various health problems already, having a baby can be highly risky. The "counselors" at these clinics are not doctors and there are no restrictions on what they can say or show women.

The risk any person accepts in continuing a pregnancy to term exceeds that of an early safe abortion by literally an order of magnitude. If women like my patient have no other option than to carry a pregnancy to term, the United States, which already ranks last out of all developed nations in maternal health, will only deepen its ongoing maternal mortality crisis.

The risk any person accepts in continuing a pregnancy to term exceeds that of an early safe abortion by literally an order of magnitude. If women like my patient have no other option than to carry a pregnancy to term, the United States, which already ranks last out of all developed nations in maternal health, will only deepen its ongoing maternal mortality crisis.

The controversy surrounding pregnancy termination is exceptional in its treatment of abortion as anything but a medical procedure. By juxtaposing the risks of pregnancy against the safety of abortion, the scientific backwardness of limiting access to abortion care is exposed. Allowing states to ban abortions creates many more questions than it answers: Will women with health conditions be able to exercise their reproductive health rights to protect themselves from harm? How will the treatment of other obstetric conditions such as incomplete abortions or ectopic pregnancies be affected? Lives will hang in the balance as states navigate these issues. Even a seemingly “safe” pregnancy is not without significant risk.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -abortion/

You can call it a medical procedure, but that is your term for the killing of a baby. I know your side of the political landscape thrives on trying to change the language. But it does not change reality any more than trying to force the term 'birthing person' on the culture negates the fact that women give birth, not men. When you accept the fact that abortion kills a human being, perhaps we can come to some kind of compromise. But abortion up to and including until the moment of birth is unacceptable. It is your side that is doing the lying here.

[silverscreenselect]

You can call it a medical procedure, but that is your term for the killing of a baby.

Moving the goalposts and changing the subject. That bit of verbal dexterity must really have taxed your brain Flock.

[Spock]

I see to no one's surprise that SSS and Krox are strongly opposed to Pro-Life Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

Seems like a strange hill to die on for those who claim that they don't care if someone chooses life.

But, You do You, I guess. in this case, the "You" is obviously plural.

[silverscreenselect]

I see to no one's surprise that SSS and Krox are strongly opposed to Pro-Life Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

Seems like a strange hill to die on for those who claim that they don't care if someone chooses life.

But, You do You, I guess. in this case, the "You" is obviously plural.

It's not a matter of whether a woman chooses life. I'm pro-choice. I believe that it's between a woman and her doctor what the best course of action is for her pregnancy. It is a matter of whether these centers use misleading, coercive, unethical, and borderline fraudulent tactics in order to influence the choice.

[flockofseagulls104]

You can call it a medical procedure, but that is your term for the killing of a baby.

Moving the goalposts and changing the subject. That bit of verbal dexterity must really have taxed your brain Flock.

Um, the only relevant verbal dexterity here is pro-choice=Snuffing out a life.

That is the main conflict. Your side does not ever want to admit the fact that an abortion kills a human being. You always refer to the act of abortion as between the woman and her doctor. You never consider the other human life involved. No one in your equation represents that person. And while you are more than eager to attribute all kinds of evil practices on Pro-Life Crisis Pregnancy Centers, you seem to take what PP says as gospel, even though they have a vested interest in performing as many abortions as possible. I think the truth is somewhere in between.

Again, until your side comes to the realization that there are 2 lives involved in an abortion, there will always be this gulf. The Pro-Life side has the moral high ground. Any moral argument your side claims is contingent on denying the baby is a human being as well. When your side admits the life of the baby matters in this debate as well, perhaps there can be some room to compromise.

Can you stick to actually discussing a topic and cut out the juvenile personal digs?

[Spock]

I see to no one's surprise that SSS and Krox are strongly opposed to Pro-Life Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

Seems like a strange hill to die on for those who claim that they don't care if someone chooses life.

