Removing Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Removing Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood

Postby Sarvis » Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:41 pm

kiryan wrote:http://liveaction.org/press/undercover-student-video-shows-planned-parenthood-in-alabama-bending-the-rules-of-mandatory-reporting-for-sexual-abuse

This is the seventh Planned Parenthood clinic implicated in a multi-state child abuse scandal involving the deliberate and unlawful suppression of evidence of statutory rape.
...
She then tells Rose that the clinic manager, OB/GYN Dr. Desiree Bates, "sometimes does bend the rules a little bit" and states that "whatever you tell us stays within these walls" and "we can't disclose any information to anybody."

Alabama Code 26-14-3 requires health professionals to disclose suspected cases of sexual abuse to state officials immediately.
...
In the video, Tanisha also seems to tell Rose that a signature from an "older sister that's over the age of 18" or someone "with the same last name" could function as a substitute for parental consent so Planned Parenthood could perform an abortion on a minor. Alabama Code 26-21-3 specifies that the written permission of either a parent or legal guardian is necessary before a minor may obtain an abortion.
...
The new video is sixth in Live Action's "Mona Lisa Project," a nationwide undercover investigation that documents Planned Parenthood's repeated noncompliance with state mandatory reporting laws for sexual abuse of minors. Alabama is the fourth state to be implicated in the controversy, along with Arizona, Indiana, and Tennessee.
...
"When to 'bend the rules a little' means hiding a case of statutory rape from Child Protective Services and looking for ways around the parental consent requirement, Planned Parenthood becomes directly responsible for ensuring that statutory rapists can continue their abuse of young girls," Rose says.

^^^^ can you not understand that NOT reporting = directly contributing to statutory rape and further victimization.?



Can you not understand that reporting such cases ALSO = directly contributing to statutory rape and further victimization PLUS no medical treatment?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Removing Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood

Postby kiryan » Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:46 pm

I can see that its a potential outcome... and undoubtedly will be true in some cases.

However, I can't follow your logic.
Not reporting it = victimization + no disease.
Reporting it = people not coming in = victimization + disease... except when they come in and get real help and treatment.

Can you see my point.
Last edited by kiryan on Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Removing Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood

Postby Sarvis » Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:49 pm

kiryan wrote:I can see that its a potential outcome... and undoubtedly will be true in some cases.

Can you see my point.


Most, if not all cases.

Yes, I understand that it sucks to not report and try to stop the problem. It's just that it doesn't work that way. It's a shitty situation all around. I explained a method which could work to actually end the situation or at least reduce it's occurrence, but PP turning girls in only makes everything worse.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Removing Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:55 pm

By Sarvis' logic, no one should ever be reported of a crime ever.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Removing Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood

Postby kiryan » Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:22 pm

Thats my primary issue with Sarvis' point.

Sarvis

Lets assume there is a Girl A and Girl B both are under age prostitutes with pimps and STD

Girl A comes into the clinic. You treat Girl A for disease.

Now, what is acting in the best interests of Girl A? I hope you say reporting it since she now enters a system that hopefully will prosecute her pimp and help her with social services, treatment whatever. That I think is the best outcome for her.

Your argument is that by reporting Girl A, girl B will now have no reason to come in or will be specifically prevented from coming in by her pimp (slippery slope) which is a bad outcome.

Do you further accept that your argument is essentially, the ends justify the means. Girl A is being used to result in a "positive" outcome for Girl B.

Is this the correct outcome in your ethical code? The ends justify the means?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Removing Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood

Postby Sarvis » Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:37 pm

kiryan wrote:Thats my primary issue with Sarvis' point.

Sarvis

Lets assume there is a Girl A and Girl B both are under age prostitutes with pimps and STD

Girl A comes into the clinic. You treat Girl A for disease.

Now, what is acting in the best interests of Girl A? I hope you say reporting it since she now enters a system that hopefully will prosecute her pimp and help her with social services, treatment whatever. That I think is the best outcome for her.

Your argument is that by reporting Girl A, girl B will now have no reason to come in or will be specifically prevented from coming in by her pimp (slippery slope) which is a bad outcome.

Do you further accept that your argument is essentially, the ends justify the means. Girl A is being used to result in a "positive" outcome for Girl B.

Is this the correct outcome in your ethical code? The ends justify the means?



Hey Kiryan, remember that one time you were talking about rescuing someone and you claimed you wouldn't try to rescue one of your drowning kids if you might die?

