-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservatives’ Sway
- Thread starter Chappy
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 13,333
- Reaction score
- 1,835
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
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?
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 25,763
- Reaction score
- 21,419
- Location
- Fort Drum, New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
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.
- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 5,095
- Reaction score
- 1,544
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
As their are a significant number of people who are against abortion and certainly don't want to fund it, perhaps those who chose to voluntarily support the abortionists can do so. Your perspective, while worthwhile, is of little value to those who feel strongly in the other direction. In fact, if i recall, that includes the majority of Americans.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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?
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I meant state mandated sterilization.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 10,320
- Reaction score
- 2,116
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
You were the one parsing definitions. I used a perfectly acceptable use of the word 'murder' and you tried to claim it was invalid -- yet I provided a link that proved you to be incorrect...
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 13,333
- Reaction score
- 1,835
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
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!
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 13,333
- Reaction score
- 1,835
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
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.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
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.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 10,320
- Reaction score
- 2,116
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Speaking of appealing to emotion...
- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 5,095
- Reaction score
- 1,544
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It has everything to do with it. People are arguing against defunding by pointing out other services Planned Parenthood offers and I am pointing out that their services in this regard are very, very small in comparison to their role in abortion services.
I was just saying you should have because then you would be correct. Apparently you don't have an interest in being correct.
Here you go:
You apparently think that if you did not use the exact same words that you can get out of what you actually have said. Not gonna work.
It is not an appeal to emotion anymore than it is to call a mass-murder of people due to their race genocide.
I have considered the "repercussions" but you see the difference is that, unlike you, I think protecting millions of innocent lives is worth dealing with any repercussions. Nowhere did I say I do not have an idea of how to deal with problems, but my point is these problems already exist and so the only real change would be an increase in cases. What you really want me to do is come up with a solution to all the existing problems before I can suggest stopping abortions. If you have a situation where hundreds of thousands of babies are being killed a year, you don't ask how to deal with the consequences of stopping before you decide it needs to be stopped. Basic human compassion would demand that you stop it as soon as possible even if you do not have a way to deal with resulting problems that are, all in all, less severe than hundreds of thousands of babies being killed a year.
Like I said, my position here is backed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not the law. The Constitution is the law.
Nowhere have I said in any way that I do not have a plan. I just think the demand for a plan for after it is stopped is absurd. Like I said, you don't wait to come up with a plan for the aftermath when you are dealing with the massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocent children. Not everyone is going to have a plan and your claim that without such a plan the demand is illegitimate is just complete nonsense.
I understand that people with lower income are not unable to obtain these services because even among the poor Planned Parenthood does not make major contributions. For instance, 30% of the patients are on Medicaid so the only difficulty they would run into is finding another medical facility in the area. Of clinics funded by Title X Planned Parenthood makes for a whopping 14%. In other words 86% of clinics that provide these services to the poor, without including clinics that do not receive Title X money but accept Medicaid enrollees, would still be operating even if Planned Parenthood were to shut down.
Here is some of that information for you:
Abortion Foes Target Family Planning Program : NPR
You can say something that has truth to it and still be dishonest. In this case that is exactly what you and Chappy are doing. In fact, I just saw something indicating how dishonest these figures are:
Source: Planned Parenthood
In other words it was actually about 11% of their clients that received abortions in 2009. Huh, that makes it seem like abortion is a lot more significant for Planned Parenthood than some are trying to lead people to believe. When you look at the information it is pretty interesting since cancer screenings are given to about 30% of clients, which corresponds to the number on Medicaid. So quite probably most, if not all, people given those screenings will be able to get the same services at another clinic.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 13,008
- Reaction score
- 5,739
- Location
- Huntsville, AL (USA)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Demon is correct in that it has everything to do with it. The big question is: what services does planned parenthood offer that a patient can't get through medicare, medicaid, or Obamacare, aside from abortions?
IMO, we're getting taxed to pay for four different programs that all do the same thing and, that's bull****.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
How many state funded offer those same services? Goddamn! How much taxes do we really have to ****ting up to pay for these mother****ing deadbeats?
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2010
- Messages
- 7,676
- Reaction score
- 2,850
- Location
- Your Head
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
That's some fancy tap dancing there. How do you come up with viability = alve?
Do you deny that the baby grows from the size of a pinhead as an egg at the conception to 12"-14" and 1 to 2 lbs by the end of the second term?
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?
ThePlayDrive
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 7,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I don't think "killing children" is on the democratic platform.
Raise taxes, provide universal healthcare, kill children. Yep that sounds about right.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 13,333
- Reaction score
- 1,835
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
More so than what you want to believe.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 13,333
- Reaction score
- 1,835
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Please do not make this personal or I will not keep speaking with you. Also you know nothing about me so I suggest you not pop off at the damn mouth about stuff you are clueless about. Thanks
ThePlayDrive
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 7,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Where did I question the, "alive-ness", of a fetus at any given stage of development? Show me where I said that and I will post a vid of a fetus, "consciously", dodging the fork that an abortion doctor was trying to stick into it's brain.