But, You do You, I guess. in this case, the "You" is obviously plural.

It's not a matter of whether a woman chooses life. I'm pro-choice. I believe that it's between a woman and her doctor what the best course of action is for her pregnancy. It is a matter of whether these centers use misleading, coercive, unethical, and borderline fraudulent tactics in order to influence the choice.

I guess women are pretty stupid and gullible in your view and are not capable of knowing the difference between a pro-abortion and a pro-life pregnancy center. They need Big Daddy SSS looking out for them. Somewhat of a paternalistic view I would say

Our church donates to a pro-life crisis pregnancy center in a nearby town that has a very liberal college. I suspect the girls there are made very aware of where they need to go for abortions and that the local center is a pro-life center. So if they choose the pro-life center-they already know they are choosing life

Women (and girls) do talk to each other you know.

[silverscreenselect]

I guess women are pretty stupid and gullible in your view and are not capable of knowing the difference between a pro-abortion and a pro-life pregnancy center. They need Big Daddy SSS looking out for them. Somewhat of a paternalistic view I would say

If you had read the article I cited, which was heavily sourced, you'll note that many of these pregnancy centers go out of their way to disguise what they are, even wearing medical gear to make it appear that they are actually a doctor's office of some sort. And also consider that many of the people who come to see them are scared young women who are in an emotionally vulnerable situation.

It's not paternalism; it's misdirection and borderline fraud by some adults who know exactly what they are doing. SInce you either didn't read or have a very short memory, I'll give you an excerpt from the AMA article I cited:

Lay volunteers who are not licensed clinicians at CPCs often wear white coats and see women in exam rooms. They also purport to provide medical advice on a variety of issues, including sexually transmitted infections, early pregnancy, and abortion. Because centers are sometimes located close to abortion clinics and have names and logos similar to nearby abortion clinics, women could mistakenly seek care there rather than at the intended clinic. They also seek to target women who are most likely to seek abortion, particularly low-income women and women of color. These strategic practices appear designed to mislead abortion clinic clients.

Despite looking like legitimate clinics, most CPCs are not licensed, and their staff are not licensed medical professionals. CPCs that are not licensed medical clinics cannot legally be held to the privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which could lead to violations of client privacy. For example, client information might not be kept confidential, and information about pregnancy or abortion intentions might be shared with people outside the clinic.

Perhaps most worrisome, regardless of whether a particular location is licensed, CPCs engage in counseling that is misleading or false. Despite claims to the contrary, these centers do not meet the standard of patient-centered, quality medical care. The counseling provided on abortion and contraception by CPCs falls outside accepted medical standards and guidelines for providing evidence-based information and treatment options. For example, CPCs often suggest a link between abortion and subsequent serious mental health problems, while multiple studies have invalidated this assertion. Similarly, centers cite debunked literature showing an association between abortion and breast cancer. Although abortion has been shown to be safer than childbirth, it is portrayed as a dangerous or even deadly procedure.

[flockofseagulls104]

I guess women are pretty stupid and gullible in your view and are not capable of knowing the difference between a pro-abortion and a pro-life pregnancy center. They need Big Daddy SSS looking out for them. Somewhat of a paternalistic view I would say

If you had read the article I cited, which was heavily sourced, you'll note that many of these pregnancy centers go out of their way to disguise what they are, even wearing medical gear to make it appear that they are actually a doctor's office of some sort. And also consider that many of the people who come to see them are scared young women who are in an emotionally vulnerable situation.

It's not paternalism; it's misdirection and borderline fraud by some adults who know exactly what they are doing. SInce you either didn't read or have a very short memory, I'll give you an excerpt from the AMA article I cited:

Lay volunteers who are not licensed clinicians at CPCs often wear white coats and see women in exam rooms. They also purport to provide medical advice on a variety of issues, including sexually transmitted infections, early pregnancy, and abortion. Because centers are sometimes located close to abortion clinics and have names and logos similar to nearby abortion clinics, women could mistakenly seek care there rather than at the intended clinic. They also seek to target women who are most likely to seek abortion, particularly low-income women and women of color. These strategic practices appear designed to mislead abortion clinic clients.

Despite looking like legitimate clinics, most CPCs are not licensed, and their staff are not licensed medical professionals. CPCs that are not licensed medical clinics cannot legally be held to the privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which could lead to violations of client privacy. For example, client information might not be kept confidential, and information about pregnancy or abortion intentions might be shared with people outside the clinic.

Perhaps most worrisome, regardless of whether a particular location is licensed, CPCs engage in counseling that is misleading or false. Despite claims to the contrary, these centers do not meet the standard of patient-centered, quality medical care. The counseling provided on abortion and contraception by CPCs falls outside accepted medical standards and guidelines for providing evidence-based information and treatment options. For example, CPCs often suggest a link between abortion and subsequent serious mental health problems, while multiple studies have invalidated this assertion. Similarly, centers cite debunked literature showing an association between abortion and breast cancer. Although abortion has been shown to be safer than childbirth, it is portrayed as a dangerous or even deadly procedure.

If you had read the article I cited

Why should any of us read anything you post? You never read any of ours.

Right. Heavily sourced by the AMA. An organization that has gone radically woke. To the detriment of all of us. If THEY don't admit that only females can give birth, why should anyone believe anything else they say? No, I don't think so. You might as well have quoted Hillary Clinton on the subject for all the objectivity you are getting with the AMA,

https://amastyleinsider.com/2022/08/31/ ... ge-update/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... -goes-woke

Now, on the subject of not bothering to read posts....

Who represents the baby in this 'medical procedure'? Why do you ignore that question?

[Bob78164]

SSS>>>"And the term is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Many pro-choice women do not or would not get abortions themselves. They have no problem with women who choose to raise their children or put them up for adoption. They just don't feel they should make the decision for anyone else. It's amazing that many anti-abortion zealots rail on about how the government is making decisions and telling them what to do, when they have no qualms about doing so when the shoe's on the other foot."<<<

Bull crap-if this is true why are the pro-abortion TPTP STRONGLY OPPOSED (in their own words) to pro-life crisis pregnancy centers.

Planned Parenthood>>>"We therefore strongly oppose so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” (CPCs) because of the biased and often inaccurate and misleading information they provide to women seeking honest information about birth control and abortion. CPCs disrespect liberty of conscience and a woman's right to follow her faith's teachings."<<<

The reason is in the quote. It isn't that they are opposed to the clinics per se, but rather because they use misinformation when counseling the women.

"Misinformation" is too polite a word. They deliberately lie to pregnant women. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Right. Heavily sourced by the AMA. An organization that has gone radically woke. To the detriment of all of us. If THEY don't admit that only females can give birth, why should anyone believe anything else they say? No, I don't think so. You might as well have quoted Hillary Clinton on the subject for all the objectivity you are getting with the AMA,

https://amastyleinsider.com/2022/08/31/ ... ge-update/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... -goes-woke

Now, on the subject of not bothering to read posts....

Who represents the baby in this 'medical procedure'? Why do you ignore that question?

So, because the AMA decides to use inclusive language, its heavily sourced article about pregnancy centers is to be disbelieved. By the way, that wasn't the only article I found that pretty much reported the same information about these pregnancy centers.

And a fetus is not a baby. At three months, which is when a lot of abortions take place, the fetus is about three inches long. Your continuing to call it a baby doesn't make it one.

[earendel]

https://amastyleinsider.com/2022/08/31/ ... ge-update/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... -goes-woke

Now, on the subject of not bothering to read posts....

Who represents the baby in this 'medical procedure'? Why do you ignore that question?

What does either of these articles, which are about "wokeness", have to do with the discussion? All they discuss is the use of gender pronouns and such, not abortion.