Isn't this the same situation? You have a choice to help Child A while putting children B, C, D, ... Z, AA, BB, etc at much higher risk.

You specifically stated you wouldn't help the one child because of the cost to your other children.

Now you are specifically stating that is morally bad.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Removing Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood

Postby kiryan » Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:02 pm

Its not the same because both decisions impact me directly... In the situation I propose, you are a 3rd party and achieving a policy goal using Girl A as a means to an end for Girl B.

Furthermore, by diving in, I'm being used as a means to the end of the life of my child... moral codes almost always break down when you are asked to sacrifice your own life for the benefit of another.

Additionally, although it does appear to be using my drowning child as an end to the mean benefit for my other children, I am actually acting selfishly by doing what I want (protecting my family and my own life).

lastly, I'm reconsidering that standpoint now that I have life insurance. At this point, I would strongly consider diving in. So while I did say that, I guess its not absolute and depends on the situation.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Removing Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood

Postby Sarvis » Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:08 pm

kiryan wrote:Its not the same because both decisions impact me directly... In the situation I propose, you are a 3rd party and achieving a policy goal using Girl A as a means to an end for Girl B.


So what you're saying is that putting 1 person ahead of many people is bad, unless it impacts you directly.

Right. Think we may be done here. You want to hurt thousands of women to save one. That's not acceptable to me, no matter what pithy phrase you use to describe the morality of that decision.

There are ways to prevent prostitution and save these girls. Planned Parenthood is not that way. The politicians cutting their funding don't care about that either, or they would find a way that's actually effective. This bill is a means to an end. Apparently when the End is getting rid of abortion, it doesn't matter how many people are hurt along the way.

If they (or you) wanted to stop these girls from being prostituted, then do that. Do THAT. Don't mess with an organization which is attempting to do something else and blame them for not stopping prostitution. That is not their goal or intent, and it is not something they are capable of doing.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Removing Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood

Postby kiryan » Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:15 pm

What I'm saying is government (and through its funding) does not have the right to sacrifice one girl's interests for the indirect and intangible benefit of another.

The US government funded research that lied to poor black men who had syphilis pretending to treat them when really all they were doing was observing the full progression of untreated syphillis presumably for some sort of science or health public good. This went on for like 2 decades I believe. They had untreated syphilis for 2 decades... even several years after a cure/treatment was developed.

You can't use people as a means to an end... maybe you can under the utmost extreme circumstances, which prostitution certainly isn't.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Removing Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood

Postby Ragorn » Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:24 pm

kiryan wrote:What I'm saying is government (and through its funding) does not have the right to sacrifice one girl's interests for the indirect and intangible benefit of another.

You can't use people as a means to an end...

What about conscription?
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Removing Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood

Postby kiryan » Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:38 pm

I don't agree with conscription. I would vote against conscription, I would protest conscription.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Removing Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm

Conscription is wrong, but so is letting Nazis have London. I wouldn't have time to protest what I considered a justified conscription because I would have already volunteered.
Last edited by Teflor Lyorian on Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Removing Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood

Postby Sarvis » Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:45 pm

kiryan wrote:What I'm saying is government (and through its funding) does not have the right to sacrifice one girl's interests for the indirect and intangible benefit of another.


So you agree that you shouldn't create a situation which prevents many girls from getting medical care by benefiting another?
[/quote]

The US government funded research that lied to poor black men who had syphilis pretending to treat them when really all they were doing was observing the full progression of untreated syphillis presumably for some sort of science or health public good. This went on for like 2 decades I believe. They had untreated syphilis for 2 decades... even several years after a cure/treatment was developed.


So you think it's bad to let people have syphilis, but want to create a situation in which a lot more women might contract, keep and spread the disease?

You can't use people as a means to an end... maybe you can under the utmost extreme circumstances, which prostitution certainly isn't.


Exactly, Kiryan. YOU are using them as a means to an end, that end being stopping prostitution. We are helping the people who are prostitutes. There is no end there, unfortunately, just comfort and succor. It's the best PP can do.

Get it? By arresting that one prostitute, getting to her pimp (extreme maybe) and arresting them both what you really do is doom thousands of other women. Means to an end indeed.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Removing Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood

Postby kiryan » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:09 pm

I don't believe in using one person as a means to the end of another.

Your situation is a slippery slope argument. What we actually have is a girl in front of a person at PP and a decision on what you should do. What you should do is help the girl. You can't be responsible for what someone else might or might not do.

