• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney to eliminate Planned Parenthood

Josie said:
Many organizations thrive on private funding. I can't imagine PP supporters NOT donating to them if they lost federal funding.
Click to expand...


You're probably right that PP supporters would donate money to the organization if it lost federal funding. What you're ignoring is that people already do that, and PP still derives one third of its budget from federal funding. So any way you cut it, they'd lose a third of their funding. Do you think their supporters would immediately have an extra $350 million or so to spend? Or that PP would develop new supporters just because the government cut their funding?
 
Aderleth said:
Having now read a few of your posts in this thread, I have a different perspective on your "exaggeration." To be clear, comparing healthcare to makeup is not an exaggeration, it's a fabrication. Put differently (in a less rhyming and more coherent fashion) it is a really, really bad analogy; and whether you're inclined to characterize it as bad by virtue of degree, or of kind, it's pretty useless to this discussion. I suspect you'd disagree with that, or you wouldn't have made the analogy in the first place.

Regarding your other response:



What do you imagine would happen if planned parenthood suddenly lost a third of its funding? Would magical money faeries show up and instantly give them the money they'd need to continue serving everyone they've been serving? Or would that sudden loss of cash, perhaps, cause them to be forced to reduce services for at least several months, possibly years, possibly forever? Private dollars already have the option of providing free medical care to tons and tons of people. They have yet to step up. Believing that this would somehow change if the government suddenly stopped funding Planned Parenthood is just naive.

Yeah. It'd be nice if we could rely on private funding for services such as Planned Parenthood. But we can't.
Click to expand...

common sense at it finest
 
VanceMack said:
Probably a more correct (but far less inflammatory) thing to say is that he threatened to eliminate the federal funding OF PP...not PP itself.
Click to expand...

That's a reasonable distinction. It was still obnoxious because of the implied budgetary impacts.
 
Aderleth said:
That's a reasonable distinction. It was still obnoxious because of the implied budgetary impacts.
Click to expand...

If the overall need is to eliminate waste, then you target first areas you don't believe should be funded. That being said...his reasoning...cutting government spending...is undone by his argument that we should INCREASE defense spending. Dood has a fatal need to be everything to everyone.
 
Romney needs to pull his head out and realize that any organization that has some effort in the prevention of becoming pregnant be seen as an asset.

Abstinence is nice to promote but in reality how many here can truly say they were a virgin when they got married?
Even Bristol Palin who came from a home with both parents living together and a mother who heavily promoted abstinence got pregnant in high school. She wasn't some daughter of a single mom living in the hood.
Perhaps they should put birth control in the high school water supply.
 
VanceMack said:
If the overall need is to eliminate waste, then you target first areas you don't believe should be funded. That being said...his reasoning...cutting government spending...is undone by his argument that we should INCREASE defense spending. Dood has a fatal need to be everything to everyone.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the notion of eliminating waste, and I totally agree with you about the defense spending hypocrisy. However, even if a candidate legitimately wanted to reduce waste, cutting into a program that serves tons and tons of people (almost entirely in ways that have nothing to do with politically contentious stuff like abortion) and costs the government less than (e.g.) a new stealth bomber is probably not the way to go.
 
Last edited:
Hard to believe that this thread has gone on for six pages and no one has pointed out that 97% of what PP does has nothing to do with abortion, but rather has to do with family planning, cancer screening, and other health related issues. OR, that the federal government is NOT funding PP's abortion services, which would be a violation of the Hyde Amendment.
 
Crosscheck said:
Romney needs to pull his head out and realize that any organization that has some effort in the prevention of becoming pregnant be seen as an asset.

Abstinence is nice to promote but in reality how many here can truly say they were a virgin when they got married?
Even Bristol Palin who came from a home with both parents living together and a mother who heavily promoted abstinence got pregnant in high school. She wasn't some daughter of a single mom living in the hood.
Perhaps they should put birth control in the high school water supply.
Click to expand...

thats the thing that always gets me, there is no other org in america that does more to prevent unwanted pregnancy than PP but people hate that 3% of their services is abortion related.

WIthout tham you could logically argue there would be more abortions
 
Wait for tomorrow and see what he says.

What an idiot.
 
AdamT said:
Hard to believe that this thread has gone on for six pages and no one has pointed out that 97% of what PP does has nothing to do with abortion, but rather has to do with family planning, cancer screening, and other health related issues. OR, that the federal government is NOT funding PP's abortion services, which would be a violation of the Hyde Amendment.
Click to expand...

I actually did point that out just didnt use the number 97, i stated only 3% of their services are abortion related.
 
samsmart said:
Someone should ask Romney if having 11 aircraft carriers and jets the Air Force doesn't want and buying camouflage gear that doesn't camouflage for the Army and Marine Corps and fighting every country in the Middle East is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Just to put things in perspective...

"The Navy has estimated a worst-case cost overrun of as much as $1.1 billion for the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford, the service's most expensive warship."

That's almost 3 times what PP receives...why is this a discussion?
 
Josie said:
I'm sure he means that he'll try to stop funding it through taxpayer dollars. And I'm all for that.
Click to expand...

The reduced social cost from the money the gov gives to agencies such as these is above and beyond the amount the government spends.

how about we reduce government waste by getting rid of http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Neighborhood_Partnerships which adds tons of wasteful government spending to pretty much every department

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
Josie said:
I'm sure he means that he'll try to stop funding it through taxpayer dollars. And I'm all for that.
Click to expand...
Only 3% of Planned Parenthood services involve abortion. You would stop all of the other needed services they provide over that.
Breast Cancer Screenings
Procedures to Prevent Cervical Cancer
Female Infertility
Menopause
Menstruation
Ovarian Cancer
Pap Tests & HPV Tests
Pelvic Exam
Urinary Tract Infection (UTI)
Yeast Infection & Vaginitis

Planned Parenthood affiliates provide educational programs to more than 1.1 million young people and adults each year.

Planned Parenthood provides nearly 770,000 Pap tests and nearly 750,000 breast exams each year, critical services in detecting cancer.

Planned Parenthood provides sexual and reproductive health care, education, and information to nearly five million women, men, and adolescents worldwide each year.
Click to expand...
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/planned-parenthood-glance-5552.htm
Without there services abortion would double. Think about what they do to prevent unwanted pregnancies each year. Yes the preform abortions but if they were no longer able to offer the services outside of abortion how much would that number grow.
 
Josie said:
Not put a stop to that.....let them be funded through private dollars instead of taxpayer money. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You know, we could say that about countries we fight wars, for oil subsidies (or any subsidy for that matter), for in general, anything that you benefit from the government helps you out with, but that would be wrong. Women's health in the long run helps out the economy. Ask yourself this. Are you really going to look another woman square in the eyes and tell her you can't afford that $3 every year so she and millions of other women can get simple exams?
 
So Romney can be counted on for cutting this wasteful spending on this deplorable organization? Cool, good to know.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's exactly what he said-its about tax dollars. he said the same thing about PBS. There are lots of things people think are "GOOD" but shouldn't be paid for with our tax dollars
Click to expand...

PBS is a fantastic thing that if not for the help of the tax payer dollar, would have gone down in flames years ago. We live in a society where the all might dollar rules, and even though PBS gets a lot of donations and funding by other means, if not for those very few dollars we all pay every year, it would be gone. You know it, I know it. Look at your kid or your grandkid and say "Sorry no Mr Rodgers, Sesame Street, NOVA you know stuff that will inform you and entertain you at the same time, we all can just huddle around the TV and watch mind melting cartoons on Cartoon Network and when your older Jersey Shore.
 
JayDubya said:
So Romney can be counted on for cutting this wasteful spending on this deplorable organization? Cool, good to know.
Click to expand...


explain why its wasteful spending and why the org is deplorable LOL

I dIdnt realize that medical clinics thats provide health services to millions are deplorable and its wasteful for the government to help support them since we all benefit from their services.
 
It's wasteful spending because you can't justify the expenditure using the United States Constitution. At all.

The organization is deplorable because it is the leading provider of abortion in the United States and a major political voice in promoting the continuation of said human rights abuse.
 
JayDubya said:
It's wasteful spending because you can't justify the expenditure using the United States Constitution. At all.
Click to expand...

How so?

JayDubya said:
The organization is deplorable because it is the leading provider of abortion in the United States and a major political voice in promoting the continuation of said human rights abuse.
Click to expand...

3% percent of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions. The rest is largely other women's health issues.
 
JayDubya said:
It's wasteful spending because you can't justify the expenditure using the United States Constitution. At all.

The organization is deplorable because it is the leading provider of abortion in the United States and a major political voice in promoting the continuation of said human rights abuse.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what Planned Parenthood does?
 
katiegrrl0 said:
Do you even know what Planned Parenthood does?
Click to expand...

Lot of things. Including being the leading provider of abortion in the United States. Which is why they shouldn't receive a dime of taxpayer's money.
 
JayDubya said:
Lot of things. Including being the leading provider of abortion in the United States. Which is why they shouldn't receive a dime of taxpayer's money.
Click to expand...

You do realize that not 1 dollar PP gets from the fed goes to abortion right? Its completely compartmentalized. I think, due to the huge benefit to society in reduced social and economic cost that funding for PP falls under general welfare clause.

If you dint think it does then I hope you support the removal of the faith based white house department as well

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
It's wasteful spending because you can't justify the expenditure using the United States Constitution. At all.

The organization is deplorable because it is the leading provider of abortion in the United States and a major political voice in promoting the continuation of said human rights abuse.
Click to expand...

why does it need justifed per the constitution? oh thats right it doesnt LMAO

so basically nothing more than you bias opinion? got it

they also do more than any org in the country to prevent pregnancy,(ie preventing potential abortions) they have millions of patients and the fact is they violate NO rights.

maybe you have better reasons.
 
xpiher said:
You do realize that not 1 dollar PP gets from the fed goes to abortion right? Its completely compartmentalized

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

shhhhhhhhh he doesnt care about facts they only mess up his dishonest rhetoric
 
JayDubya said:
It's wasteful spending because you can't justify the expenditure using the United States Constitution. At all.

The organization is deplorable because it is the leading provider of abortion in the United States and a major political voice in promoting the continuation of said human rights abuse.
Click to expand...

So then if it didn't provide any abortion, only helped women out with other things you wouldn't have a problem with it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom