Planned Parenthood Concerned About Suspicious Visits

[LaserGuy]

This is a bit of a dog bites man story, but Planned Parenthood is concerned about a series of strikingly similar visits that they have received. The visits involve a woman coming into the clinic, claiming to be pregnant, and then proceeding to discuss the possibility of a sex-selective abortion. PP believes that these visits may be being recorded for use as part of a campaign by an activist group, possibly one called Live Action, which has done similar things in the past.

From Huffington Post

Spoiler:

A string of suspicious incidents at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country has given the organization reason to believe that anti-abortion activists are targeting it in a new organized sting operation.

According to Planned Parenthood spokesperson Chloe Cooney, clinics in at least 11 states have reported two dozen or more "hoax visits" over the past several weeks, in which a woman walks into a clinic, claims to be pregnant and asks a particular pattern of provocative questions about sex-selective abortions, such as how soon she can find out the gender of the fetus, by what means and whether she can schedule an abortion if she's having a girl.

While patient privacy laws prohibit Planned Parenthood from offering specific details about the visits and where they occurred, Cooney told The Huffington Post that the incidents are so unusual and so similar to each other that they have raised concerns among the organization's executives that the visits are being recorded as part of a concerted anti-Planned Parenthood campaign.

"For years opponents of reproductive health and Planned Parenthood have engaged in secret videotaping tactics with fictitious patient scenarios and selective editing in an attempt to promote misinformation about Planned Parenthood and our services," Cooney said. "As with the prior instances, we anticipate that once again this group, likely in coordination with a broad range of anti-abortion leaders, will soon launch a propaganda campaign with the goal of discrediting Planned Parenthood, and, ultimately, restricting women's health."

The most likely group behind the campaign, Planned Parenthood suspects, is anti-abortion activist group Live Action, which has a history of paying actors to walk into Planned Parenthood clinics and act out various controversial scenarios in an attempt to catch the family planning provider's staffers doing something illegal or immoral on tape. A recent operation involved actors posing as pimps and prostitutes engaged in human trafficking and seeking birth control, STD testing and other family planning services. HuffPost's Ryan Grim reported in February 2011 that Live Action heavily edited the videos they gathered to alter the meaning of conversations and falsely imply that Planned Parenthood is complicit in sex trafficking, but conservative lawmakers and media outlets cited the group's videos in numerous subsequent political attacks against the family planning provider.

While Planned Parenthood has no proof that Live Action is behind the current series of encounters, Cooney said the group is the most coordinated in their operations and that the recent string of incidents "follows their pattern exactly."

Kate Bryan, a spokesperson for Live Action, would not confirm whether the group was behind the newest Planned Parenthood sting. "As you can understand, Live Action does not comment on any investigations until after public release," she said.

Spotlighting the issue of sex-selective abortions is an increasingly common tactic that the anti-abortion community has been using lately to turn the "war on women" around on Planned Parenthood, to galvanize social conservatives and to push legislation that would restrict abortion access. "In 2010, more than 9 out of 10 PPFA's services going specifically to pregnant women were abortion," National Right to Life president Carol Tobias wrote in a recent opinion column. "Roughly half of those abortions are performed on unborn girls. That's the real war on women."

Lawmakers on both a state and federal level have also latched onto the issue by introducing legislation that criminalizes doctors who perform abortions based on the race or gender of the fetus, although opponents of those laws say they force doctors into the inappropriate position of investigating a woman's personal motivations for seeking an abortion.

While Planned Parenthood condemns seeking abortions on the basis of the gender of the fetus, Cooney said the provider is also "committed to providing high-quality, confidential, nonjudgmental care to all who come into our health centers." While Planned Parenthood staffers are extensively trained to answer unusual and difficult questions and to refer women to necessary counseling, none of its clinics will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting one, except in those states that explicitly prohibit sex-selection abortion (Arizona, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Illinois).

"Decisions about whether to choose adoption, end the pregnancy or to raise a child have to be left up to a woman, her family and her faith, with the counsel of her doctor," Cooney said.

While the problem of sex selection has been widely documented in Southeast Asia, it's unclear how often such gender-motivated abortions happen in the U.S. But Planned Parenthood executives and other experts on the issue acknowledge that they sometimes do.

"The short answer is yes, it does happen here, but not to the same extent as in other countries," said Miriam Yeung, executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum.

The solution to sex selection, however, is not likely to be found in a Planned Parenthood investigation, Yeung said.

"If you've studied the issues and studied the problem of sex selection in a global context, you know that in order to tackle sex selection, you have to address the social and economic root causes of gender preference," she said. "Abortion restrictions are a non-solution, and Planned Parenthood and others who have been providing necessary women's health care for gazillions of years are not the perpetuators of the war on women."

I found this quote in particular to be kind of hilarious:

Spotlighting the issue of sex-selective abortions is an increasingly common tactic that the anti-abortion community has been using lately to turn the "war on women" around on Planned Parenthood, to galvanize social conservatives and to push legislation that would restrict abortion access. "In 2010, more than 9 out of 10 PPFA's services going specifically to pregnant women were abortion," National Right to Life president Carol Tobias wrote in a recent opinion column. "Roughly half of those abortions are performed on unborn girls. That's the real war on women."

[Marbas]

"Roughly half of those abortions are performed on unborn girls. That's the real war on women."

I am...so confused right now. How are you this bad at math?

[CorruptUser]

Wait, would this be the same crap by that guy that did those doctored ACORN films? Because that guy is a walking argument for post-third trimester abortions.

[semicharmed]

"Roughly half of those abortions are performed on unborn girls. That's the real war on women."

I am...so confused right now. How are you this bad at math?

This is the same segment of the anti-abortion movement that puts up billboards in heavily minority areas, declaring abortion to be a race war. The same segment that boasts about Mississippi being '1st in the nation' for protecting the life of the unborn'... while ignoring that it's either 51/52nd in the nation (including Guam & PR) for the under-5 mortality rate. So when a female fetus is terminated: "War on women!!!", when a male fetus is terminated: "Protect our boys!", etc., etc.

[Arancaytar]

Wait, would this be the same crap by that guy that did those doctored ACORN films? Because that guy is a walking argument for post-third trimester abortions.

Isn't he dead?

(Wait, never mind; the films were created by O'Keefe, not Breitbart.)

[philsov]

"Roughly half of those abortions are performed on unborn girls. That's the real war on women."

I am...so confused right now. How are you this bad at math?

But if half of the abortions are on female fetii then no gender selection is actually occurring?

Or was that the joke?

[addams]

"Roughly half of those abortions are performed on unborn girls. That's the real war on women."

I am...so confused right now. How are you this bad at math?

This is the same segment of the anti-abortion movement that puts up billboards in heavily minority areas, declaring abortion to be a race war. The same segment that boasts about Mississippi being '1st in the nation' for protecting the life of the unborn'... while ignoring that it's either 51/52nd in the nation (including Guam & PR) for the under-5 mortality rate. So when a female fetus is terminated: "War on women!!!", when a male fetus is terminated: "Protect our boys!", etc., etc.

Gee Willikers. People really say, "The Rights of the Unborn?"

O.K. It makes sense in a strange way. The mother must eat if the fetus is to thrive.
But; Can't women eat, even if, they are not pregnant?

Spoiler:

Right? The Unborn. Such a strange concept.

I am doing my best! These are hard concepts for me.
The Undead
The Unborn

I read. It seems that I did not read the same books everyone else read.

I read some essays written by Priests. Yeah. I know. Weird thing to read.

I started out listening to them. Listening to wonderful and strange people is a gate way drug to reading what they write. It is not all that harmful. They are, just, people.
An personal explanation:
[spoiler]
Somehow I ended up in a situation that had a Catholic Church in it. This one little Church was special. It was located in the Redwoods of Northern California.
When priests would get 'burnt out' the lucky ones were sent to this Church for six months. The guy that ran the place was a bit of an expert.

He had a series of things that he would go through with his guests. There was almost always a day when the visiting Priest wrote and spoke about his Calling. The other essay that seemed to be encouraged if not required was, 'My Most Profound Spiritual Experience'.

These were men that had come from War Zones and places of Famine. These men had buried lots of people. Some of these men had come to terms with death and then they lived and did not know why.
The guy that ran the place was dealing with PTSD. He helped a lot of them and it was entertaining to listen to them. It was Public. We sat and listened. They spoke. Simple. Like school. Only, no test.

One Priest wrote an essay that proposed that Life did not begin until the child laughed. That happens at about four months postnatal. He was, just, being silly. Yet; the man made a valid point. The Unborn don't laugh? Is that true? Any citations? Who knows about neuro development? When does the human animal first laugh?

Yep. 4-8 months.

# Looks for fallen objects by 7 months
# Plays ‘peek-a-boo’ games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_deve ... 2.A0months

(That was hard to find. See? Good books are faster than Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a Hell of a lot easier to carry.)

eww. That is at one end of the game. There was a different Priest that wrote about the skin as the final deciding factor in mortality of the preterm infant. The technologies of the 21st century allow for infants to survive an early birth.

eww. Again. Never mind.

What? These are personal ideas. Some people, by tradition, do not name a child, until it has been alive for five years. There are many reasons why.
1. You may not like it. Have you ever noticed that we have a different relationship with a named object than we do with an unnamed object.
Another one for my list.
Undead
Unborn
Unnamed
2. It allowed a kind of sensitivity for a people that had a high infant mortality rate.

I don't 'get' it.
There is a Race War going on? Who can out breed who? Dear God! Hand the prize to the Chinese and get out of the way. The one child policy makes so much sense. One child is treasured. How nice it is to be a treasured child.

Every sperm is sacred.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMx6X26iJ_c

It, just, does not get old. That is funny.

"Upon its entry to the air-breathing world, without the nutrition and oxygenation from the umbilical cord, the newborn must begin to adjust to life outside the uterus. Also starts his/her adaptation to extrauterine life, the most significant physiological transition until death."

Who has access to the wealth that allows for the pre term infant to survive an adult with an infected tooth to die? That is the way I see it.

For some strange human reason we don't have so many issues with babies. Teens and Adults? Well; There is no need to let them suffer needlessly.
Is there?
[/spoiler]

I used to think that Marketing was one of those useless majors. I was wrong.

[Krealr]

But if half of the abortions are on female fetii then no gender selection is actually occurring?

Gender selection could still be occurring it just means that a roughly equal number of people select for females as select for males.

[addams]

But if half of the abortions are on female fetii then no gender selection is actually occurring?

Gender selection could still be occurring it just means that a roughly equal number of people select for females as select for males.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 4/abstract

Some people want to know. Other people like surprises.

Do you want Pickles on that? Or; Do you want to see what kind of a mood the cook is in?

The way other people organize their lives is personal.

Have you ever met a pregnant woman? You would think it was the most amazing trick, ever. It is not. Lots of women can do it.

People that work with pregnant women feed into the delusion. I know. I have seen it. What is the big deal?

O.K. Someone is worried that girl babies are terminated at a greater rate than boy babies? Not that it matters; I have heard.
If, it makes the parents happy to have a male child, what do you care?

When it is your time to make reproductive decisions, then, YOU make them.

It looks like this test can be done non invasively at seven weeks gestation. Does Target know who is pregnant and who is not at seven weeks?

Gee Willikers! What about the people that want a girl and have a baseball team in the attempt. I like the test better. The disappointment of giving birth to another unwanted child must be a difficult burden to bear.

