Why do you keep insisting that since I don't think I should pick up the tab, that I want to take away a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her body?
I didn't breed'em, I shouldn't have to pay through the nose in taxes to feed'em.
There needs to be legislation passed that requires a mother and father--married, or not--to split the cost of raising a child--whatever that amount is determined to be. No more making a parent pay child support based on his, or her reportable income, only. End the child tax credit. Cut welfare, so that a parent has no choice but to get his, or her dead ass and get a job.
Sorry, but it's time for some tough love.
O.K. So you do agree with a womans right to choose. Good for you. My question for you now is why do you want babies to starve to death?
1. Can I see the source for those numbers?
2. I would argue that Planned Parenthood's most prominent role is in the "providing sexual health services to poor women" industry - particularly considering that "75 percent [of PP clients] have incomes below 150 percent of the poverty line".
Didn't say that.
People seeing it as a senseless slaughter is an appeal to emotion and irrelevant.
I am not asking you to solve society's problems. I am asking you to come up with a plan of how to deal with the MUCH larger number of unwanted children and children to those who are unadvantaged. Without the option for abortion, there will be far more of these than there are now. You want this. You come up with how to deal with it. This is the issue that pro-lifers always get stuck on... it causes you to have to think about this situation rationally rather than emotionally.
Irrelevant. Currently, it is legal.
If you have no plan and no solutions in order to deal with your proposal, then your proposal has no reason to be considered. You want to make an appeal to emotion argument, be my guest, but there is no substance to it. If YOU want abortion to stop, then it is up to YOU to develop plans for what happens next. I am fine with how things are. Right now, you folks are in the minority. You want to convince some of us? You'll have to do a whole lot better than you're doing.
This information is a diversion and did not address what Chappy said. Your reponse was dishonest. Chappy indicated a minor breakdown of the percentages of services provided by PP. 3% are abortions. YOU then discussed the percentage of services PP provides compared to those in the entire country. Completely different issue.
I understand the sentiment, but from my perspective, ending federal funding to their abortion services was enough. I don't see any practical or medical reason or benefit for PP to stop abortion services. When abortion is scientifically proven to be harmful, then I'll change my mind.
O.K. So you do agree with a womans right to choose. Good for you. My question for you now is why do you want babies to starve to death?
Planned Parenthood does that......if funding is cut, they'll probably have to cut those services.
Yes.
You were the one parsing definitions. You don't like this fact, so you are attempting to claim that I did. Doesn't work.
You've lost. Move on.
Lol kali talk about a loaded question...he has a really good point. Apdst doesn't want to have to pay out of his pocket for the mistakes of others, and that's not an unreasonable position. I don't know to what degree this is true, but some people think that if you end all these benefits people will think twice before making irresponsible decisions.
Which babies are starving to death? I understand babies are being removed from the mother's womb but have they now designed a new method of getting rid of them?
Well we can look at our penal system as proof that tough love does not work in reguards to a lot of things so that is crap. So back to the issue: what is gonna happen to all these babies and kids? We/tax payers will be the ones supporting them that is what. For 18 years. READ: 18 YEARS. As I said-would rather my tax dollars go towards not bringing unwanted kids into this world over having to pay for them for 18 years. 18 YEARS!
Are you being serious? If we cut WIC and other social programs to help feed these babies do you not think they will STARVE? Instead of asking me questions like this how about ingesting in what I am trying to put down before asking some random question.
It's not one source so I am not terribly interested in tracking down all of them for you. Suffice to say tens of millions of women get each of these tests done every year and Planned Parenthood only provides each to about 1 million people a year. Purchases of contraceptives are also in the tens of millions. As far as abortion here is a figure for you:
Planned Parenthood Reports Abortion Rate Up By More Than 8,000 in One Year | CNSnews.com
Because poor women don't have some sort of government program to cover their expenses at another facility. The fact there are far more poor people who seem to get these elsewhere without difficulty suggests it is yet another non-issue.
You should have.
Because nothing you have said is in any way an appeal to emotion.
You are just saying that we might have rising cases of child abuse, rampant financial distress, and a massive health crisis were we to stop people from getting abortion. :roll:
Actually, what I said is just how I see it. I don't see why I should be PC about an ongoing massacre of innocent children.
Honestly, I do consider it rationally, but I don't ****ing give a damn about your nonsensical notion that people need to lay out a plan to fix our child-care system in order to say we need to stop people from killing babies.
Like I said, you believe it is legal, while I believe it is very much not legal. The difference is you are a statist who thinks whatever the State says is all that matters, while I think rights are something that exist independent of the State and not subject to removal by any authority. In this case my position is reinforced by the fact we have a Constitution that is the highest authority in the country with no body or law superseding it not even the Supreme Court.
Sorry, but that is not how it works. You do not condition a cease fire in a war by saying there needs to be a peace treaty already drawn up to deal with everyone's grievances. An end to killing happens first, then you try to figure out how to work out what happens next. It is the same here. Ending this allowance of abortion-on-demand must come before you start talking about how to deal with the child-care system.
It is not a diversion or dishonest. The implication is that defunding Planned Parenthood will suddenly create a huge problem in acquiring these non-abortion services and I was pointing out that it would do nothing of the sort. People will still be able to get their condoms and their pills. No one is going to suddenly not be able to get a cancer screening. All it would seriously reduce is the availability of abortion. As for dishonesty, Chappy was in fact being dishonest as are you by providing that figure. That figure represents the number of clients meaning the number of people who received abortions as opposed to the number that received cancer screenings or condoms. Using those figures to argue against defunding is dishonest. It doesn't fairly reflect that 15% of its revenue comes from abortion or that a third of its facilities provide abortions with more than a fifth providing surgical abortions.
O.K. So you do agree with a womans right to choose. Good for you. My question for you now is why do you want babies to starve to death?
And none of this has anything to do with what was being discussed. Your attempt at diverting has been stopped.
You wanted me to. Of course, since that's not my position, I didn't. I know you like to argue positions that other do not acutally have, but try to stick to the position being presented.
Really? Post-quote where I said those things.
More unwanted children means more possible abuse... or more need for social services... or more individuals with monetary issues... or more issues with health care, etc..
Right... as I said, nothing more than an appeal to emotion. Point is irrelevant.
If you considered it rationally, you might consider the repurcussions of the decision to end abortion. And yes, since you want it ended, it is up to you to define how it is then dealt with. I have no vested interest in doing so... I'm happy the way things are. But tell us DoL... what do YOU think would happen if abortion was suddenly ended?
Your "belief" is trumped by the reality of legality. Nothing you can do to alter that, currently. Oh, and if you are talking about "natural rights", "natural irghts" don't exist.
Your analogy is faulty since there is death going on with both sides of a war. And I get to demand anything I want. You can refuse, but this is a negotiation. If you want abortion on demand ended, and you want my support, you tell me what your plan is to manage the added children into the child care system. That is the sticking point to many of us who could be on the fence of this issue. See, I have no problem, morally, with abortion. I do have a problem, morally, with a childcare and educational system, already taxed, receiving an influx of new numbers, many of which will be unwanted. You have a plan, and I will consider it. I'm not changing my mind... nor are most people without a reason and ideas to deal with the new situation. This is the problem with most pro-lifers. You care about the unborn, but stop caring once they are born. You want this? Your responsibility to define it.
No, your dishonesty is fairly apparent. You fail to understand that much of that funding assists lower income folks, who, without that funding, might be unable to obtain ANY services. That is why your diversion was irrelevant... and nothing but a diversion.
Further, the numbers Chappy and I provided are accurate. Plenty of sources show that. So, no. The dishonesty is all yours.
In 2009, we provided nearly 11.4 million medical services for
three million people
Abortion Services — 3 percent of services in 2009
Abortion Procedures 332,278
For the 3 million patients our doctors and nurses saw, we provided contraception (36%), testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (31%), cancer screening and prevention (17%) and abortion services (3%). In all, we helped prevent roughtly 621,000 unintended pregnancies.
And none of this has anything to do with what was being discussed. Your attempt at diverting has been stopped.
