Right Wing GOP Has Been Promoting Abortions for 35 yrs

Why pick out PP, Abortions ARE a medical procedure (whether you agree with them or not), by your logic any healthcare facility that provides medical care for cancer caused by smoking should be de-funded, or how about obesity or should it just be based on what you agree with or not?

Federal & state funding already goes to other healthcare providers.

 

Or so you say. I guess we'll never know because you have not presented any facts. At least he did.

 

So stop giving it to all the ones that perform abortions so there is no more controversy.

 

What facts did he provide, please do quote the post where those "facts" are provided.

The first comment made by the poster in question was as follows -

Kindly point out the "facts" in that comment?

He then posted a link to a site, as follows -

To which I replied, citing a link of my own that specifically destroys everyone of those misrepresented quotes on the linked page they supplied.

You even listed that link in your response to me, seems you are happy to accept a link to another page by people you support yet expect others to post rebuttals directly.

 

See you are wrong again, they don't give it "all" to "the ones that perform abortions" and why should what you decide on who gets funding or not be the rule?

 

And still you present no facts or sources. Hypocrisy.

- - - Updated - - -

You just re-worded my sentence. Try again.

 

This argument assumes the government is responsible for taking care of family planning. The people involved with contracting STIs, STDs, pregnancy, etc are solely responsible for dealing with their health.

First, thanks for answering my question. Second, the social/moral value of responsibility of funding one's own activities and the consequences thereof has nothing to do with infringing on rights. My position is the government should not participate in mitigating the consequences individuals have for the actions they take in their everyday lives.

Some definitely are. And I for one plan on voting against those who would not see the national debt lowered.

Their annual report does not depict a division of income for how they pay their expenses. The Federal government funds abortions. In fact that annual statement breaks out income showing government funds at 45% of PP income and a line item called 'Medical Services' under expense. This item is not broken out. Further there is nothing noting that abortion didn't get omitted. It is listed several times throughout the report.

 

No, this argument recognizes that helping people with family planning benefits EVERYONE. It recognizes that it is cheaper to help pay for family planning than pay for rearing more children.

Of course it is satisfying to some to see women punished with pregnancy and childbirth for daring to choose to have sex. And some would even like to see the woman punished further by watching her child suffer from starvation, but it isn't gonna happen in this country. We, as the government, are going to assist suffering children, and that assistance costs more than helping provide family planning in the first place. Your zeal for punishing women is too expensive for the country.

The Federal government only funds a tiny number of abortions for medicaid recipients for reasons of rape, incest, and life threat. If the annual report does not satisfy your accounting requirements, perhaps you could apply for a job as government auditor. PP has been investigated ad infinitum by skeptics such as yourself, and always found to be compliant. Defunding PP will not stop abortions since they do not get money from the Feds for abortion, but it does mean less funds for birth control and education which will result in more abortions.

 

We have to agree to disagree here. I just don't see how it is the government's job to play dad.

If a woman has a child, the government has no need to intercede and become the baby's father. It is not the government's place to step in the gap where the man failed. It is also not the place for the government to absolve any woman of the risk she took sleeping with a man. Women are not infants or imbeciles and no they don't need to be coddled. They need information to realize the risks and costs associated with minimizing the risks associated with sex and easy access to birth control. That's all.

At best, the government should be fostering an environment where the woman is able to finance her own sex life and any consequence she wishes to bear in her endeavors.

It is going to be very difficult to convince me that girls and women are incapable of taking care of themselves when it comes to sex. The following link is a documentary on an Amazonian tribe (by Western standards would be seen as uncivilized) where women have complete sexual and reproductive freedom. The only thing they lack is our type of government.


WARNING: Nudity
https://youtu.be/9SW0jzXTS6A

Oh and no, I'm neither zealous or punishing. I think I rather inform and empower, just not off the strength of tax dollars.

 

I noted in all that blather you never once mentioned the needs of poor children resulting from these pregnancies( and the REASON the government steps in).....I take it if they rot in the gutter it's OK with you as long as you can preach to people who have sex???

 

I did address the poor as a matter of fact. Are the Amazonian tribes rich??? Bleep no! Compared to Western standards they are literally dirt poor, yet they have absolutely no problems controlling birth. If they can do it, damn it this country can. Poor women can have sex. Who said they couldn't? Just tell them the cost of birth control and point them to the nearest Walgreens, CVS, Target, Walmart, Drug Mart etc. Tell them if they have sex with a poor sob or a man not interested in kids, she, her family, and supportes will have to deal with the costs of abortion and or chasing after child support.

 

Neither has the government any need to intercede and force a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Women are not infants or imbeciles and they can decide for themselves what is best. That is, taking into consideration any financial assistance government may offer. Easy access to birth control would probably necessitate government intervention since the most reliable forms of birth control are expensive.

