The issue is always more complex, but I am not nearly interested enough in refuting the absurdity of the argument in detail. If Planned Parenthood were to be shut down as a result of defunding, not a certainty, it might inconvenience the people who use it and possibly make it difficult for a small portion of them to receive some of the services offered, but the kind of rhetoric being thrown around about Planned Parenthood is greatly exaggerating its importance.
And this is your problem. You refuse to look at the complexity of the situation, which is my whole point. Behaviors and actions have consequences, consequences that affect many more than what you are considering. You are failing to either grasp or address the entire issue. Either way, your position flounders because of that.
Lol, I wasn't telling you for any other reason than because I think it would be the correct thing to say. You can spin it around however you like and get all paranoid, but I was merely suggesting you should adopt a position that I consider correct.
Just because you consider it correct, doesn't make it so... a fact that you seem to forget... and one I always enjoy pointing out. You are incorrect.
So are you telling me you think there will not be more of these issues? If you insist you were not stating an absolute than that would mean you are suggesting these might not be an issue at all yet you are insisting I provide a solution for these problems that are already present. Of course, I was reading between the lines of your comments since I know how people on the "pro-choice" side tend to debate. As it stands you have yet to deviate from the typical path of debate. The nonsense of saying "Oh but these children will be abused; it will put even greater strains on social services, the budget, and our economy; and there will be serious health risks if you go and stop killing babies!" is just par for the course. That is an appeal to emotion.
Not an appeal to emotion at all. All accurate statements. It's a real simple fact of numbers, DoL. Increase the population, increase the need for services, materials, food, etc... VERY SIMPLE economics. Further, children who are not wanted tend to be treated as such. All of this is the reality of how things operate. Now, I know that the way that pro-lifers tend to debate is outside the parameters of reality and planning, but that does not alter my intention to present those real issues.
Are you saying calling for the mass-murder of people for their race genocide is appeal to emotion?
Nope.
If not are you suggesting that I am lying when I say that I truly consider abortion to be the mass slaughter of children?
Do you believe it? Yup. Is it an appeal to emotion? Yup.
Those are the only two options you have there.
I've told you before. You do not decide how I debate. I do... as I just demonstrated. You can keep trying, but I will ignore and mock you each time you try this.
It is not an appeal to emotion. How many people do you think would be making the arguments you are making for allowing abortion if it was widely recognized that they were as human as the rest of us?
I accept that they are human. And I am still making the argument that I am making. You have failed AGAIN. You do not understand the argument.
The situation would not be different, however. It would only mean that the issues might be larger. Like I said, your demand is illegitimate because someone who believes it is the slaughter of innocent human life for no good reason is not going to think first about the consequences and second about stopping it. How about, for once, someone on your side actually debate the issue of abortion itself? Tell me why the near certainty of human consciousness in a matter of months after conception does not merit the same protections other people have. Explain to me how you would go about determining a cut-off point for when the unborn are worthy of said protections and are not, since I assume you believe there is a point where such protections should exist.
Irrelevant to what I am discussing with you. You can try to change because you cannot or will not answer the question, but that does not mean that I will allow you to slink away from it. You want abortion to stop. One thing you need for that to happen is to convince some of us who could be swayed. I am telling one way to do that. This argument is an argument that lots of pro-choicers put out there... and one that pro-lifers refuse to answer. Your emotional concerns for the unborn are irrelevant to me... and if you want to sway me, you need to focus on what IS relevant. What would be your plan to manage all of the additional chidren that would be alive if abortion no longer happened?
That is just a difference in how we view the law. You believe the physical institutions of the State and the force to impose their decisions are the only things that matter and my belief is that there is a natural law overriding any institutions of man with that belief being the very basis of constitutional government.
And as I said, your belief is irrelevant considering what exists. It woud serve you better if you debated what is real as opposed to what you wish.
"Most" providers? From what I can tell that is definitely wrong.
Demonstrating that you do not know what you are talking about. I work with providers, daily. Very few take Medicaid.
I am just demonstrating how many places get funding to provide these services to the poor.
OK.
Actually, that just means 11% of their clients received abortions that year. It does not reflect how much of that takes up their efforts. One must keep in mind that at present only a third of their facilities offer abortions so it would suggest those facilities provide far more abortions than anything else.
That's you parsing the numbers. It also means that 2/3 of their facilities have nothing to do with abortions.