Planned parenthood paid protestors who threw condoms at carly fiorina

Perhaps if these protesters used condoms and contraceptives, the number of abortions would be drastically cut.

 

I agreed to call it a goo sack due to the ambiguity concerning the correctness of certain terminology. Many people allow this debate to devolve into a semantics argument (which I have no interest in) if someone calls it a "baby". Interestingly, I began simply referring to it as a "fetus" to avoid the semantics talk and was quickly called on that by a pro-choicer since, apparently, "fetus" only refers to a certain stage in development. So, to simplify things, I coined the term "goo sack", which is just as applicable to a zygote as it is to a full grown human. And now you are still attempting to turn this into a semantics discussion. Such behavior is evidence of a poor debater. Your ad hominem attack above doesn't help this. You can't stay on topic, and insist on having the same old semantics debate, even though I have chosen my words specifically to ease any semantic objection.

I just did logically and you have yet to show me the error, except for some vague semantics objection that I have already dismissed decisively. BTW, fire is the light energy released from the reaction of heated carbon and the surrounding oxygen, whereas smoke is the resulting gases and particle byproducts of that reaction. Again, two separate things, and this relationship is not the least bit analogous to that between abortion and pregnancy. Yours is the logic that is able to justify abortion. LOL

Abortion is not killing the fetus? No mental gymnastics? You clearly lack the education and rhetorical skills to adequately defend your position.

Stop talking, honey, please. You are making a fool of yourself.

 

Stop being obtuse.

 

First, no ad-hom attack. I said your post makes you sound like a 14YO boy that has no respect for women. Not that you are a 14YO boy who has no respect for women. Two very different things. One attacks your point the other attacks you. I am attacking your nonsensical "goo sack" terminology. If you cannot use proper terminology without making up what sounds like adolescent comments that appear to be lacking in respect then you should not debate.

Second, smoke and fire are two different things but they are inextricably connected. That is the point. Just like pregnancy and abortion. You cannot have abortion without a pregnancy. The fact that you seem unable to grasp this most likely mean that you are being purposefully obtuse.

Third, you made no logical argument separating pregnancy from abortion. You simply stated they are separate. That is not a logical argument. That is an opinion.

Fourth, you then make an ad-hom attack on me by not attacking my point but saying I don't have an education or rhetorical skills. That is a personal ad-hom attack which indicates dishonest debate. It is understandable though because you cannot logically refute the argument I made, at least not within the realm of reality. You made the statement that you like to keep things simple. The simple fact is, women have the right to abortion. Are you denying that fact? If not then all other arguments are then moot. There is no mental gymnastics needed to justify anything. It is as simple as a woman exercising her rights as citizen. Anything else is just smoke and mirrors.

Fifth, you were the one that asked me to show you how you failed. Instead of refuting any of my points that I made you gave me a convoluted, illogical reason as to why would use the term "goo sack" instead of correct terminology. You also admitted your use of "goo sack" was the result of a prior misuse of the correct terminology. This indicates that you are either incapable using precise terminology or unwilling to use precise terminology. Either way is does not reflect well on your ability to debate properly. You then make a statement of opinion and try to pass it off as a logical defense of your position. This proves that you have no proper response. Then in order to refute my simple statement about rights you make an ad-hom attack. Again proving that you do not have an adequate response. Then you claim I am the one making a fool of myself? Also a dishonest debate tactic.

- - - Updated - - -

How am I being obtuse. Do you have any proof other than the story at breitbart.com that indicates PP payed protesters. You are mistaking being obtuse with being logical.

 

They should not be getting over $500,000,000 in taxpayer dollars if they are going to spend revenue they receive to support political candidates. I thought the left opposed corporations being involved in politics. I thought the left opposed 501c(3) non-profit corporations engaging in politics?

 

They do NOT spend that revenue on to support political candidates. The advocacy group is a separate group from PP that has a separate name. It is called Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/about-us/

Its funding comes from direct donations.

 

Not your womb, not your fetus and you refuse to address the very valid points I brought up because you are unable to and for no other reason. Major cop-out.

 

I smell a rat... First thing I thought when I read the headline. PP protestors throw condoms at Carly It's right out of the standard play book. I'm willing to bet Carly is somehow involved in this "stunt".

 

It's fungible money, you can't make the distinction.

"he organization and its supporters are organizing a "Pink Out Day" in support of Planned Parenthood Tuesday, urging backers to wear pink and update their social media profiles with a logo supporting Planned parenthood.

Chaffetz peppered Richards with questions about the group's financial practices, including her own salary, lobbying by affiliated non-profit groups and funding of organizations abroad. He said cited grants that Planned Parenthood has given to political groups and said "you don't need federal dollars to do this." She said none of the group's advocacy is funded by federal dollars, but he suggested that the federal funding essentially supports the organization's ability to carry on these other activities.

Rep Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., said she fears "taxpayer dollars are being used to free up services that you provide that are aberrant services in the view of many taxpayers.""
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ards-mounts-defense-before-congress/73020086/


What happened to all the complaints about corporations involved in politics including using PAC's?

 

They went out the window with Citizen's United.

The funds are not fungible. They are two separate tax exempt non-profit organizations. The CEO of PP does not manage nor run Planned Parenthood Action. One provides services the other is an advocacy group. One is funded by multiple sources including government funds from Medicaid. The other is funded by direct contribution.

 

Mia Love to Cecile Richards: Why Does Planned Parenthood Object to Using Taxpayer Funds to Help Women Receive Mammograms?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424859/planned-parenthood-mia-love-cecile-richards

 

Let us know when you can find a credible source for the above BS.

 

Yes, like the fresh and salt water section of the same aquarium.

A 1989 Gallup poll found that 89 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Planned Parenthood. Most polling data today puts Planned Parenthoods’ favorability rating well under 50 percent. More-recent data comes from a Monmouth University poll. Since 2012, the percentage of registered voters who viewed Planned Parenthood favorably has fallen from 55 percent to 38 percent. Additionally, the percentage of people who support cutting off federal funds to Planned Parenthood increased from 31 to 42 percent.

It should also be noted that the much-touted Wall Street Journal/NBCpoll fails to mention that Planned Parenthood performs abortions. It also does not mention anything about the Center for Medical Progress videos. Interestingly, surveys that describe the videos often do see a significant reduction in support for Planned Parenthood. A Reuters poll in August found that after the Center for Medical Progress videos were described to respondents, support for Planned Parenthood funding fell from 54 to 39 percent.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424943/planned-parenthood-polls-support-decline

 

I am glad you agree with me. Freshwater and Saltwater aquariums are two completely separate things that you cannot mix. So yes the funds are like a saltwater aquarium and freshwater aquarium. The two funds never mix and they support completely different things.

As to the claim about PP becoming unpopular there are any number of polls not just the NBC poll that shows majority support for PP throughout America. Most polls show about 2-1 support for funding PP with Federal money. As to the wording of the polls...really...it is like clockwork with conservatives. The poll says something they don't like it is a problem with the poll. The poll says something they like and they use to boost their case. Funny...

 

We don't agree at all and it's dishonest of you to pretend otherwise, but then PP has never been one for honesty.