Planned Parenthood

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

I REALLY like Dan Ariely. He’s a professor of behavioral economic and psychology at Duke, and he writes a columnfor the WSJ. Here’s his take on why people seem to care more about Cecil the lion than say the thousands of humans who died of Ebola this year.

Dear Dan,

Last week, two different stories about senseless murders were all over the news. The first was about Cecil, Zimbabwe?s most famous lion, who was hunted down and killed as a trophy by a dentist from Minnesota. The second was about Samuel DuBose, an unarmed black motorist shot dead by a police officer in a routine traffic stop. Guess which story received more attention and outrage? Do we really care more about lions than people?

?Janet

Your question hinges on what we mean when we use the term caring. When you look at the volume of public outrage and the amount of ink spilled, it can sometimes seem that the loss of an endangered animal matters more. Sadly, that?s because, at least for some of us, the news of an animal?s death can have more emotional impact than the news of a person?s death.

Of course, this isn?t true for those who were close to the deceased, have personally experienced similar tragedies or have worked to fight similar injustices. But for those who experience such tragedies only via the news, the human loss sometimes doesn?t pull as much at their emotional strings.

This tendency has limits, though. If you gave most people two buttons, told them that pressing one would kill an endangered animal and pressing the other would kill a random fellow citizen, and ordered them to push one, very few would press the kill-a-person button. In this sort of direct comparison, I?d predict, almost everyone would prefer to kill the animal. Comparing lives more directly engages our cognition, not our emotions?and so the type of caring that emerges reflects our higher empathy for human beings and their families.

In other words, when we really think about it, we care more about humans?but we are often called to act based on our emotions, where our caring works quite differently.

His blog is you are interested. http://danariely.com/

322

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Well here is one simple example. You’ve had a dog for 12 years and it dies, the same day some innocent person dies in the middle east. Which one are you most likely to lose sleep over?[/quote]

Here is a better example.

I kidnap a dog you have had for 12 years and a complete stranger you have never met before. Then I tell you to decide which one I shoot in the head.

You will still mourn your dog more, but which life is more important?

[/quote]

Replace dog with a week old embryo, which would you choose?[/quote]

An embryo is a stage of human development, it’s not a separate thing it is still a human being. And I would shoot the dog twice before I would kill a human being in any stage of development, even one I did not like.

323

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“So then you’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it?s not vertex, because when it’s vertex presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the case, unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact calvarium. So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.”

That’s fucking terrible. [/quote]

Yes, if you read it. Like others who ignore the details of abortion and read about the lion guess which one becomes more personal and more important to them?

324

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

The story of the lion makes a better connection to the readers.
[/quote]

So comes the justification for the fake outrage over Cecil. ‘It’s a better story.’

Imagine Cecil were a lioness and she were pregnant, than people would be really pissed.

325

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
I REALLY like Dan Ariely. He’s a professor of behavioral economic and psychology at Duke, and he writes a columnfor the WSJ. Here’s his take on why people seem to care more about Cecil the lion than say the thousands of humans who died of Ebola this year.

Dear Dan,

Last week, two different stories about senseless murders were all over the news. The first was about Cecil, Zimbabwe?s most famous lion, who was hunted down and killed as a trophy by a dentist from Minnesota. The second was about Samuel DuBose, an unarmed black motorist shot dead by a police officer in a routine traffic stop. Guess which story received more attention and outrage? Do we really care more about lions than people?

?Janet

Your question hinges on what we mean when we use the term caring. When you look at the volume of public outrage and the amount of ink spilled, it can sometimes seem that the loss of an endangered animal matters more. Sadly, that?s because, at least for some of us, the news of an animal?s death can have more emotional impact than the news of a person?s death.

Of course, this isn?t true for those who were close to the deceased, have personally experienced similar tragedies or have worked to fight similar injustices. But for those who experience such tragedies only via the news, the human loss sometimes doesn?t pull as much at their emotional strings.

This tendency has limits, though. If you gave most people two buttons, told them that pressing one would kill an endangered animal and pressing the other would kill a random fellow citizen, and ordered them to push one, very few would press the kill-a-person button. In this sort of direct comparison, I?d predict, almost everyone would prefer to kill the animal. Comparing lives more directly engages our cognition, not our emotions?and so the type of caring that emerges reflects our higher empathy for human beings and their families.