[mike-l]

This reminds me of my manager bemoaning that 40% of sick days were taken on Mondays or Fridays.

Edit: Anyway, the original that that quote was taken from is here.

[Griffin]

Gender selection could still be occurring it just means that a roughly equal number of people select for females as select for males.

Although in that case, I'm struggling to see how that might actually be a problem.

[mike-l]

Gender selection could still be occurring it just means that a roughly equal number of people select for females as select for males.

Although in that case, I'm struggling to see how that might actually be a problem.

You don't see how parents choosing to abort based on gender is a problem, as long as it all balances out?

[Griffin]

That is correct, yes.

[DavidH]

Even if every abortion was on a female there's not much you can do.

Terminating a pregnancy for gender reasons is no different than terminating a pregnancy for financial reasons, developmental reasons, etc.

Edit: If you disagree you're suggesting that a line be drawn on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, and that just opens a giant can of worms.

[Shivahn]

But it makes us feel ickier!

[mike-l]

So, presumably, you do have a problem with gender specific abortions if it doesn't balance out?

(Note: I don't think there should be any laws against gender specific abortions, but I do find the idea repugnant)

[DavidH]

So, presumably, you do have a problem with gender specific abortions if it doesn't balance out?

(Note: I don't think there should be any laws against gender specific abortions, but I do find the idea repugnant)

You find it repugnant? But you don't find it repugnant that people have an abortion if they just don't want any child?

It boils down to the fact that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body (besides put drugs into it.. or sell parts of it..). It's not really fair to look down upon some reasons for abortions but not others (unless you're making the argument that abortions should only be allowed in specific, regulated cases. But I don't think you are).

[CorruptUser]

Even if every abortion was on a female there's not much you can do.

Terminating a pregnancy for gender reasons is no different than terminating a pregnancy for financial reasons, developmental reasons, etc.

Edit: If you disagree you're suggesting a line be drawn on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, and that just opens a giant can of worms.

It's not a sharp line so much as a blur. I might not be able to see the difference between Teal and Dark Cyan without close examination, but I know Blue from Green.

Abortion based on any characteristic is a world of difference from abortion because you can't afford a child at the moment.

[mike-l]

So, presumably, you do have a problem with gender specific abortions if it doesn't balance out?

(Note: I don't think there should be any laws against gender specific abortions, but I do find the idea repugnant)

You find it repugnant? But you don't find it repugnant that people have an abortion if they just don't want any child?

It boils down to the fact that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body (besides put drugs into it.. or sell parts of it..). It's not really fair to look down upon some reasons for abortions but not others (unless you're making the argument that abortions should only be allowed in specific, regulated cases. But I don't think you are).

I think abortions should be legal for whatever reasons the woman wants. I reserve the right to consider your motives repugnant though.

[Griffin]

So, presumably, you do have a problem with gender specific abortions if it doesn't balance out?

In essence, my problem with such an imbalance is that's its risky - historically, having far more of one gender than the other causes conflict or the rise of oppressive institutions. Perhaps we've grown beyond that, and I'm jumping at shadows. But considering that sexism and the like are still popular around the world, the US included, I think caution here would be prudent.

However, if the balance remains the same, it is a nonissue.

[mike-l]

So, presumably, you do have a problem with gender specific abortions if it doesn't balance out?

In essence, my problem with such an imbalance is that's its risky - historically, having far more of one gender than the other causes conflict or the rise of oppressive institutions. Perhaps we've grown beyond that, and I'm jumping at shadows. But considering that sexism and the like are still popular around the world, the US included, I think caution here would be prudent.

However, if the balance remains the same, it is a nonissue.

Fair enough.... I find that position very... odd.. but fair enough.

[Save Point]

"Roughly half of those abortions are performed on unborn girls. That's the real war on women."

I am...so confused right now. How are you this bad at math?

This is the same segment of the anti-abortion movement that puts up billboards in heavily minority areas, declaring abortion to be a race war. The same segment that boasts about Mississippi being '1st in the nation' for protecting the life of the unborn'... while ignoring that it's either 51/52nd in the nation (including Guam & PR) for the under-5 mortality rate. So when a female fetus is terminated: "War on women!!!", when a male fetus is terminated: "Protect our boys!", etc., etc.

There's one I pass that says abortion increases risk of breast cancer.

Yup.

[Griffin]

Fair enough.... I find that position very... odd.. but fair enough.

Welcome to the realm of most people's opinions of most of my opinions. ^_^

[Роберт]

So, presumably, you do have a problem with gender specific abortions if it doesn't balance out?

(Note: I don't think there should be any laws against gender specific abortions, but I do find the idea repugnant)

You find it repugnant? But you don't find it repugnant that people have an abortion if they just don't want any child?

It boils down to the fact that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body (besides put drugs into it.. or sell parts of it..). It's not really fair to look down upon some reasons for abortions but not others (unless you're making the argument that abortions should only be allowed in specific, regulated cases. But I don't think you are).

I think abortions should be legal for whatever reasons the woman wants. I reserve the right to consider your motives repugnant though.

Yeah, just because you think something should be legal doesn't mean that you have to like it.

I think lots of things are terrible but I don't want them to be illegal. For example, having a very unhealthy diet when already morbidly obese? Should be legal, but that doesn't mean I'm not repulsed when I see scantily clad people at the beach downing sodas and burgers or whatever.

[Triangle_Man]

1) Wouldn't half of abortions be performed on unborn girls because half of all unborn babies are going to be female? It feels weird to see a statement that is that obvious...

2) Why is Live Action engaging in this sort of thing in the first place (assuming that they really are pulling this kind of thing)? I'd assume that they'd be able to make a compelling enough argument without engaging in a borderline-underhanded sting operation, so to speak.

[sourmìlk]

There's one I pass that says abortion increases risk of breast cancer.

Yup.

I think I'm going to buy some [citation needed] stickers just in case I ever pass this billboard.

[buddy431]

There's one I pass that says abortion increases risk of breast cancer.

Yup.

I think I'm going to buy some [citation needed] stickers just in case I ever pass this billboard.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes/ere/workshop-report

Current research does not support abortion or miscarriage leading to higher rates of breast cancer later in life. However, breast development is is affected by reproductive hormones, so it's not inconceivable that pregnancy-related event could have an effect on breast cancer rates. In particular, women giving birth at a younger age is linked to a reduction in risk of developing breast cancer later in life. If you look at that funny, you might say that a young woman who gets pregnant but doesn't carry the baby to full term is increasing her risk of developing breast cancer later in life.

Edit: I'll link to the Wikipedia article as well, though won't vouch for its quality. Needless to say, the area of study is fraught with political overtones - I don't envy scientists in the field.

[sourmìlk]

Yeah, I think this quote (From wikipedia) pretty much ends the discussion:

The abortion–breast cancer hypothesis has been the subject of extensive scientific inquiry, and the scientific community has concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer. This consensus is supported by major medical bodies,[5] including the World Health Organization,[6] the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[7][8] the American Cancer Society,[9] the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,[10] and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.[11]

Emphasis mine.

[Iulus Cofield]

Abortion causing breast cancer. Yes, that is a clear and obvious link and any reasonable person would accept such an assertion and hold to it. Wait what, you mean it's not obviously untrue?

1) Wouldn't half of abortions be performed on unborn girls because half of all unborn babies are going to be female? It feels weird to see a statement that is that obvious...

2) Why is Live Action engaging in this sort of thing in the first place (assuming that they really are pulling this kind of thing)? I'd assume that they'd be able to make a compelling enough argument without engaging in a borderline-underhanded sting operation, so to speak.

Pretending for a moment the esteemed president was not simply being either blindingly ignorant or ineptly misleading, the natural sex ratio at birth is around 105 males to 100 females, for some undetermined reason. So it's is within the realm of all possible universes that she was indicating a small but significant number of abortions occur because female fetuses are considered grounds for an abortion. The "small but significant" part of that is undermined by her use of "roughly" as I think "roughly" would cover the slightly greater number of male fetuses aborted, assuming a non-statistically significant number of undesired gender abortions.

I'm gonna go with Carol Tobias is bad at misleading rhetoric. Really bad.

[addams]

But it makes us feel ickier!

But it makes us feel ickier!

Ickier, is learned. And; It has a genetic component.
The way other people organize their lives is the way other people organize their lives.
Spoilered for wandering Off Topic.

Spoiler:

There are a ton of things that are private, because, of the ick factor.
Defecation. Some people like to watch. Some people like to be watched. For some of us. We will talk about it, reluctantly, with a professional.

Sex. Some people want to know what their parents are doing. Others don't.

Long term family decisions=Personal.

I am not affiliated with a group that is attempting to out breed an other group. So; How other people find happiness is none of my business, unless, I am working with them. Then it is still THEIR decision. They have to live with it. I don't.

The argument can be made that we all live with the reproductive choices of other people. When, we run out of women call me.

I don't see a shortage. Do you?

Good Women and Good Men? Well; ya' can't bread for it, can ya'?
It would be a bad idea to try. Right?
(That is a long term experiment. Like Voyager.)

Of course we have examples. The European Royals tried it. They did O.K.

There was that one 18 year old girl that lost her head.
Even after her death, Marie Antoinette is often considered to be a part of popular culture and a major historical figure,[4] being the subject of several books, films and other forms of media. Some academics and scholars have deemed her frivolous and superficial, and have attributed the start of the French Revolution to her; however, others have claimed that she was treated unjustly and that views of her ought be more sympathetic.

I don't like History. The poor kid. She did not start the French Revolution. The way I heard it. Benjamin Franklin started it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

"In September 1767, Franklin visited Paris with his usual traveling partner, Sir John Pringle. News of his electrical discoveries was widespread in France. His reputation meant that he was introduced to many influential scientists and politicians, and also to King Louis XV.[54]"

Who has the King's ear? Marie or Ole' Benny Boy?

Her: 2 November 1755 – 16 October 1793)

Him: January 6, 1705[1]] – April 17, 1790)

He died three years before she did? Huh? I wonder. Was he as charming as they say he was? If, he were alive, could he have saved her life? (Shrug.) We will never know. Why would be care? She was, just, one of many eighteen year old girls that died that year.

She died alone on a stage as entertainment for men.
eww. I guess that stuff is still going on.

Oh. What were you discussing in that, 'Oh so, off hand way'?

Her story! Oh! Excuse me. This is now! What are people doing now!

Most are doing, fine. Compared to the 1700's. The unwashed masses were 'Really' unwashed. I don't 'get' History. Herstory is an unfolding mystery.

Let people make choices for themselves. Come what may. The individual! But; For Fuck Sake! We are a social creatures. We create the world for one another.

I have seen men and women fight over the children. Both ways.

No. You take him!
No! You! Take him!

I will take the child.
No, you won't.
Yes, I will.

You can't; The Law says that you can not take my best friend away.
Fuck you. Fuck the Law.

People are mean. That is, just, over the child.
People will fight over the dog. Gee Willikers.

People that will fight over the dog need more dogs?

People!

(I fall into the subset of human. All people are human. I am a human; Therefore I am a people.)

[Shivahn]

But it makes us feel ickier!

Ickier, is learned.

Quite so! I was being rather sardonic there.

[addams]

But it makes us feel ickier!

Ickier, is learned.

Quite so! I was being rather sardonic there.

Oh. Dark Humor. oops. I don't 'get' it.

I do understand that 'ickier' is funny.
I like biology. Biology has some of the ickiest stuff.

Really. Icky.
Maggots are icky. Maggots are biology. See?

The question is: Are Maggots a sign of Intellegent Life?
If, we found them on the moon, then, we would get all excited.
In their natural environment? Here on earth. Ick. Right?

[induction]

All people are human. I am a human; Therefore I am a people.

undistributed middle

/pedantry

[addams]

All people are human. I am a human; Therefore I am a people.

undistributed middle

/pedantry

Really? I did that wrong?

Socrates is a man. Ummm. Ahhh. Damn.

It's a fallacy that is right. Like Truth Tables can be wrong. I think it is funny.

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal.

Yeah. Socrates may be an immortal. How can we tell?
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

Yep. I could use a refresher course on that stuff. It is called continuing ed.

What would be the point? I'll read the link. Maybe.

[Princess Marzipan]

All people are human
I am a human
I am people

Is fallacious.

If you switch some words, you get
All people are human
I am people
I am a human

Or you could do
All humans are people
I am a human
I am people

Your version identifies "people" as human and you yourself as human - those two facts combined don't logically prove that you are people, merely that you and people share the quality of being human.


But mostly, induction up there is being a pedant.

[Arrian]

Your version identifies "people" as human and you yourself as human - those two facts combined don't logically prove that you are people, merely that you and people share the quality of being human.


But mostly, induction up there is being a pedant.

Perhaps a clearer example:

Saying "all people are human" is the same type of assertion as saying "all the cheerleaders for the St. Marys Roughriders are blonde." Following that up by saying "I am human therefore I am people" is equivalent to saying "I am blonde therefore I am a St. Marys Roughriders cheerleader."

The fallacy might be more obvious in the latter example since it's conceivable to hold the axiom that "all people are human and all humans are people" without expressing (or even thinking about)it, or thinking that the part following the and is universally understood.

[Dark567]

So, presumably, you do have a problem with gender specific abortions if it doesn't balance out?

(Note: I don't think there should be any laws against gender specific abortions, but I do find the idea repugnant)

I am fairly certain it doesn't balance out. Its hard to get exact number in the US but at least in the world as a whole, female fetuses are more likely to be aborted then men and its thought to be the same in the US. This exherbates the already natural gender skew of a larger number of male births(contrary to popular belief its not 50/50). http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ction.html

[jseah]

The fallacy might be more obvious in the latter example since it's conceivable to hold the axiom that "all people are human and all humans are people" without expressing (or even thinking about)it, or thinking that the part following the and is universally understood.

Perhaps a modification:

You are people IFF you are human.

=P

Although one might be accused for being xenophobic if we discover we aren't alone.

[Dark567]

if we discover we aren't alone.

We already know we aren't. And I am not talking about extraterrestrials.

[addams]

if we discover we aren't alone.

We already know we aren't. And I am not talking about extraterrestrials.

O.K. We are not alone. Fine. Who else is here? Do you see them, now?

Extraterrestrials? I don't see why we can't have Extraterrestrials. How would we treat them? What would they think of us? What do we think of us?

Oh. Right. That is what this thread is about. What do we think of us?

I don't know where I am. I don't know when it is. That is true. It is dark. It is pretty outside. The sky is very black. There are many stars.

Humans do not get along with one another very well, sometimes.

What is up with people that are that Right Wing/Right to Life bunch?
It has got to be something simple. I know it is.

I know this, because, I have seen people deal with life and with death. Not very well, sometimes.

That is Judgmental on my part. There is a difference between being judgmental and having good judgment.

What is the difference? It is judgment when it is a choice of mine about me.
It is judgmental when it is a choice about me that is made by someone else without my permission.

We are chatting about the people of the US. Right?

The land of freedom? Difficult business, Freedom.

I know that the only times that I was truly free was when I was loved. I was not loved much, but, it was enough. The only time that happened was when I was an a productive academic and when I was using my skills.

Now; Back to Dead Babies. Nah. I know too much about the subject.

What do you know about the subject? How do you know that?