You wanted me to. Of course, since that's not my position, I didn't. I know you like to argue positions that other do not acutally have, but try to stick to the position being presented.
Correct. YOU made the appeal to emotion.
Really? Post-quote where I said those things.
Right... as I said, nothing more than an appeal to emotion. Point is irrelevant.
If you considered it rationally, you might consider the repurcussions of the decision to end abortion. And yes, since you want it ended, it is up to you to define how it is then dealt with. I have no vested interest in doing so... I'm happy the way things are. But tell us DoL... what do YOU think would happen if abortion was suddenly ended?
Your "belief" is trumped by the reality of legality. Nothing you can do to alter that, currently. Oh, and if you are talking about "natural rights", "natural irghts" don't exist.
Your analogy is faulty since there is death going on with both sides of a war. And I get to demand anything I want. You can refuse, but this is a negotiation. If you want abortion on demand ended, and you want my support, you tell me what your plan is to manage the added children into the child care system. That is the sticking point to many of us who could be on the fence of this issue. See, I have no problem, morally, with abortion. I do have a problem, morally, with a childcare and educational system, already taxed, receiving an influx of new numbers, many of which will be unwanted. You have a plan, and I will consider it. I'm not changing my mind... nor are most people without a reason and ideas to deal with the new situation. This is the problem with most pro-lifers. You care about the unborn, but stop caring once they are born. You want this? Your responsibility to define it.
No, your dishonesty is fairly apparent. You fail to understand that much of that funding assists lower income folks, who, without that funding, might be unable to obtain ANY services. That is why your diversion was irrelevant... and nothing but a diversion.
Further, the numbers Chappy and I provided are accurate. Plenty of sources show that. So, no. The dishonesty is all yours.
Here's an article from LifeNews which outlines the figures as indicated in Demon of Light's post above. But even those figures are misleading.
From Planned Parenthood's 2008-2009 Annual Report, it listed relatively the same percentiles of services rendered for that reporting period as those listed in the briefing sheet "summary report" Demon links to above.
From the 2008-2009 report:
If you do the math, the figures listed above represent only 87% of the total services Planned Parenthood performed. But if you look at the 2009 summary report Demon linked to, specifically on page, you'll find the complete list of services rendered by Planned Parenthood by the numbers (summarized):
Contraception - 4,009,549 (35%)
STI/STD Testing/Treatment - 3,955,9163 (35%)
Cancer Screening/Prevention - 1,830,811 (16%)
Other Women's Health Services - 1,178,369 (10%)
Abortion Services - 332,278 (3%)
Other Services - 76,977 (1%)
Total Services: 11,383,900
Notice not only is the percentiles alittle off for contraception (+1%), but are also off for STI/STD testing (-4%). Moreover, "Other Women's Health Services" and "Other Services" aren't even listed among the figures mentioned in the summary statement from the annual report nor are they mentioned in the LifeNews article, but they are mentioned in the summary report which clearly provides the more accurate picture of Planned Parenthood's activies for 2008-2009. Therefore, in the grand scheme of things 332,278 abortions is a relatively low number for the 11,051,622 other services Planned Parenthood performed.
Just trying to keep things honest and in their proper perspective.
First and second term fetuses are not viable and therefore not alive. You can't 'kill' something that is not alive.
Your hyper-partisan Christian talking points speak is a major fail.
There is nothing partisan or christian about protecting children. If you want to put the democrats on the side of killing childern, then think aobut the political loss that would lead to?
It's because our penal system isn't tough enough. Our justice system allows too many career criminals live and not enough of them are put to death.
I don't think "killing children" is on the democratic platform.
Raise taxes, provide universal healthcare, kill children. Yep that sounds about right.
So it's your contentiopn if babies aren't aborted they will starve?
You don't know that there are people waiting to adopt babies? You don't believe people would feed starving babies, or children.
Don't judge other people by your own behavior, Kali. They are much kinder than yourself and the company you must keep.
More so than what you want to believe.
Show me irrefutable scientific proof that a fetus is a conscious human being and you'll have a point. Until then, that claim sounds and is ridiculous.