Time the Crestfallen Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/20/texas-kicks-planned-parenthood-out-medicaid/ The state of Texas will no longer support Planned Parenthood under it's Medicaid program, through which it received $3.1 million in funding. This is coming shortly after the implementation of rules which require the burial or cremation of fetus'. https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/28/texas-moves-forward-rules-requiring-burial-or-crem/ Edited December 22, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moblin Major General Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 States' rights? I mean, as much as I'm glad abortion is legal, Planned Parenthood is far beyond shady. Also, I'm glad a government body acknowledges the fetus as a once living being. Yes, Texas wants to undo Roe vs. Wade one law at a time, but some measures like this should be more prevalent, even in pro-choice states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 It's worth noting that very few Planned Parenthood clinics in Texas offer abortions, and the ones that do are exempt from Medicare funding (this is stated in the article, but bears repeating). This is wholly separate from abortion and the services it affects will be things like contraception, cancer screenings and STD testing. The rules requiring burial or cremation of a fetus are ridiculous. If it was really about acknowledging the fetus as a living being then miscarriages and abortions where the fetal remains are passed at home wouldn't be exempt. And it ignores the fact that abortions that take place in the second trimester are often very much wanted babies with medical conditions incompatible with life, so all it does is tack on a financial burden to grieving parents (this also applies to fetuses who are miscarried but require a hospital D&C). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 States' rights? I mean, as much as I'm glad abortion is legal, Planned Parenthood is far beyond shady. Also, I'm glad a government body acknowledges the fetus as a once living being. Yes, Texas wants to undo Roe vs. Wade one law at a time, but some measures like this should be more prevalent, even in pro-choice states. Please provide a source regarding Planned Parenthood being shady. Mostly for my own curiosity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) they don't exist. Edited December 22, 2016 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) they don't exist. Oh? http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-footage/ After that, the DoJ allegedly conducted a raid on David Daleiden and seized documents and videos relating to the investigative journalism that he was performing on Planned Parenthood. This is what Daleiden claims and I have no reason to not believe it because a false claim would be much more damaging since he is claiming that the California AG supervised the raid due to political motives (here is the WaPo's article about Kamala Harris and Planned Parenthood). Harris was running for Senate as a Democrat at the time and won the race with support from Planned Parenthood. Now, this is Snopes' attempt to fact-check this case and their result is essentially "unconclusive". There's enough here to say "well, this certainly looks shady" and I would certainly like to know what exactly the DoJ seized from Daleiden's residence. But making the claim that "they don't exist" regarding evidence of shady practices in PP is just silly. I do think Planned Parenthood should be entirely privately funded, mind you. Killing a baby shouldn't be a constitutional right that forces me to pay for it. EDIT: Interestingly enough, James O'Keefe is mentioned by Snopes and while they're referring to ACORN when talking about O'Keefe, I think that it's safe to say that his investigative journalism results (as shown by Project Veritas Action a few months ago) are quite... revealing. Edited December 22, 2016 by Pepe The Conquerer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) Oh? http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-footage/ After that, the DoJ allegedly conducted a raid on David Daleiden and seized documents and videos relating to the investigative journalism that he was performing on Planned Parenthood. This is what Daleiden claims and I have no reason to not believe it because a false claim would be much more damaging since he is claiming that the California AG supervised the raid due to political motives (here is the WaPo's article about Kamala Harris and Planned Parenthood). Now, this is Snopes' attempt to fact-check this case and their result is essentially "unconclusive". There's enough here to say "well, this certainly looks shady" and I would certainly like to know what exactly the DoJ seized from Daleiden's residence. But making the claim that "they don't exist" regarding evidence of shady practices in PP is just silly. I do think Planned Parenthood should be entirely privately funded, mind you. Killing a baby shouldn't be a constitutional right that forces me to pay for it. EDIT: Interestingly enough, James O'Keefe is mentioned by Snopes and while they're referring to ACORN when talking about O'Keefe, I think that it's safe to say that his investigative journalism results (as shown by Project Veritas Action a few months ago) are quite... revealing. so firstly, thanks for the response. i learned something. :) one of...how many facilities? planned parenthood is not "SHADY" based off of one lone "unconclusive" story. (you mean inconclusive btw.) is mcdonald's shady? the city of new york? lol. we know what goes on at 99.99% of the facilities, so planned parenthood is not "shady." abortion isn't killing babies, and you don't pay for it. your portrait of abortion dehumanizes the mothers that actually have to