No, I think its bad to do medical research on human beings without their knowledge and specifically to inflict serious harm by not treating their syphilis in the interests of the public good / science. These men were used as an ends to a mean. they were sacrificed for the greater good.

No Sarvis, I'm not using the other prostitutes who aren't going to get help as a means to an end for the one girl. And by choosing to help the one girl, we are not "dooming" thousands of other women. With extremely rare exception, they have the literal ability to get up and get help. They are dooming themselves. Many won't because of emotional abuse / fear / drugs etc, but unless they are shackled to a bed, they can get out.

As long as you continue to make it easy, no one has to make hard decisions or take any responsibility.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Removing Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood

Postby Sarvis » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:35 pm

kiryan wrote:I don't believe in using one person as a means to the end of another.


Bullshit Kiryan. The whole "means to an end" thing is bullshit. Either way it's a means to an end. You want PP to report possible prostitutes, with a side effect of cutting off medical care to other prostitutes (means) in order to curtail prostitution (an end.)

The only problem is, your end won't happen.

Your situation is a slippery slope argument.


You're a fan of those, aren't you? Practically every belief you have is based on slippery slope. However, this is a little more documented and can easily be shown. But just think about it Kiryan, if taking your car to the mechanic meant there was a chance you'd get arrested how often would you do it?

No Sarvis, I'm not using the other prostitutes who aren't going to get help as a means to an end for the one girl.


Yes, you are. Denial doesn't change the facts.

And by choosing to help the one girl, we are not "dooming" thousands of other women. With extremely rare exception, they have the literal ability to get up and get help. They are dooming themselves. Many won't because of emotional abuse / fear / drugs etc, but unless they are shackled to a bed, they can get out.

As long as you continue to make it easy, no one has to make hard decisions or take any responsibility.


The hard decision isn't dealing with the STD, it's dealing with the drug addiction. Dealing with the psychological issues that got and are keeping them there. Having an STD isn't going to change that.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Removing Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood

Postby kiryan » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:18 pm

I'm a hippocrite remember? I can argue slippery slope then argue you're using slippery slope. Are you also a hippocrite, or are you going to admit your argument is invalid as a slippery slope argument? or have you had a change of heart on slippery slope arguments?

Sarvis. One behavior is illegal. I want organizations that accept and give away public money for social services to help people... especially one that claims a focus on helping and protecting women. Since I recently worked in the mental health field let me explain what is going on there.

The mental health industry is trying to grow its entry points. Right now you can basically only get there through a couple of ways, through school and through the court system. However there are lots of other situations where people come into contact with government agencies where they could benefit from behavioral health services. If you are at the foodstamp office and the clerk thinks you might have a behavioral health issue, should they say nothing? or when you apply for housing aid? or are involved in parenting classes? The idea is to find these people whereever they contact the system and get them the help they need... not treating just the symptom, but treat the whole person to make them well. Its also a reason why behavioral health centers tie into vocational centers. It doesn't help to just treat someone for behavior issues then turn them out on the streets with no skills.

Now, do you think we should just ignore signs of behavorial health issues in the food stamp line? or the obvious dysfunctional family at a domestic disturbance call?

IF we are going to give free help to people, we should actually help them. Its extremely expensive to just treat what they want you to treat. I've seen it in the behavioral health industry. You treat X because Y pays for it, you ignore Z which is the cause of X because no one will pay for it. You turn them back out on the street, and 1 year later you're treating them for X again with Y paying for it again.

--

and finally, you claim the real problem is drugs. I can go with that. how many drug addicts do you suppose kick the habit on their own? Change Girl A to coming in with obvious needle tracks and complains about being addicted to drugs. Do we address the root problem or just give her std treatment? Do we try and help her now that she has contacted the free public health system or do we just treat the specific symptom she wants treated each time she comes back in.

Do you keep treating them over and over, or do you address the root problem for their std's?
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Removing Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood

Postby kiryan » Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:19 pm

Opinion piece explaining how public opinion changed... and I liked the quoted paragraph as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/ ... hard-fall/

So when Live Action comes along with 22-year-old Lila Rose and her undercover investigations exposing Planned Parenthood staff who willingly counsel self-identified sex traffickers, no one is really ready to leap to their defense. Abortion alone makes most people uncomfortable, but abortion with no questions asked, no matter who is willing to pay -- financed by taxpayer dollars?

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest