>The 98% statistic is the percentage of ectopic pregnancies that implant in the fallopian tube. The other 2% of these pregnancies end on their own, with no medical intervention necessary.

This is entirely non-responsive. I should rephrase my prior comment.

You said the only medically necessary abortion is to end an ectopic pregnancy. The reason you gave for allowing an abortion under such circumstances is that death is 98% likely if the pregnant woman carries to term.
I concluded from that statement that your position was as follows: if there is a 98% chance of fatal complications, a woman may obtain an abortion. if there is less than a 98% chance of fatal complications a woman may NOT obtain an abortion.

Your next comment is responsive, but also a particularly egregious instance of question-begging. You claim that there are no other medical situations that require an abortion to save a woman's life, because there are no other medical situations that REQUIRE an abortion to save a woman's life. I am asking you to define 'necessary' in a comprehensive fashion, not merely to type it out in CAPITAL LETTERS.
Yes there are situations you should consider (really? is your imagination *that* limited??) For example: a woman has a prior history of cervical cancer, and her doctor advises her that there is a substantial risk of her cancer recurring if she carries to term. Substantial risk is going to be hard to define with certainty, but let's say for the sake of this hypothetical that it is 30%. From where do you derive the moral authority to say that you get to decide what a woman must do in this case? Shouldn't this be a private medical decision left to the woman and her doctor?

YES morality is different for everyone! Now, tell me, since maybe I forgot - what exactly *was* the the moral argument for slavery? Having a hard time coming up with one? I figured you would. It's because even the ppl with the gall to defend slavery had no logically sound argument for their position. They basically just quoted from the Bible, admitted that it was a horrible thing but that God said it was OK in Chapter X, Verse Y so that pretty much ends the debate. In short, slavery was NOT a complicated issue, slaveowners knew it was abhorrently cruel, but alleviated their guilt by relying on the Bible.

Your last example is absurd. Of course individuals do not get to decide for themselves that it is morally right to kill you in your sleep. Really the point is so simple that I don't even want to belabor it: there is no moral consensus that abortion is wrong. There is a moral consensus that slavery is wrong. There is a moral consensus that stabbing farmchick while she sleeps is wrong. Etc.

Right but is it appropriate for the law to recognize a benefit for "the innocent children in the womb" despite the fact that the law has consistently noted a lack of moral consensus regarding the very question you beg (that fetuses are 'children' qua 'human beings')? I would say it would be appropriate if the moral consensus was (a) much more widely shared and (b) more coherent as to the balance it recognizes between the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother. Simply saying, "it's wrong" is going to paper over a wide range of differing moral beliefs and in many cases criminalize women's rational desire for health-maximizing medical treatment without any clear indication that it is the kind of behavior that society has an interest in restraining.

I admire your candor, but you have to take it one step further and acknowledge that these are complicated issues that counsel for individualized application of morality instead of the sweeping coercive arm of state prohibition.

right especially since in the post right above by jchofmann where there's an actual link to these "other places" -- they're mostly PP!!!!!

Umm you realize that most of the places on there are Planned Parenthood. Are you suggesting that Planned Parenthood is a "low cost and free alternative to PP"? Or are they perhaps the same thing....

>Explain why the PP workers at multiple locations showed a willingness to aid and abet criminal acts.

What is this "willingness" you speak of? How can we possibly judge the intent of these employees without knowing whether they were playing along to gain info, or were scared, or thought the whole thing was just a joke.

To be frank I don't know that you have the slightest idea what the actual legal definition of aiding and abetting is given your lack of analytical clarity in general.

> Then explain why providing their "services" seems so much more important to Planned Parenthood than does the welfare of those that they are supplying their "services" to.

God only knows what you meant when you wrote this "sentence."

>Finally, explain why we - the taxpayer - should be forced to continue paying to keep the Planned Parenthoodlums in business, when statistics clearly show that they have failed to prevent not only a rise in pregnancies, but also the spread of disease.

Because Congress passed a law to fund the provision of medical services by private entities, one of which is Planned Parenthood, and the provision of medical services being a noble goal there has been a consistent lack of taxpayer support for its repeal.

> Facts only, please. They put out plenty of lies and propaganda without needing you.

This is a truly remarkable quote coming from someone who's last name is "askew" and who boldly declares that PP "spreads disease" without providing a citation, survey, study or credible source whatsoever to back it up.

ummmmmmmmmmmm, so yeah good job Hugh. good job.

> Um have you actually visited Live action's website?

Have I -- good lord, do you mean liveaction.org the one whose blog section I am posting in *right now as we speak.*

>There is quite a bit of health information (real health information) about abortion, adoption, and pregnancy at different stages.

Could you provide that link for me please? In the interests of education.

>The public school system only teaches abstinence, still...There needs to be information about when one chooses to have sex.

Ummm, and when is that??

>I would hope tho that it would be taught in a way that sex is special and not to be done with every tom dick and harry.

Show me a public school teacher who says that "sex is *not* special and *is* to be done with every tom dick and harry" and i'll show you a fired public school teacher, tenure be damned.
If you think this is what anybody advocates then I don't even know...

> they thrive off of the abortion of abused women.

How is telling women what to do better than "thriving" off of them??? Seriously you give these moral judgments as though you speak for the whole world. I think it's anything but clear that telling a pregnant woman what she may and may not do with her fetus is always the best thing to do (although maybe sometimes it is.) Point is: get off your high horse and be respectful to difference of opinion.

Am I incorrect in summarizing your position as being that you would require a 98% likelihood (for all intents and purposes a *medical certainty*) that the mother would die from carrying to term before you "let them" have an abortion? If so, bravo for having the guts to draw a line but I have to say that if I was a woman with a 50/50 chance of developing serious complications because of an accidental pregnancy I know where I'd tell you and your Bible-thumping abortion police where to stick it when you told me what I'd "have to" do.

And for the record, triage is a horrible analogy. It's a form of rationing that assumes insufficient supply relative to demand. "Saving" a fetus against the will of the mother whose body it is occupying seems like a strange way to meet a demand for medical attention...

> Planned Parenthood needs to be defunded right now!

Haha, what's goin on buddy. Scared to speak?

Uhh I was being facetious. Also I call rat. Who on earth says something like "there needs to be education" then launches a dress-up sting against an org that provides educational services re: family planning to over 1 million Americans? Oh yea, this guy.
I'll also point out that you're *still* ignoring the elephant in the room, which abortions do you want to stop and which are OK? How can you ask people to sign on to your crusade without telling them who the enemy is?
Edit: who are the cowards on here who downvote everything I say immediately but NEVER respond? Good lord!