The Overdue Entry
About a month ago, I promised an entry describing my experiences and frustrations at the abortion debate co-sponsored by Rice for Life and the Rice ACLU. This is finally that entry. Enjoy!
The two debaters represented a national pro-choice women's organization and the Texas right to life movement. The right-to-lifer was wearing a rather revealing business suit -- the skirt was pretty short, at least. She was also kind of attractive, which caused a lot of short-circuiting of neurons in my brain: she looked good but pure crap was spouted forth from her mouth! The Rice for Life army came out in droves for the debate, all donning their obnoxious green shirts with the words: "Smile. Your Mom chose life." A liberal friend of mine quipped, "Smile. Your Mom chose life. This time." I definitely prefer the latter t-shirt spoof!
All members of the audience were provided with an exit-survey of sorts to complete during the debate. I took copious notes on mine, and I will share my thoughts with you now.
The pro-lifer opened by saying she was going to quote from a Planned Parenthood study entitled Why Women Abort. This way, "no one will question the accuracy of my words." She went on to present a quotation from the author of the study -- a quotation which had nothing to do with the contents of the aforementioned report. It would have been the equivalent of quoting me on something sports related after introducing me as the author of a report on slime mold DNA mutations. Pure insanity!
While the pro-choice debater was not a very skilled orator, this pro-life devil was very devious and manipulative. She catered to emotions and opinions while blatantly misrepresenting facts and spewing forth classic Bush administration vomit. For example, I had just learned a few days previously in medical school that the accepted medical definition of the beginning of a pregnancy is the implantation of the blastocyst in the mother's uterus. This occurs when the fetus is at least 16 cells in number and usually 4-6 days after fertilization. If you'll recall the lengthy article I posted a while ago about the FDA and Plan B over-the-counter emergency contraceptive, the beauty of Plan B is that it prevents implantation. It is powerless to terminate a pregnancy if implantation has already occurred. Thus, it will never cause an aborption and works entirely before implantation (and thus pregnancy) even occurs. I had hoped this medicine would be the perfect reconciliation between the Choice and Life movements: unwanted pregnancies could be prevented by taking this pill early enough, while abortion would be completely avoided. I asked a question along these lines to the pro-life lady. Her reply was scary:
She told the crowd that the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology devised its current defintion of pregnancy in the 1970s, just as the abortion debate was heating up. They had the foresite to know that the technology for performing abortion would soon take off, so they pre-emptively and deceptively devised this definition of pregnancy to allow for copious future abortions without alarming society. Besides, she informed me that Lifers would rather "err on the side of life" (* I'll vomit if I hear this phrase one more time). Thus, she considers fertilization to be the beginning of life and deserving of protection from that point forward (i.e. no Plan B).
After the debate, when the exit surveys were collected, a volunteer was flipping through the responses and saw that under the section entitled "What did you learn from the debate tonight?", a student had written "I learned that medical students have no idea about the history of the definition of pregnancy." I thought that was hilarious -- some people are just incurably brain-washed!
A highlight of the debate was when the Lifer started bitching at the Choicer's organization for lobbying the Texas legislature against the passage of a bill that would provide $5 million for a program to care for babies of unprepared moms as an alternative to abortion. I thought I heard incorrectly, but I was not mistaken. The Lifer was suggesting that a fund of $5 million was sufficient to pay the bills of the 80,000 babies per year that are aborted in Texas. President Bush spends more money on his annual holiday cards. $5 million?!? In government, that is chump change. This lady was completely clueless about the economics of the situation! I found this website a few minutes ago: http://www.babycenter.com/costofchild/
It allows you to calculate the cost of a child, based on birth year, geographical location, income, college expectations, etc. For a baby born in 2005 in a city or suburb in the South to a single-parent household with annual income below $38,000, it will cost $381,316 to raise this child until age 18 and put him/her through 4 years of public college. Four years of private college ups this bill to $585,456. Even with no college, this child still costs $204,516. Of course, the Lifers should logically desire a reasonable education for all the potential abortions that their $5 million fund will save. Thus, their meager allocation of funds can sustain -- can you believe this -- a mere 13.1 children in Texas (birth through 4 years of public college). Last time I checked, 13 was nowhere close to 80,000. Considering that 73% of abortions are driven by inability to afford a child, I think the arrogant Lifers are going to have to reach a bit deeper into their self-righteous pockets if they are serious about actually helping moms raise the children they are forced to keep!
A final hurrah came just as the debate was ending. The Lifer accused Planned Parenthood of running a profitable business through the provision of abortions. In fact, to quote this lady verbatim, "Planned Parenthood makes a $9 million profit each year providing abortions, which is billions of dollars since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 legalized abortion." An astute member of the audience objected that Planned Parenthood uses this money to provide a plethora of free or subsidized services: well-woman exams, contraceptive products, educational materials, etc. Details aside, let's focus on the woman's words and apply some simple math again. There are 32 years between 1973 and 2005. At $9 million per year, I'm getting $288 million, not billions. Come on, lady. You're at Rice University. Students are going to call you on blatant shit like that!
It's been awesome writing this entry -- I hope you had fun reading it. As a finishing flourish, I'll post my answers to the exit survey.
What argument was most influential in the debate tonight?
Doctors and scientists should not be undermined! Where are the pro-lifers in the debate over reducing abortions through contraceptive education?
What statement was most influential in the debate tonight?
The shameless and incorrect use of mathematics and economics by the pro-life cursader. Going back to Margaret Sanger in the 1930s?!? I thought the pro-lifer was all about telling us that modern times are full of changes. If 1973 is extraordinarily different from 2005, than the 1930s can't even compare with today. SHAMELESS!!
(Editor's note: Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood, and was a proponent of the eugenics movement. Interestingly, eugenics was the hot topic of the progressive movement in the 1930s and has since been repudiated and scorned by Planned Parenthood, as explicitly described on the Planned Parenthood website. The pro-life debater brought up the eugenics history of Planned Parenthood after opening her evening by telling us that society has radically changed since 1973, when Roe was decided.)
What did you learn from the debate tonight?
Arrogance and ignorance are the tools of the right. Of wait... I already knew that.
The two debaters represented a national pro-choice women's organization and the Texas right to life movement. The right-to-lifer was wearing a rather revealing business suit -- the skirt was pretty short, at least. She was also kind of attractive, which caused a lot of short-circuiting of neurons in my brain: she looked good but pure crap was spouted forth from her mouth! The Rice for Life army came out in droves for the debate, all donning their obnoxious green shirts with the words: "Smile. Your Mom chose life." A liberal friend of mine quipped, "Smile. Your Mom chose life. This time." I definitely prefer the latter t-shirt spoof!
All members of the audience were provided with an exit-survey of sorts to complete during the debate. I took copious notes on mine, and I will share my thoughts with you now.
The pro-lifer opened by saying she was going to quote from a Planned Parenthood study entitled Why Women Abort. This way, "no one will question the accuracy of my words." She went on to present a quotation from the author of the study -- a quotation which had nothing to do with the contents of the aforementioned report. It would have been the equivalent of quoting me on something sports related after introducing me as the author of a report on slime mold DNA mutations. Pure insanity!
While the pro-choice debater was not a very skilled orator, this pro-life devil was very devious and manipulative. She catered to emotions and opinions while blatantly misrepresenting facts and spewing forth classic Bush administration vomit. For example, I had just learned a few days previously in medical school that the accepted medical definition of the beginning of a pregnancy is the implantation of the blastocyst in the mother's uterus. This occurs when the fetus is at least 16 cells in number and usually 4-6 days after fertilization. If you'll recall the lengthy article I posted a while ago about the FDA and Plan B over-the-counter emergency contraceptive, the beauty of Plan B is that it prevents implantation. It is powerless to terminate a pregnancy if implantation has already occurred. Thus, it will never cause an aborption and works entirely before implantation (and thus pregnancy) even occurs. I had hoped this medicine would be the perfect reconciliation between the Choice and Life movements: unwanted pregnancies could be prevented by taking this pill early enough, while abortion would be completely avoided. I asked a question along these lines to the pro-life lady. Her reply was scary:
She told the crowd that the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology devised its current defintion of pregnancy in the 1970s, just as the abortion debate was heating up. They had the foresite to know that the technology for performing abortion would soon take off, so they pre-emptively and deceptively devised this definition of pregnancy to allow for copious future abortions without alarming society. Besides, she informed me that Lifers would rather "err on the side of life" (* I'll vomit if I hear this phrase one more time). Thus, she considers fertilization to be the beginning of life and deserving of protection from that point forward (i.e. no Plan B).
After the debate, when the exit surveys were collected, a volunteer was flipping through the responses and saw that under the section entitled "What did you learn from the debate tonight?", a student had written "I learned that medical students have no idea about the history of the definition of pregnancy." I thought that was hilarious -- some people are just incurably brain-washed!
A highlight of the debate was when the Lifer started bitching at the Choicer's organization for lobbying the Texas legislature against the passage of a bill that would provide $5 million for a program to care for babies of unprepared moms as an alternative to abortion. I thought I heard incorrectly, but I was not mistaken. The Lifer was suggesting that a fund of $5 million was sufficient to pay the bills of the 80,000 babies per year that are aborted in Texas. President Bush spends more money on his annual holiday cards. $5 million?!? In government, that is chump change. This lady was completely clueless about the economics of the situation! I found this website a few minutes ago: http://www.babycenter.com/costofchild/
It allows you to calculate the cost of a child, based on birth year, geographical location, income, college expectations, etc. For a baby born in 2005 in a city or suburb in the South to a single-parent household with annual income below $38,000, it will cost $381,316 to raise this child until age 18 and put him/her through 4 years of public college. Four years of private college ups this bill to $585,456. Even with no college, this child still costs $204,516. Of course, the Lifers should logically desire a reasonable education for all the potential abortions that their $5 million fund will save. Thus, their meager allocation of funds can sustain -- can you believe this -- a mere 13.1 children in Texas (birth through 4 years of public college). Last time I checked, 13 was nowhere close to 80,000. Considering that 73% of abortions are driven by inability to afford a child, I think the arrogant Lifers are going to have to reach a bit deeper into their self-righteous pockets if they are serious about actually helping moms raise the children they are forced to keep!
A final hurrah came just as the debate was ending. The Lifer accused Planned Parenthood of running a profitable business through the provision of abortions. In fact, to quote this lady verbatim, "Planned Parenthood makes a $9 million profit each year providing abortions, which is billions of dollars since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 legalized abortion." An astute member of the audience objected that Planned Parenthood uses this money to provide a plethora of free or subsidized services: well-woman exams, contraceptive products, educational materials, etc. Details aside, let's focus on the woman's words and apply some simple math again. There are 32 years between 1973 and 2005. At $9 million per year, I'm getting $288 million, not billions. Come on, lady. You're at Rice University. Students are going to call you on blatant shit like that!
It's been awesome writing this entry -- I hope you had fun reading it. As a finishing flourish, I'll post my answers to the exit survey.
What argument was most influential in the debate tonight?
Doctors and scientists should not be undermined! Where are the pro-lifers in the debate over reducing abortions through contraceptive education?
What statement was most influential in the debate tonight?
The shameless and incorrect use of mathematics and economics by the pro-life cursader. Going back to Margaret Sanger in the 1930s?!? I thought the pro-lifer was all about telling us that modern times are full of changes. If 1973 is extraordinarily different from 2005, than the 1930s can't even compare with today. SHAMELESS!!
(Editor's note: Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood, and was a proponent of the eugenics movement. Interestingly, eugenics was the hot topic of the progressive movement in the 1930s and has since been repudiated and scorned by Planned Parenthood, as explicitly described on the Planned Parenthood website. The pro-life debater brought up the eugenics history of Planned Parenthood after opening her evening by telling us that society has radically changed since 1973, when Roe was decided.)
What did you learn from the debate tonight?
Arrogance and ignorance are the tools of the right. Of wait... I already knew that.
posted by Yours Truly at 8:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home