In other words, when we really think about it, we care more about humans?but we are often called to act based on our emotions, where our caring works quite differently.

His blog is you are interested. http://danariely.com/
[/quote]

That’s an interesting response and I think he hits on something with regards to emotion. The animal is less emotionally taxing and more approachable. Having to deal with a horrible reality close to home kicks in our defense mechanisms. Avoidance is a very powerful defense mechanism. It protects us from pain by making us blind to it. And if the problem is just distant enough maybe we can avoid impact all together.
Just like we have instincts to avoid physical pain, like walking around a fire instead of through it, we have similar instincts to protect our brain. Emotional pain is still pain. Dealing with something emotionally stressful is something we typically want to avoid unless we have to. We’ll walk around the emotional fires if we can, we don’t want to get burned physically or emotionally.

326

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

The story of the lion makes a better connection to the readers.
[/quote]

So comes the justification for the fake outrage over Cecil. ‘It’s a better story.’

Imagine Cecil were a lioness and she were pregnant, than people would be really pissed.[/quote]

Or if the killer was a native Zimbabwean, then people would really not care. Maybe its not even about the lion after all.

327

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

The story of the lion makes a better connection to the readers.
[/quote]

So comes the justification for the fake outrage over Cecil. ‘It’s a better story.’

Imagine Cecil were a lioness and she were pregnant, than people would be really pissed.[/quote]

Or if the killer was a native Zimbabwean, then people would really not care. Maybe its not even about the lion after all.[/quote]

That’s probably very true.

328

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“So then you’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it?s not vertex, because when it’s vertex presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the case, unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact calvarium. So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.”

That’s fucking terrible. [/quote]

Yes, if you read it. Like others who ignore the details of abortion and read about the lion guess which one becomes more personal and more important to them?[/quote]

Sure, you can’t care about something you aren’t aware of, but I’m confident most people are aware, at least on some level, what an abortion actually is. I’m also confident they’ve heard, at least once, that we are talking about tens of thousands of lives a year here. Not one or two lions.

So it’s either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

329

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
, that we are talking about tens of thousands of lives a year here. Not one or two lions.

So it’s either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. [/quote]

*HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS

330

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“So then you’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it?s not vertex, because when it’s vertex presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the case, unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact calvarium. So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.”

That’s fucking terrible. [/quote]

Yes, if you read it. Like others who ignore the details of abortion and read about the lion guess which one becomes more personal and more important to them?[/quote]

Sure, you can’t care about something you aren’t aware of, but I’m confident most people are aware, at least on some level, what an abortion actually is. I’m also confident they’ve heard, at least once, that we are talking about tens of thousands of lives a year here. Not one or two lions.

So it’s either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. [/quote]

The same thing can be said for how we get meat in our food supply. There would be a lot more vegetarians if people cared more, or were just not as lazy.

331

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“So then you’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it?s not vertex, because when it’s vertex presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the case, unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact calvarium. So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.”

That’s fucking terrible. [/quote]

Yes, if you read it. Like others who ignore the details of abortion and read about the lion guess which one becomes more personal and more important to them?[/quote]

Sure, you can’t care about something you aren’t aware of, but I’m confident most people are aware, at least on some level, what an abortion actually is. I’m also confident they’ve heard, at least once, that we are talking about tens of thousands of lives a year here. Not one or two lions.

So it’s either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. [/quote]

The same thing can be said for how we get meat in our food supply. There would be a lot more vegetarians if people cared more, or were just not as lazy.[/quote]

Well, how some people get meat.

Anyway, sure, but once again how many people are more concerned about the living arrangements of your average chicken vs. the protection of life in the womb?

I’ll gladly fight against animal cruelty right after we win the fight for human life.

332

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
, that we are talking about tens of thousands of lives a year here. Not one or two lions.

So it’s either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. [/quote]

*HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS

[/quote]

1.2 million per year is the national average. That’s a pretty horrific number. The Nazis would certainly admire the efficiency of our killing apparatus, if they were around today.

333

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I didn’t even think of it on that level, lol. I just laughed hard at the whole admitting they “don’t stand up for all people” just the ones they choose to. Just like a democrat, people are only people if THEY say so. At least it isn’t slaves or Jim Crow this time…[/quote]

Well it speaks to their altered definitions of a lot of things, say like ‘tolerance’. That means we have to tolerate and even support their points of view, but contrary opinions are not tolerable. We have to tolerate them, but they do not have to return in kind and yet somehow its all fair.
Abortion isn’t abortion, it’s ‘women’s rights’ or ‘women’s health’ and if you are pro-life, you are anti-woman, you even hate women. It’s not government mandated wealth redistribution, it’s ‘income equality’, I could go on and on.
The common theme still applies, that is transient between this thread and the ‘Political Correctness’ thread. Those on the left often substitute facts for rhetoric and to many people are suckers. It’s simply a matter of calling what is evil, good and what is good, evil. It’s really nothing more than that and with the support of the media, they have been remarkably good at this type of marketing.

And what would we do with all those unwanted babies? I’d like the chance to find out. What a difference if everybody in the country cared just 1% more about somebody other than themselves.

334

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I didn’t even think of it on that level, lol. I just laughed hard at the whole admitting they “don’t stand up for all people” just the ones they choose to. Just like a democrat, people are only people if THEY say so. At least it isn’t slaves or Jim Crow this time…[/quote]

Well it speaks to their altered definitions of a lot of things, say like ‘tolerance’. That means we have to tolerate and even support their points of view, but contrary opinions are not tolerable. We have to tolerate them, but they do not have to return in kind and yet somehow its all fair.
Abortion isn’t abortion, it’s ‘women’s rights’ or ‘women’s health’ and if you are pro-life, you are anti-woman, you even hate women. It’s not government mandated wealth redistribution, it’s ‘income equality’, I could go on and on.
The common theme still applies, that is transient between this thread and the ‘Political Correctness’ thread. Those on the left often substitute facts for rhetoric and to many people are suckers. It’s simply a matter of calling what is evil, good and what is good, evil. It’s really nothing more than that and with the support of the media, they have been remarkably good at this type of marketing.

And what would we do with all those unwanted babies? I’d like the chance to find out. What a difference if everybody in the country cared just 1% more about somebody other than themselves.[/quote]

You’re acting as if the republicans don’t do the same thing. In regards to abortion I think most of society has already accepted it. I’m not saying that makes it right. But to make it illegal wont stop people from finding other ways. And no, I don’t believe this should be publicly funded. Do you disagree with abortion in cases of rape and/or if it is causing health issue for the mother?

335

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Do you disagree with abortion in cases of rape [/quote]

No. The pregnancy is the result of the assault of the mother. It is now a “health of the mother” issue. I understand the philosophy of “you’re punishing the child for the sins of the father” and find that idea profound and intellectually stimulating, but in the end, I don’t think a forced pregnancy and resultant abortion is the same as consensual sex that leads to an unwanted baby.

Look in any situation where an abortion is considered, someone is going to lose. Either the child will die, or the mother will be significantly inconvenienced. I personally think that pregnancies resultant of rape take inconvenienced and make it, for many, unbearably painful. In that case the abortion is more akin to a medical procedure to help the mother recover, and the rapist is responsible for the death of the child, and should be charged as such. It was the rapist that put the child in harms way, knowing he was assaulting the woman.

If the baby is going to kill the mother, or they both might die, the issue of abortion is moot. It’s tragic either way.

Both cases you mention are a tiny, tiny minority of abortions, so if those were the only times people were getting them, we’d be talk about hundreds a year and it wouldn’t be an issue.

336

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I didn’t even think of it on that level, lol. I just laughed hard at the whole admitting they “don’t stand up for all people” just the ones they choose to. Just like a democrat, people are only people if THEY say so. At least it isn’t slaves or Jim Crow this time…[/quote]

Well it speaks to their altered definitions of a lot of things, say like ‘tolerance’. That means we have to tolerate and even support their points of view, but contrary opinions are not tolerable. We have to tolerate them, but they do not have to return in kind and yet somehow its all fair.
Abortion isn’t abortion, it’s ‘women’s rights’ or ‘women’s health’ and if you are pro-life, you are anti-woman, you even hate women. It’s not government mandated wealth redistribution, it’s ‘income equality’, I could go on and on.
The common theme still applies, that is transient between this thread and the ‘Political Correctness’ thread. Those on the left often substitute facts for rhetoric and to many people are suckers. It’s simply a matter of calling what is evil, good and what is good, evil. It’s really nothing more than that and with the support of the media, they have been remarkably good at this type of marketing.

And what would we do with all those unwanted babies? I’d like the chance to find out. What a difference if everybody in the country cared just 1% more about somebody other than themselves.[/quote]

You’re acting as if the republicans don’t do the same thing. In regards to abortion I think most of society has already accepted it. I’m not saying that makes it right. But to make it illegal wont stop people from finding other ways. And no, I don’t believe this should be publicly funded. Do you disagree with abortion in cases of rape and/or if it is causing health issue for the mother?[/quote]

Republicans do different things, but they do not redefine terminology, however I happily concede they are far from perfect or even decent. They are less bad. I am less concerned with the political party as I am with the ideology that people on the left submit to, rather than people on the right; at the citizen level.
Most of society does not accept it. A large portion of society does, but not most. The same could be said of slavery, it was an accepted practice by a large portion of society. That didn’t make it right and we got rid of it. Does slavery still happen? Yep, but very little of it and the fact that laws are broken does not mean we should not have those laws. Our prisons are full of people who have broken every single law this country has.
You don’t give up on something that is right just because a lot of people want it or like it. You fight for every heart and mind you can get and the tide will turn and it is turning.
These videos have created a shit storm and they have dropped a bomb on planned parenthood. I have heard reports of several people start the process of changing their mind or who actually have changed their minds about abortion because of these videos. I consider them a resounding success.
Whether or not planned parenthood has broken any laws is questionable. I think there is enough evidence to investigate that, but that’s not really the point. What they have done is expose abortion for what it really is, the taking of human life, and the callousness of the people who practice it and the disregard they have towards human life. Indeed, evil in this case, wears a dress.

Anyway, to answer your question I have two answers for it.
The problem with even rape/ incest remains abortion still kills a human being. As tragic as the circumstances may be, surrounding the conception of that child that fact remains.
However, those cases make up very few of the abortions done in this country. I would support any legislation that reduces, illegalizes abortions with exclusions for rape and incest. I will compromise there to get rid of most abortions. I am perfectly willing and I think the movement could make a lot of progress by taking an incremental approach.
Target 1, lets get the number cut in half. Let’s shoot for 600,000 abortions a year. Once we have gotten there, then we shoot for half of that, and we continue to cut it down until we succeed in having less than 10,000. If we could get that number down to less than 10,000 I would, at that point fly the victory flag. I do not realistically think we could ever achieve 0. We obviously have to consider life of the mother situations and I think some legislation would have passed if they had life of mother, incest and rape concessions. But some of those boneheads would not compromise to get a bill past meaning no bill passed. We have to take it on little by little. If we try that approach rather than wait on the SCOTUS to reverse Roe v. Wade we’ll make abortion a thing of the past a lot sooner.

337

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Do you disagree with abortion in cases of rape [/quote]

No. The pregnancy is the result of the assault of the mother. It is now a “health of the mother” issue. I understand the philosophy of “you’re punishing the child for the sins of the father” and find that idea profound and intellectually stimulating, but in the end, I don’t think a forced pregnancy and resultant abortion is the same as consensual sex that leads to an unwanted baby.

Look in any situation where an abortion is considered, someone is going to lose. Either the child will die, or the mother will be significantly inconvenienced. I personally think that pregnancies resultant of rape take inconvenienced and make it, for many, unbearably painful. In that case the abortion is more akin to a medical procedure to help the mother recover, and the rapist is responsible for the death of the child, and should be charged as such. It was the rapist that put the child in harms way, knowing he was assaulting the woman.

If the baby is going to kill the mother, or they both might die, the issue of abortion is moot. It’s tragic either way.

Both cases you mention are a tiny, tiny minority of abortions, so if those were the only times people were getting them, we’d be talk about hundreds a year and it wouldn’t be an issue.
[/quote]

Can’t say I disagree with any of this.

338

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I didn’t even think of it on that level, lol. I just laughed hard at the whole admitting they “don’t stand up for all people” just the ones they choose to. Just like a democrat, people are only people if THEY say so. At least it isn’t slaves or Jim Crow this time…[/quote]

Well it speaks to their altered definitions of a lot of things, say like ‘tolerance’. That means we have to tolerate and even support their points of view, but contrary opinions are not tolerable. We have to tolerate them, but they do not have to return in kind and yet somehow its all fair.
Abortion isn’t abortion, it’s ‘women’s rights’ or ‘women’s health’ and if you are pro-life, you are anti-woman, you even hate women. It’s not government mandated wealth redistribution, it’s ‘income equality’, I could go on and on.
The common theme still applies, that is transient between this thread and the ‘Political Correctness’ thread. Those on the left often substitute facts for rhetoric and to many people are suckers. It’s simply a matter of calling what is evil, good and what is good, evil. It’s really nothing more than that and with the support of the media, they have been remarkably good at this type of marketing.

And what would we do with all those unwanted babies? I’d like the chance to find out. What a difference if everybody in the country cared just 1% more about somebody other than themselves.[/quote]

You’re acting as if the republicans don’t do the same thing. In regards to abortion I think most of society has already accepted it. I’m not saying that makes it right. But to make it illegal wont stop people from finding other ways. And no, I don’t believe this should be publicly funded. Do you disagree with abortion in cases of rape and/or if it is causing health issue for the mother?[/quote]

Republicans do different things, but they do not redefine terminology, however I happily concede they are far from perfect or even decent. They are less bad. I am less concerned with the political party as I am with the ideology that people on the left submit to, rather than people on the right; at the citizen level.
Most of society does not accept it. A large portion of society does, but not most. The same could be said of slavery, it was an accepted practice by a large portion of society. That didn’t make it right and we got rid of it. Does slavery still happen? Yep, but very little of it and the fact that laws are broken does not mean we should not have those laws. Our prisons are full of people who have broken every single law this country has.
You don’t give up on something that is right just because a lot of people want it or like it. You fight for every heart and mind you can get and the tide will turn and it is turning.
These videos have created a shit storm and they have dropped a bomb on planned parenthood. I have heard reports of several people start the process of changing their mind or who actually have changed their minds about abortion because of these videos. I consider them a resounding success.
Whether or not planned parenthood has broken any laws is questionable. I think there is enough evidence to investigate that, but that’s not really the point. What they have done is expose abortion for what it really is, the taking of human life, and the callousness of the people who practice it and the disregard they have towards human life. Indeed, evil in this case, wears a dress.

Anyway, to answer your question I have two answers for it.
The problem with even rape/ incest remains abortion still kills a human being. As tragic as the circumstances may be, surrounding the conception of that child that fact remains.
However, those cases make up very few of the abortions done in this country. I would support any legislation that reduces, illegalizes abortions with exclusions for rape and incest. I will compromise there to get rid of most abortions. I am perfectly willing and I think the movement could make a lot of progress by taking an incremental approach.
Target 1, lets get the number cut in half. Let’s shoot for 600,000 abortions a year. Once we have gotten there, then we shoot for half of that, and we continue to cut it down until we succeed in having less than 10,000. If we could get that number down to less than 10,000 I would, at that point fly the victory flag. I do not realistically think we could ever achieve 0. We obviously have to consider life of the mother situations and I think some legislation would have passed if they had life of mother, incest and rape concessions. But some of those boneheads would not compromise to get a bill past meaning no bill passed. We have to take it on little by little. If we try that approach rather than wait on the SCOTUS to reverse Roe v. Wade we’ll make abortion a thing of the past a lot sooner. [/quote]

I’m not saying I disagree with you. In the cases of rape and incest is it still not murder? Aren’t you at that point still supporting murder? As small as the number may be, murder is still murder.

339

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I didn’t even think of it on that level, lol. I just laughed hard at the whole admitting they “don’t stand up for all people” just the ones they choose to. Just like a democrat, people are only people if THEY say so. At least it isn’t slaves or Jim Crow this time…[/quote]

Well it speaks to their altered definitions of a lot of things, say like ‘tolerance’. That means we have to tolerate and even support their points of view, but contrary opinions are not tolerable. We have to tolerate them, but they do not have to return in kind and yet somehow its all fair.
Abortion isn’t abortion, it’s ‘women’s rights’ or ‘women’s health’ and if you are pro-life, you are anti-woman, you even hate women. It’s not government mandated wealth redistribution, it’s ‘income equality’, I could go on and on.
The common theme still applies, that is transient between this thread and the ‘Political Correctness’ thread. Those on the left often substitute facts for rhetoric and to many people are suckers. It’s simply a matter of calling what is evil, good and what is good, evil. It’s really nothing more than that and with the support of the media, they have been remarkably good at this type of marketing.

And what would we do with all those unwanted babies? I’d like the chance to find out. What a difference if everybody in the country cared just 1% more about somebody other than themselves.[/quote]

You’re acting as if the republicans don’t do the same thing. In regards to abortion I think most of society has already accepted it. I’m not saying that makes it right. But to make it illegal wont stop people from finding other ways. And no, I don’t believe this should be publicly funded. Do you disagree with abortion in cases of rape and/or if it is causing health issue for the mother?[/quote]

Republicans do different things, but they do not redefine terminology, however I happily concede they are far from perfect or even decent. They are less bad. I am less concerned with the political party as I am with the ideology that people on the left submit to, rather than people on the right; at the citizen level.
Most of society does not accept it. A large portion of society does, but not most. The same could be said of slavery, it was an accepted practice by a large portion of society. That didn’t make it right and we got rid of it. Does slavery still happen? Yep, but very little of it and the fact that laws are broken does not mean we should not have those laws. Our prisons are full of people who have broken every single law this country has.
You don’t give up on something that is right just because a lot of people want it or like it. You fight for every heart and mind you can get and the tide will turn and it is turning.
These videos have created a shit storm and they have dropped a bomb on planned parenthood. I have heard reports of several people start the process of changing their mind or who actually have changed their minds about abortion because of these videos. I consider them a resounding success.
Whether or not planned parenthood has broken any laws is questionable. I think there is enough evidence to investigate that, but that’s not really the point. What they have done is expose abortion for what it really is, the taking of human life, and the callousness of the people who practice it and the disregard they have towards human life. Indeed, evil in this case, wears a dress.

Anyway, to answer your question I have two answers for it.
The problem with even rape/ incest remains abortion still kills a human being. As tragic as the circumstances may be, surrounding the conception of that child that fact remains.
However, those cases make up very few of the abortions done in this country. I would support any legislation that reduces, illegalizes abortions with exclusions for rape and incest. I will compromise there to get rid of most abortions. I am perfectly willing and I think the movement could make a lot of progress by taking an incremental approach.
Target 1, lets get the number cut in half. Let’s shoot for 600,000 abortions a year. Once we have gotten there, then we shoot for half of that, and we continue to cut it down until we succeed in having less than 10,000. If we could get that number down to less than 10,000 I would, at that point fly the victory flag. I do not realistically think we could ever achieve 0. We obviously have to consider life of the mother situations and I think some legislation would have passed if they had life of mother, incest and rape concessions. But some of those boneheads would not compromise to get a bill past meaning no bill passed. We have to take it on little by little. If we try that approach rather than wait on the SCOTUS to reverse Roe v. Wade we’ll make abortion a thing of the past a lot sooner. [/quote]

I’m not saying I disagree with you. In the cases of rape and incest is it still not murder? Aren’t you at that point still supporting murder? As small as the number may be, murder is still murder.[/quote]

This is why an absolute stance against all abortion cases is the only valid one, including some birth control methods. Anything else and your no different than the people your arguing with, except that your line in the sand is drawn somewhere else.

340

[quote]
This is why an absolute stance against all abortion cases is the only valid one, including some birth control methods. Anything else and your no different than the people your arguing with, except that your line in the sand is drawn somewhere else.[/quote]

This is the point I was eventually going to get to when I brought up collateral damage a few pages back.