go through making such a difficult decision. abortions are necessary, as sad as it is. the pro-lifers that paint the picture of doctors "ripping babies out of the womb" is one of the most intellectually dishonest and delusional arguments i've ever heard. like--have some fucking sympathy for the living human being that has to deal with the choice to terminate a pregnancy. indeed, biologically and emotionally, a mother does not want to have an abortion. families can become distraught from the procedure. it hurts all parties involved. Edited December 22, 2016 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) so firstly, thanks for the response. i learned something. :) one of...how many facilities? planned parenthood is not "SHADY" based off of one lone "unconclusive" story. (you mean inconclusive btw.) is mcdonald's shady? the city of new york? lol. we know what goes on at 99.99% of the facilities, so planned parenthood is not "shady." abortion isn't killing babies, and you don't pay for it. your portrait of abortion dehumanizes the mothers that actually have to go through making such a difficult decision. abortions are necessary, as sad as it is. the pro-lifers that paint the picture of doctors "ripping babies out of the womb" is one of the most intellectually dishonest and delusional arguments i've ever heard. like--have some fucking sympathy for the living human being that has to deal with the choice to terminate a pregnancy. indeed, biologically and emotionally, a family can become distraught from the procedure. it hurts all parties involved. @bold: I do. That's why I think that it should be legal until 20 weeks (because I care about the economic argument regarding abortion). But I am going to call it what it is. It is not "terminating a pregnancy". It is "killing a baby". If you don't like that term, too bad. Because the process of abortion is pulling a baby out of the uterus almost completely, severing its spinal cord with scissors and then pulling the rest of the baby out of the womb. That's abortion in a nutshell. Graphic enough? Unless, of course, you're Lena Dunham who wishes that she could have the chance to kill a baby. If you want to talk about sympathy, then try having some sympathy for the one life that doesn't get a voice. As for the rest of your point, the issue is this. If there is legal weight behind Planned Parenthood which shuts down investigative journalism with rogue DoJ raids at even one clinic, that makes me want to investigate all of them in order to make sure that this is an isolated incident. Can we both agree that there is something wrong when what should be a private company has political clout? EDIT: I never addressed your point regarding "you wouldn't pay for it". Which is false. If my taxpayer dollars are funding a program that includes abortions, then yes, I am indirectly paying to kill babies. What's wrong with having Planned Parenthood be entirely privately funded? Because they offer other services? Then take out abortions (which is 90% of their business) from the platform and I'll consider paying for it. Edited December 22, 2016 by Pepe The Conquerer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 @bold: I do. That's why I think that it should be legal until 20 weeks (because I care about the economic argument regarding abortion). But I am going to call it what it is. It is not "terminating a pregnancy". It is "killing a baby". If you don't like that term, too bad. Because the process of abortion is pulling a baby out of the uterus almost completely, severing its spinal cord with scissors and then pulling the rest of the baby out of the womb. That's abortion in a nutshell. Graphic enough? Unless, of course, you're Lena Dunham who wishes that she could have the chance to kill a baby. If you want to talk about sympathy, then try having some sympathy for the one life that doesn't get a voice. As for the rest of your point, the issue is this. If there is legal weight behind Planned Parenthood which shuts down investigative journalism with rogue DoJ raids at even one clinic, that makes me want to investigate all of them in order to make sure that this is an isolated incident. Can we both agree that there is something wrong when what should be a private company has political clout? i'm not going to speak at length about abortion because i understand. i understand the difficulty in saying something like this is ok or necessary. i hate the phrase, but i'll say that i think abortion is sometimes the necessary evil and leave it at that. also, only late term abortions are like that. in any case, this is a medical procedure, and i think medicine should largely be centralized/public. as such i cannot say i would like something like this to have a profit-focused incentive. that is even more of a disgusting thought to me. you realize that if abortion becomes privatized, businesses will have to find ways to make abortions profitable? it is already bad enough that we've done that with prison. the "rest of my point" was actually the crux of the argument lol. and no, i do not agree. you have changed the issue. first respond to it being "shady," because i don't see how it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) Well, that was certainly an entertaining read. The Snopes article is written in a way that throws shade on both sides, so it's up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. However, I have a huge problem with the Center for Medical Progress, and it's in regards to the press releases. I'll copy 'em over from Snopes. This was the original press release from Planned Parenthood in response to the video: In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does — with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field. A well funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research. Similar false accusations have been put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades. These groups have been widely discredited and their claims fall apart on closer examination, just as they do in this case. And this is the Center for Medical Progress' response, with the bolded bit being mine (and the PDF link removed because I'm lazy): Planned Parenthood makes two key admissions in their statement today: 1) aborted fetal parts are harvested at their clinics, and 2) money is exchanged in connection with this. They also tell several lies: 1) That proper consent is obtained from patients, 2) That Planned Parenthood does not make money off the body parts, and 3) that everything is legal. The Center for Medical Progress has obtained an advertisement to Planned Parenthood clinics from StemExpress, LLC, one of the major purchasers of Planned Parenthood’s aborted fetal tissue. This flyer advertises 4 different times the financial benefit that Planned Parenthood clinics can receive from supplying fetal tissue, with the words: “Financially Profitable,” “Financial Profits,” “financial benefit to your clinic,” “fiscal growth of your own clinic.” The advertisement carries an endorsement from Planned Parenthood Medical Director Dr. Dorothy Furgerson. None of this is standard across the mainstream medical field, but it is standard across Planned Parenthood’s insular and unaccountable abortion field. The bolded part isn't a response to Planned Parenthood's initial statement, it is a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation. This tells me that the Center for Medical Progress isn't entirely honest about what they're saying, and if they contort the truth of a printed press statement that heavily, then I think they did the same with their video. There's plenty of political reason to get rid of Planned Parenthood (anti-abortionists come to mind), which is why I think that The Center of Medical Progress edited the video to push their own views. EDIT: My stance on abortion is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Edited December 22, 2016 by eggclipse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) i'm not going to speak at length about abortion because i understand. i understand the difficulty in saying something like this is ok or necessary. i hate the phrase, but i'll say that i think abortion is sometimes the necessary evil and leave it at that. also, only late term abortions are like that. in any case, this is a medical procedure, and i think medicine should largely be centralized/public. as such i cannot say i would like something like this to have a profit-focused incentive. that is even more of a disgusting thought to me. you realize that if abortion becomes privatized, businesses will have to find ways to make abortions profitable? it is already bad enough that we've done that with prison. the "rest of my point" was actually the crux of the argument lol. and no, i do not agree. you have changed the issue. first respond to it being "shady," because i don't see how it is. I thought I mentioned that? Is it acceptable for a private company to hold political power and influence DoJ raids on critics of abortion? Few other points (those less relevant to the topic at hand): - This isn't medicine of necessity; this is medicine of convenience. Shit man, women don't just randomly get pregnant the same way they develop cancer. Pregnancy is a reaction to unprotected sex which is irresponsible if the goal is to not get pregnant. I refuse to pay for medicine of convenience. - That is how abortions on babies who are about 16 weeks old and above (it might even be earlier) is performed. So if 16 weeks is now late-term abortion, that's fine. - I will agree with you on the fact that it is necessary evil. The problem is the euphanisms to hide the fact that this is necessary evil. A lot of people I know refuse to even admit that. So kudos to you for doing so. Edited December 22, 2016 by Pepe The Conquerer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time the Crestfallen Posted December 22, 2016 Author Share Posted December 22, 2016 @bold: I do. That's why I think that it should be legal until 20 weeks But what if the mother's life is in jeopardy or there is a high chance of horrible birth defects (to the degree that one could argue abortion would be a 'mercy')? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) · Hidden by eclipse, December 22, 2016 - No reason given Hidden by eclipse, December 22, 2016 - No reason given edit: whoops, shitty post Edited December 22, 2016 by Phoenix Wright Link to comment
Res Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 "Planned Parenthood cannot use the money it receives from the federal government for abortions anyway. According to the Department of Health and Human Service’s website, "by law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning." Medicaid funding is restricted by the Hyde Amendment to only abortion cases involving rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother." 3% of the services Planned Parenthood provides are abortions, which translates to 1in 10 of its clients receives an abortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) I thought I mentioned that? Is it acceptable for a private company to hold political power and influence DoJ raids on critics of abortion? well, you mentioned you agreed with hylian, but you never responded to my point about it. i don't know what it means to hold political power in this case, anyway. like, do i call mrs harris and boom! i get a raid? EDIT: I never addressed your point regarding "you wouldn't pay for it". Which is false. If my taxpayer dollars are funding a program that includes abortions, then yes, I am indirectly paying to kill babies. What's wrong with having Planned Parenthood be entirely privately funded? Because they offer other services? Then take out abortions (which is 90% of their business) from the platform and I'll consider paying for it. it was more a jab about you not being a united states citizen. 2 things: 1. you didn't respond to the actual point of privatization, and if you keep dodging it i will no longer join in discourse with you (ie, abortions have to become profitable). also, of course, res' point is a beautiful one. 2. everyone has to pay taxes for things they are morally opposed to. another necessary evil. it's part of the price you have to pay for living in a country. Edited December 22, 2016 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) But what if the mother's life is in jeopardy or there is a high chance of horrible birth defects (to the degree that one could argue abortion would be a 'mercy'? Those are both rare cases that are outside of the norm. You know this and that is why you asked specifically. "Planned Parenthood cannot use the money it receives from the federal government for abortions anyway. According to the Department of Health and Human Service’s website, "by law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning." Medicaid funding is restricted by the Hyde Amendment to only abortion cases involving rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother." 3% of the services Planned Parenthood provides are abortions, which translates to 1in 10 of its clients receives an abortion. It might be 3% of services but it's something like 40% of the revenue due to how much abortions cost as opposed to say... tampons. Here is another WaPo article which debunks the 3% claim (it also debunks the 94% claim so I'll retract that one). That is significant. And furthermore, I personally do not want any of my money to go to an organization that also engages in abortions, whether or not I pay for them. well, you mentioned you agreed with hylian, but you never responded to my point about it. i don't know what it means to hold political power in this case, anyway. like, do i call mrs harris and boom! i get a raid? it was more a jab about you not being a united states citizen. 2 things: 1. you didn't respond to the actual point of privatization, and if you keep dodging it i will no longer join in discourse with you (ie, abortions have to become profitable). also, of course, res' point is a beautiful one. 2. everyone has to pay taxes for things they are morally opposed to. another necessary evil. it's part of the price you have to pay for living in a country. Which point? Privatization? I think the fact that it is medicine of convenience is enough to show that it does not require public funding. I don't care if it is profitable; abortion should have a stigma to it because as I stated above, you are killing a baby. As for political power, yeah pretty much. Planned Parenthood essentially endorsed Harris in her Senate run after she ordered a highly unethical DoJ raid on an opponent of Planned Parenthood who may have had evidence of at least one clinic selling baby parts off. We don't know for certain because it seems like the DoJ went out of their way to cover it up. If that is not shady, then we have different definitions of the term "shady". Also, Res' point has been debunked in this post. Edited December 22, 2016 by Pepe The Conquerer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time the Crestfallen Posted December 22, 2016 Author Share Posted December 22, 2016 Those are both rare cases that are outside of the norm. You know this and that is why you asked specifically. I know. I was asking you to clarify if you meant under 20 weeks excluding abnormal circumstances, or under 20 weeks no exceptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 I know. I was asking you to clarify if you meant under 20 weeks excluding abnormal circumstances, or under 20 weeks no exceptions. Excluding abnormal circumstances that require a lot of consultation and evidence to prove that such is the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) It might be 3% of services but it's something like 40% of the revenue due to how much abortions cost as opposed to say... tampons. Here is another WaPo article which debunks the 3% claim (it also debunks the 94% claim so I'll retract that one). http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/planned-parenthoods-services/ this debunks the 94% claim, saying that it's probably around 12%. The source that the wapo article lists is a dead link. That is significant. And furthermore, I personally do not want any of my money to go to an organization that also engages in abortions, whether or not I pay for them. i mean i don't want any of my money going to funding all of the assholes in congress but something's gotta give... in other words, nobody cares what you want - This isn't medicine of necessity; this is medicine of convenience. Shit man, women don't just randomly get pregnant the same way they develop cancer. Pregnancy is a reaction to unprotected sex which is irresponsible if the goal is to not get pregnant. I refuse to pay for medicine of convenience. define "necessity" aren't you against public healthcare anyway? By your viewpoint no medicine is of necessity to begin with. Which point? Privatization? I think the fact that it is medicine of convenience is enough to show that it does not require public funding. I don't care if it is profitable; abortion should have a stigma to it because as I stated above, you are killing a baby. this is subjective as far as harvesting organs go, everything I'm seeing shows that planned parenthood did nothing wrong, and that David Daleiden attempted to spread propaganda by editing tapes Edited December 22, 2016 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) Those are both rare cases that are outside of the norm. You know this and that is why you asked specifically. It might be 3% of services but it's something like 40% of the revenue due to how much abortions cost as opposed to say... tampons. Here is another WaPo article which debunks the 3% claim (it also debunks the 94% claim so I'll retract that one). That is significant. And furthermore, I personally do not want any of my money to go to an organization that also engages in abortions, whether or not I pay for them. Which point? Privatization? I think the fact that it is medicine of convenience is enough to show that it does not require public funding. I don't care if it is profitable; abortion should have a stigma to it because as I stated above, you are killing a baby. As for political power, yeah pretty much. Planned Parenthood essentially endorsed Harris in her Senate run after she ordered a highly unethical DoJ raid on an opponent of Planned Parenthood who may have had evidence of at least one clinic selling baby parts off. We don't know for certain because it seems like the DoJ went out of their way to cover it up. If that is not shady, then we have different definitions of the term "shady". Also, Res' point has been debunked in this post. So it's not beautiful. as established, the state usually doesn't get to use that funding for abortions, so most abortions are not subsidized by taxes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/10/02/are-american-taxpayers-paying-for-abortion/#10b9759b7709 an interesting read in just how much is paid for, though. abortion is not a cosmetic procedure. it is not a procedure of convenience. it happens very rarely and is sometimes life-threatening to the mother. and abortions do have a fucking stigma. you are arguing dishonestly yet again. you are exaggerating the rate of abortion and its cost to the public, diminishing the possibility of complications to the point of claiming it's negligible, and dehumanizing the clinical professionals and people that have to go through these. so..you're treating a shady claim (at best) as fact. even if true, this is not evidence that all of planned parenthood and its facilities are shady, as was the claim of the other guy. Edited December 22, 2016 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/planned-parenthoods-services/ this debunks the 94% claim, saying that it's probably around 12%. The source that the wapo article lists is a dead link. i mean i don't want any of my money going to funding all of the assholes in congress but something's gotta give... in other words, nobody cares what you want define "necessity" aren't you against public healthcare anyway? By your viewpoint no medicine is of necessity to begin with. - Which one is a dead link? Both the New York Post and Slate articles work fine for me. - Also, I don't want my money going toward the retards in the Knesset so... same boat. The only difference is that this is something that I can change via democratic vote. If abortion law in Israel were to ever change to a point where it is publicly funded or legal past 20 weeks, I would never vote for a party that didn't include changing the law back in its platform. - Here is how I define necessity. Seriously, what do you want me to say? Women randomly get pregnant on the whole? I thought most people here believed that Christianity was a crock of shit? But hell, I guess the Virgin Mary did get pregnant by divine will since maybe women do just randomly develop a bun in the oven similar to cancer or any other disease. [Disclaimer: This whole point is me being snarky.] - Yes, I do think that public health care is a bad idea. I also know that it'll never get overturned. But abortion is different. abortion is not a cosmetic procedure. it is not a procedure of convenience. it happens very rarely and is sometimes life-threatening to the mother. and abortions do have a fucking stigma. you are arguing dishonestly yet again. you are exaggerating the rate of abortion and its cost to the public, diminishing the possibility of complications to the point of claiming it's negligible, and dehumanizing the clinical professionals and people that have to go through these. This is patently false. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/ Over half a million abortions in a single year in the USA alone. 12.5 abortions per 1000 women. That's not rare. Edited December 22, 2016 by Pepe The Conquerer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 While the 3% figure only gives a small part of the picture, the WaPo article doesn't debunk it, either. That's why I included the bit about it translating to (according to best guesses) 1 in 10 clients walking through the doors of a Planned Parenthood will receive an abortion. That it constitutes 40% of its revenue is surely a positive thing if you're for not funding abortion, because it indicates that a significant number of PP abortions are self-funded. It's not just that Medicaid doesn't go towards PP's abortion services; it's that Medicaid doesn't go towards any of the PP clinics that provide abortions, so it is already quite separated. None of the Texas clinics that are losing funds perform abortion. Planned Parenthood is also not the only provider of abortions in the U.S.; they're the largest, but they only perform 40% of the total number of abortions (that's using Life News' statistics, which are on the higher side). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) - Which one is a dead link? Both the New York Post and Slate articles work fine for me.the one that says the 94% figure in the wapo article http://www.sba-list.org/sites/default/files/content/shared/12.31.14fact_sheet_pp_2013_2014_annual_report.pdf this in particular - Also, I don't want my money going toward the retards in the Knesset so... same boat. The only difference is that this is something that I can change via democratic vote. If abortion law in Israel were to ever change to a point where it is publicly funded or legal past 20 weeks, I would never vote for a party that didn't include changing the law back in its platform. sucks to be you, i don't want my money going towards a lot of shit but it's gonna happen. this is completely irrelevant to discussing the viewpoint of "should there be state funded abortions" - it's not a matter of what either of us want, it's a matter of why you do or don't want it, so what you "want" is completely fucking irrelevant. - Here is how I define necessity.I don't fucking care how the dictionary defines it, I view it as a necessity, you don't, so what do you fucking think is a necessity? Seriously, what do you want me to say? Women randomly get pregnant on the whole? I thought most people here believed that Christianity was a crock of shit? But hell, I guess the Virgin Mary did get pregnant by divine will since maybe women do just randomly develop a bun in the oven similar to cancer or any other disease. [Disclaimer: This whole point is me being snarky.] i don't even know what you're being snarky about because either this joke was actually really awful (btw you've never been funny so stop trying) or it's ~*too smart for my inferior leftist mind*~ - Yes, I do think that public health care is a bad idea. I also know that it'll never get overturned. But abortion is different. How is it different? You said that abortion isn't a necessity because of your own arbitrary definition of necessity. What is a necessity then? How do you define what a necessity is in this context? The dictionary doesn't suffice, because lots of people will argue that public healthcare is a necessity, therefore meaning that your point about abortion not being a necessary medicine but a convenient medicine doesn't make sense - because you're against socialized healthcare, so naturally you don't believe any medicine is a necessity. I don't know where you're going with "such and such a thing is necessary or convenient" when you, yourself, don't believe in anything being state-funded but a military - which implies that nothing is necessary but a military. The two points piggy back off one another, ya? And if something is necessary then why wouldn't the government fund it? You appear to have no clear point on this "necessity" thing, you're just throwing out words that are otherwise meaningless. So what if it's not necessary? There are tons of things you can argue aren't necessary based on any sort of logic. The question is all about where your personal values lie with regard to the word. If I wanted to google the definition of a fucking word, I would have, but you naturally don't have a sense of good faith in this thread or any other thread when you talk to people. Note that I don't care about abortions being publically funded. I want my taxes to go towards people being able to have better lives, but this is highly irrelevant to the discussion. This has little to do with what I want, this has much more to do with why we believe what we do, and discussing those principles. Edited December 22, 2016 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) While the 3% figure only gives a small part of the picture, the WaPo article doesn't debunk it, either. That's why I included the bit about it translating to (according to best guesses) 1 in 10 clients walking through the doors of a Planned Parenthood will receive an abortion. That it constitutes 40% of its revenue is surely a positive thing if you're for not funding abortion, because it indicates that a significant number of PP abortions are self-funded. It's not just that Medicaid doesn't go towards PP's abortion services; it's that Medicaid doesn't go towards any of the PP clinics that provide abortions, so it is already quite separated. None of the Texas clinics that are losing funds perform abortion. Planned Parenthood is also not the only provider of abortions in the U.S.; they're the largest, but they only perform 40% of the total number of abortions (that's using Life News' statistics, which are on the higher side). That's not the point. I don't want to fund necessary evil in any way, shape or form. You can't spin it by saying "well, it's only a portion of their business and your money doesn't go towards THAT". I don't care. I don't want any of my money going to any part of it. It can't be that difficult to understand. I don't fucking care how the dictionary defines it, I view it as a necessity, you don't, so what do you fucking think is a necessity? This is the only point I'm going to respond to. If you don't care about the dictionary definition of words, then we have nothing to talk about. If you want to change a word for your own benefit from the academic definition of said word, then I'm cutting this conversation off right here. Because you are not willing to have an honest conversation. Edited December 22, 2016 by eggclipse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) · Hidden by eclipse, December 22, 2016 - He said please. Hidden by eclipse, December 22, 2016 - He said please. I don't fucking care how the dictionary defines it, I view it as a necessity, you don't, so what do you fucking think is a necessity? This is the only point I'm going to respond to. If you don't care about the dictionary definition of words, then we have nothing to talk about. If you want to change a word for your own benefit from the academic definition of said word, then I'm cutting this conversation off right here. Because you are not willing to have an honest conversation. EDIT: Please merge posts. Edited December 22, 2016 by Pepe The Conquerer Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.