That would be ideal, as no one really wants to ask for government assistance or intervention, we all know, don't we, that government assistance comes with a price, and that price is control and regulation. "Ideal" is a goal to be achieved, and until it is achieved we must deal with what is.

Girls and women are capable of taking care of themselves when they have the information and financial wherewithal to do so, but they often don't have that. You are wanting to deny women the choice to abort and then also deny them assistance to rear the resulting children. If you want to minimize the role of government, you can't be using government to enforce your morality.

 

Very well put. Those are the facts.

Why would anyone or any group want to interfere with birth control better known as abortion prevention. Birth control it seems would be a win win win for right to lifers. What's up?

 

Thank you for affirming: ""I noted in all that blather you never once mentioned the needs of poor children resulting from these pregnancies( and the REASON the government steps in).....I take it if they rot in the gutter it's OK with you as long as you can preach to people who have sex???

 

In the link I shared there were no unwanted children. The women had complete control over their reproductive and sexual activities. No one preaches to them and they have no government taking from those who were careful to sustain those who are irresponsible. This country should stifle its arrogance and learn from other cultures in the things they do far better. It would save the government a lot of money and there won't be an imaginary war on women.

 

Ya, they should learn from Canada. Canada has no abortion laws and their abortion rate is slightly lower than the US.


Taking away a women's right to abortion is war on women.

Constantly harping on women to use BC or stop having sex is a war on women.

Constantly trying to shut down clinics where women receive accessible affordable health care is war on women.


I noted in all that blather you never once mentioned the needs of poor children resulting from these pregnancies( and the REASON the government steps in).....

 

This argument is against a position I do not hold. Women have all sorts of access to birth control. If they made it to child-bearing age, they have enough to obtain birth control.

Also, I addressed poor children many times.

 

Yeah so? I am addressing the story of organs being harvested.

Again, I was addressing the story of PP selling organs.

 

You forgot to address all of my post :Ya, they should learn from Canada. Canada has no abortion laws and their abortion rate is slightly lower than the US.


Taking away a women's right to abortion is war on women.

Constantly harping on women to use BC or stop having sex is a war on women.

Constantly trying to shut down clinics where women receive accessible affordable health care is war on women."""



....and no, you haven't addressed the fact that you hate taxes going to social programs that are meant to take care of children.



And NOT all women have access to affordable birth control and therefore need clinics like PP to obtain them.



AND women have NO obligation to use birth control....none.

 

Please tell me what aborted embryos are worth. Who sells them? What kind of profit do they make? What are they used for?

 

Canada having no abortion laws and having a slightly lower rate than the US tells me absolutely nothing. Women will have abortions law or no law.

My position isn't to make abortion illegal. It's to have women fund their own through private insurance or private means. How the government gets involved beats me.

Planned Parenthood doesn't need to be shut down. It provides good services for women. Like any other institution however, it should be self-sustaining.

I've addressed the poor children many times, you just dismissed it as blather.

All women have access to birth control. Planned Parenthood is located in places near Walgreens, CVS, Target, DrugMart, RiteAid, Walmart, Kroger, and on and on and on. Poor women are already getting sustenance from government. They can use those cash aids to buy birth control. No excuses.

And your last quip about "AND women have NO obligation to use birth control....none" is really what these debates are all about aren't they? Planned Parenthood is simply a racket. When women fail to use birth control or be responsible for their own sexual health, then they'll need services like PP. It's nice to finally see the true sentiment behind birth control emerge.

Again, PP is nothing but a racket.

 

How is it a "racket"? It provides affordable accessible health care for women....that, to you, is a racket?

Ya, cancer screenings for women, STD care and information screenings for breast and cervical cancer is just a racket poor women don't need. (according to you)

 

Planned Parenthood gives the citizen's two choices. Fund us or fund the unwanted children. This is a racket because it is not incumbent upon the US population to fund a person's plan for parenthood or their child indefinitely. If the mantra is as you say is that "women have NO obligation to use birth control," then it presses upon the same citizenry to provide for the child care or abortion services if the woman so chooses.

Make no mistake this idea does not give women autonomy. It just absolves her of any 'mistakes' she makes when she is living her life. It is not the duty of the rest of the population to free her of her carefree choices.

Screenings for women are good for any woman no matter her socioeconomic status. For those who believe in PP, they can donate to it. With all the support they seem to have, they will be just fine. See no government intervention, no problem.

 

""" because it is not incumbent upon the US population to fund a person's plan for parenthood or their child indefinitely."""


...and yet parents get tax breaks for having kids....who takes up the slack? Other taxpayers. Child-free taxpayers pay to have other people's kids educated... And I thought you posted , ""It is not the duty of the rest of the population to free her (them ) of her (their) carefree choices. """
Yup, happy to know you hate where your taxes are going

 

LoL, you're a good debater, I'll tell you that. And to be fair, there's a whole slew of things I want defunded .