• 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!

The Truth about Planned Parenthood[W:283]

nota bene said:
Why should the federal government support any particular non-profits?
Click to expand...

It is called democracy - something the freedom hating right wing hates.

Simply put, the people have decided, through a democratic political process, to provide financial support to health care providers that provide certain services to those who cannot afford to pay for them. That is how democracy - something the freedom hating right hates - works. I know it really chafes the anti-rights crowd when the people reject their perverted sense of morality by supporting health care with tax dollars, but that does not justify the lie you repeat when you claim that the money PP recieves from the govt is directed specifically towards PP
 
sangha said:
It is called democracy - something the freedom hating right wing hates.

Simply put, the people have decided, through a democratic political process, to provide financial support to health care providers that provide certain services to those who cannot afford to pay for them. That is how democracy - something the freedom hating right hates - works. I know it really chafes the anti-rights crowd when the people reject their perverted sense of morality by supporting health care with tax dollars, but that does not justify the lie you repeat when you claim that the money PP recieves from the govt is directed specifically towards PP
Click to expand...

Yeah, a morality that supports people not being forced to pay for things they don't support is totally perverted. :roll: I mean, god forbid someone stands by peoples objection to being forced to pay towards an organization that kills human life.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
As the OP proves once again, the truth about PP is that the freedom and rights hating right wing will continue to tell lies about PP no matter how many investigations prove that PP committed no wrongdoing because the freedom haters are despicable and immoral bigots.
Click to expand...

There always seems to be this problem with any group. For some reason, these investigators always "tell lies".

One day, and I hope it comes soon, someone gets his or her head on straight and shuts down those murdering thugs!
 
Kobie said:
Dude, just stop it. You are not allowed to arbitrarily dictate what constitutes a "human being" in order to advance your irrational and, quite frankly, demented anti-abortion agenda.
Click to expand...

Why not? The other side arbitrarily dictates what isn't a human being to push a pro-abortion agenda.
 
Fishking said:
Why not? The other side arbitrarily dictates what isn't a human being to push a pro-abortion agenda.
Click to expand...

Ah, the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense. How inspired.
 
Fletch said:
I think the disagreement between you two highlights exactly why the government should have zero role in funding this organization. Abortion is probably the single most divisive issue in the country. PP should be privately funded, not propped up by wealth confiscated by the state for purposes that half the nations finds morally offensive. Kobie, if you guys on the left love this organization so much, then fund it yourselves. There is enough money on the left to put a PP on every street corner. So why don't you demonstrate a little tolerance and respect for the opinions of others and support the removal of any taxpayer funds from this organization and reach into your own pocket.
Click to expand...

When have liberals ever supported paying for something not from other people's money but their own?
 
Kobie said:
Ah, the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense. How inspired.
Click to expand...

*shrug* It's literally exactly the same thing. You're not doing anything different.
 
Fishking said:
*shrug* It's literally exactly the same thing. You're not doing anything different.
Click to expand...

There's very little "arbitrary" about things like fetal viability and the notion that women should have control over their own reproductive systems.
 
year2late said:
So any hospital or clinic that has funds given by federal government should be defunded?

PP is being funded for things that other clinics and hospitals receive federal funding for....

Just saying, if you defund hospitals and clinics in general....good luck getting help when you are in need.....
Click to expand...

Abortions don't need hospitals. Remember when people complained about Texas requiring clinics to have hospital privileges?
 
nota bene said:
I am really hoping for a solid discussion of the four points summarizing the Panel's final report. "No truth whatsoever" is a hyperbolic claim that doesn't really contribute anything. Maybe you can offer something specific?
Click to expand...

I think you're a little too optimistic to expect any honest discussion. Solid opening OP, though.
 
Winchester said:
Yep, the tax deduction is an indirect subsidy to churches/nonprofits and their donors. It should be done away with if we want to go down the road that the federal government ought naught support nonprofits.

Also, I believe most are exempt from RE taxes as well which means they aren't paying their fair share for local services.
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous comparison. Defunding something is no where close to tax exemptions. One represents giving actual money the other does not. There can be other non-profs out there that don't get federal funding and still get tax exemption.
 
sangha said:
Even better would be for the religious nutjobs (because most of the religious support PP) to go **** off and die instead...

There is nothing in the constitution stopping those sick religious perverts from ****ing off and dying
Click to expand...

And you call other people nutjobs? Look in the mirror.
 
Kobie said:
There's very little "arbitrary" about things like fetal viability and the notion that women should have control over their own reproductive systems.
Click to expand...

Nice switcheroo on verbiage there, but it didn't pass unnoticed. We were talking about arbitrarily deciding what a human is, not viability.
 
Kobie said:
Churches don't pay taxes. The government may not directly fund them, but it doesn't charge them for anything either.
Click to expand...

And we are talking about defunding them, not removing tax exemption status.
 
Fishking said:
And we are talking about defunding them, not removing tax exemption status.
Click to expand...

I see you cleverly ignored the second part of my post. Would you be OK with eliminating "faith-based initiatives," which are essentially free government money going to religious institutions?
 
Kobie said:
I see you cleverly ignored the second part of my post. Would you be OK with eliminating "faith-based initiatives," which are essentially free government money going to religious institutions?
Click to expand...

And you cleverly conflated two different things. As far as that goes, yes, but if they were to be eliminated due to those reasons then they would all have to be tax exempt later and would also be able to have more control over hiring policies that fall in line with their faith.

Can't categorize them under that way and then not have all other things apply.
 
Kobie said:
I see you cleverly ignored the second part of my post. Would you be OK with eliminating "faith-based initiatives," which are essentially free government money going to religious institutions?
Click to expand...

Why would he support them?
 
Kobie said:
I asked Fishking the question; ergo, I'd prefer his answer, not yours. Which he provided.
Click to expand...

Where did I provide an answer to your question?
 
year2late said:
I will bite.

Well, when you have BCP being considered as "abortofacient" that is disturbing to them,

Same goes for IUDs.

Gay sex is disturbing....should they not get treatment spin off as well?

STDs that stem from pre-marital sex is disturbing...should they be a spin off?

Morning after pills are considered "abortion pills" at worst and "abortofacient" at best......should they be spun off?

Spin off activities that they find disturbing? What would that be?
Click to expand...

You are quite right. There are a number of issues that we have been very sloppy about. That does not mean that the issue of taxes being spent on abortion and the like is legal, as the Constitution now stands.
 
sangha said:
Even better would be for the religious nutjobs (because most of the religious support PP) to go **** off and die instead of continuing their despicably immoral belief that anyone neeeds to accomodate their sick and depraved beliefs.

That too would be constitutionally uncontroversial. There is nothing in the constitution stopping those sick religious perverts from ****ing off and dying
Click to expand...

You think locking up minorities that demand their rights under the Constitution and you do not like should be locked up? That is an interesting proposition.
 
Kobie said:
There's very little "arbitrary" about things like fetal viability and the notion that women should have control over their own reproductive systems.
Click to expand...

Fetal viability is entirely an arbitrary standard for granting basic legal protections against aggressive force. What you are saying is that the surfactant in your lungs makes you a person. That is how arbitrary you are being.
 
JayDubya said:
Fetal viability is entirely an arbitrary standard for granting basic legal protections against aggressive force. What you are saying is that the surfactant in your lungs makes you a person. That is how arbitrary you are being.
Click to expand...

People use "fetal viability" and birth to avoid the charge of infanticide. Borh are weak markers to determine personhood when looking at the bigger picture.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom