Senate to vote on defunding Planned Parenthood
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:56:26 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Senate to vote on defunding Planned Parenthood
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Poll
Question: Should we defund Planned Parenthood
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 99

Author Topic: Senate to vote on defunding Planned Parenthood  (Read 13433 times)
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2015, 05:53:18 PM »


If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.

If they're not human, then what species are they? Alien? This is the most ridiculous argument the pro choice people come up with. Reasonable people can differ on whether they believe the fetus is alive. But the whole it's not human thing is stupid and completely nonsensical. Sure, it's not a fully formed human. But they're still human. Just because one's brain or heart isn't fully developed doesn't mean they are a different creature from what they will ultimately turn out to be.
Logged
YaBoyNY
NYMillennial
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,469
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2015, 06:05:55 PM »


If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.

If they're not human, then what species are they? Alien? This is the most ridiculous argument the pro choice people come up with. Reasonable people can differ on whether they believe the fetus is alive. But the whole it's not human thing is stupid and completely nonsensical. Sure, it's not a fully formed human. But they're still human. Just because one's brain or heart isn't fully developed doesn't mean they are a different creature from what they will ultimately turn out to be.

A fetus is a pre-human, not a human.

Sapience is the very essence of what makes us human. A fetus isn't sapient.

Take a fetus out of the womb at 3 months and see how well it works for you.
Logged
Classic Conservative
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,628


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2015, 06:18:56 PM »


If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.
So than what is a fetus.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2015, 06:25:31 PM »


If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.

If they're not human, then what species are they? Alien? This is the most ridiculous argument the pro choice people come up with. Reasonable people can differ on whether they believe the fetus is alive. But the whole it's not human thing is stupid and completely nonsensical. Sure, it's not a fully formed human. But they're still human. Just because one's brain or heart isn't fully developed doesn't mean they are a different creature from what they will ultimately turn out to be.

A fetus is a pre-human, not a human.

Sapience is the very essence of what makes us human. A fetus isn't sapient.

Take a fetus out of the womb at 3 months and see how well it works for you.

Per dictionary.com, Sapient means 'having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment'. Sure, a fetus doesn't have great wisdom or sound judgement, but neither does a toddler. Do we have to start calling a toddler a 'pre-human' now?
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 29, 2015, 06:44:36 PM »


If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.

If they're not human, then what species are they? Alien? This is the most ridiculous argument the pro choice people come up with. Reasonable people can differ on whether they believe the fetus is alive. But the whole it's not human thing is stupid and completely nonsensical. Sure, it's not a fully formed human. But they're still human. Just because one's brain or heart isn't fully developed doesn't mean they are a different creature from what they will ultimately turn out to be.

Weirdly, I disagree with this. Reasonable people might disagree about whether a fetus constitutes a singular instance of human life, which it does. But, no reasonable person can possibly disagree on whether a fetus is alive. That much is obvious.
Logged
YaBoyNY
NYMillennial
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,469
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 29, 2015, 07:08:45 PM »


If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.
So than what is a fetus.

The post above you explains it, if you'd be so kind as to read it.


If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.

If they're not human, then what species are they? Alien? This is the most ridiculous argument the pro choice people come up with. Reasonable people can differ on whether they believe the fetus is alive. But the whole it's not human thing is stupid and completely nonsensical. Sure, it's not a fully formed human. But they're still human. Just because one's brain or heart isn't fully developed doesn't mean they are a different creature from what they will ultimately turn out to be.

A fetus is a pre-human, not a human.

Sapience is the very essence of what makes us human. A fetus isn't sapient.

Take a fetus out of the womb at 3 months and see how well it works for you.

Per dictionary.com, Sapient means 'having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment'. Sure, a fetus doesn't have great wisdom or sound judgement, but neither does a toddler. Do we have to start calling a toddler a 'pre-human' now?

That's an odd definition, since any reasonable definition wouldn't use "great wisdom."

Sapience is essentially the step above sentience. You can argue that a fetus demonstrates sentience, since it can react in a reflexive way to external stimuli, but it does not demonstrate sapience.
Logged
Classic Conservative
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,628


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 29, 2015, 07:23:08 PM »
« Edited: July 29, 2015, 07:27:33 PM by Classic Conservative »


If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.
So than what is a fetus.

The post above you explains it, if you'd be so kind as to read it.

No, you still didn't answer my question it just reads "not human.", Since, more than likely you believe life starts when your out of the womb, then how can you support Partial Birth Abortion beacuse they take the baby out and then kill it, so technically it's alive beacuse it's outside of the womb and if you don't believe me look it up online. And don't say it's to bloody.
Logged
YaBoyNY
NYMillennial
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,469
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 29, 2015, 07:30:05 PM »


If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.
So than what is a fetus.

The post above you explains it, if you'd be so kind as to read it.

No, you still didn't answer my question it just reads "not human.", Since, more than likely you believe life starts when your out of the womb, then how can you support Partial Birth Abortion beacuse they take the baby out and then kill it, so technically it's alive beacuse it's outside of the womb and if you don't believe me look it up online. And don't say it's to bloody.

What the  are you even saying? This is like some weird run on rambling where you make an assumption of what why view is (without having read any of my previous posts, by the way) and proceed to say... something about what you think my opinion is?
Logged
Classic Conservative
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,628


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 29, 2015, 07:56:56 PM »


If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.
So than what is a fetus.

The post above you explains it, if you'd be so kind as to read it.

No, you still didn't answer my question it just reads "not human.", Since, more than likely you believe life starts when your out of the womb, then how can you support Partial Birth Abortion beacuse they take the baby out and then kill it, so technically it's alive beacuse it's outside of the womb and if you don't believe me look it up online. And don't say it's to bloody.

What the  are you even saying? This is like some weird run on rambling where you make an assumption of what why view is (without having read any of my previous posts, by the way) and proceed to say... something about what you think my opinion is?
I said more than likely, it doesn't mean I'm positive. I said more than likely beacuse most Democrats here support it but if you don't. Smiley
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,223
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 29, 2015, 08:00:50 PM »

Were Republicans unaware until this "scandal" that medical research is done on aborted fetuses?

You'd think that pretty much anyone on either side would rather the fetuses go to some use rather than just thrown away. It's not like women are getting pregnant just so they can abort and donate, so why not?
Logged
YaBoyNY
NYMillennial
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,469
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 29, 2015, 08:17:42 PM »


If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.
So than what is a fetus.

The post above you explains it, if you'd be so kind as to read it.

No, you still didn't answer my question it just reads "not human.", Since, more than likely you believe life starts when your out of the womb, then how can you support Partial Birth Abortion beacuse they take the baby out and then kill it, so technically it's alive beacuse it's outside of the womb and if you don't believe me look it up online. And don't say it's to bloody.

What the  are you even saying? This is like some weird run on rambling where you make an assumption of what why view is (without having read any of my previous posts, by the way) and proceed to say... something about what you think my opinion is?
I said more than likely, it doesn't mean I'm positive. I said more than likely beacuse most Democrats here support it but if you don't. Smiley
I didn't say if you were right or wrong.

But it generally is a good idea not to argue based on an assumption.
Logged
Classic Conservative
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,628


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 29, 2015, 08:19:08 PM »


If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.
So than what is a fetus.

The post above you explains it, if you'd be so kind as to read it.

No, you still didn't answer my question it just reads "not human.", Since, more than likely you believe life starts when your out of the womb, then how can you support Partial Birth Abortion beacuse they take the baby out and then kill it, so technically it's alive beacuse it's outside of the womb and if you don't believe me look it up online. And don't say it's to bloody.

What the  are you even saying? This is like some weird run on rambling where you make an assumption of what why view is (without having read any of my previous posts, by the way) and proceed to say... something about what you think my opinion is?
I said more than likely, it doesn't mean I'm positive. I said more than likely beacuse most Democrats here support it but if you don't. Smiley
I didn't say if you were right or wrong.

But it generally is a good idea not to argue based on an assumption.
Ok, what is your position then.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 29, 2015, 08:22:31 PM »


If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.
So than what is a fetus.

The post above you explains it, if you'd be so kind as to read it.

No, you still didn't answer my question it just reads "not human.", Since, more than likely you believe life starts when your out of the womb, then how can you support Partial Birth Abortion beacuse they take the baby out and then kill it, so technically it's alive beacuse it's outside of the womb and if you don't believe me look it up online. And don't say it's to bloody.

What the  are you even saying? This is like some weird run on rambling where you make an assumption of what why view is (without having read any of my previous posts, by the way) and proceed to say... something about what you think my opinion is?
Gotta love it when posters forget the swear filter and leave a gap in their sentence while attacking other posters for rambling Wink.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 29, 2015, 08:39:26 PM »

If it isn't defunded, Congress should at least prohibit them from donating to political campaigns while receiving federal funds. I mean, Planned Parenthood is a corporation, and they engage in a lot of corporate money speech, which the left usually says is bad. It just seems weird that the feds give money to a non-profit which has lots of profits, enabling it to divert those profits into attack ads against Republicans.
The Feds don't just "give" money to Planned Parenthood, they buy the provision of services from them.  I rather doubt that the Koch brothers would be happy if everyone with a political agenda couldn't provide services to the government.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 29, 2015, 08:47:09 PM »


If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.
So than what is a fetus.

The post above you explains it, if you'd be so kind as to read it.


If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.

If they're not human, then what species are they? Alien? This is the most ridiculous argument the pro choice people come up with. Reasonable people can differ on whether they believe the fetus is alive. But the whole it's not human thing is stupid and completely nonsensical. Sure, it's not a fully formed human. But they're still human. Just because one's brain or heart isn't fully developed doesn't mean they are a different creature from what they will ultimately turn out to be.

A fetus is a pre-human, not a human.

Sapience is the very essence of what makes us human. A fetus isn't sapient.

Take a fetus out of the womb at 3 months and see how well it works for you.

Per dictionary.com, Sapient means 'having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment'. Sure, a fetus doesn't have great wisdom or sound judgement, but neither does a toddler. Do we have to start calling a toddler a 'pre-human' now?

That's an odd definition, since any reasonable definition wouldn't use "great wisdom."

Sapience is essentially the step above sentience. You can argue that a fetus demonstrates sentience, since it can react in a reflexive way to external stimuli, but it does not demonstrate sapience.

I looked around at other definitions of sapience, and pretty much everything has being "wise" or "sagacious (having or showing keen mental discernment and good judgement)" or "of sound judgment" in the definition. One version did have "intelligent life", but it was listed down in the alternate definitions with the notation "chiefly used in science fiction". Not the best word choice.

Based on your '3 months' line above, I think what you're trying to say is that because fetuses are incapable of survival outside the womb, they are not humans. Well, leaving aside the point that, by that definition, fetuses become human three weeks before birth (the last three weeks of pregnancy are completely unnecessary for the purpose of allowing the fetus to survive without an incubator's help), what you're also implying here is that dependency on someone else makes one not human. Since any human under 12 or so would surely die if left to survive on the streets absent some helpful bystander, what you are essentially saying is that humans are not humans in their first years of life outside the womb.

Ah, how an argument can fall apart.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 29, 2015, 09:03:52 PM »

If it isn't defunded, Congress should at least prohibit them from donating to political campaigns while receiving federal funds. I mean, Planned Parenthood is a corporation, and they engage in a lot of corporate money speech, which the left usually says is bad. It just seems weird that the feds give money to a non-profit which has lots of profits, enabling it to divert those profits into attack ads against Republicans.
The Feds don't just "give" money to Planned Parenthood, they buy the provision of services from them.  I rather doubt that the Koch brothers would be happy if everyone with a political agenda couldn't provide services to the government.

That would definitely make Boeing and Lockheed Martin very very angry, and so would never happen.
Logged
YaBoyNY
NYMillennial
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,469
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 29, 2015, 09:15:19 PM »


If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.
So than what is a fetus.

The post above you explains it, if you'd be so kind as to read it.


If they aren't human, then what are they? They're clearly more than a random bunch of cells bonded together. 'Fetus' is not a species, it's a stage of life.

What's the argument for a fetus being a human being other than the fact that, after birth, it becomes a human being?

Hint: There isn't one, and it's not a human while it's a fetus.

If they're not human, then what species are they? Alien? This is the most ridiculous argument the pro choice people come up with. Reasonable people can differ on whether they believe the fetus is alive. But the whole it's not human thing is stupid and completely nonsensical. Sure, it's not a fully formed human. But they're still human. Just because one's brain or heart isn't fully developed doesn't mean they are a different creature from what they will ultimately turn out to be.

A fetus is a pre-human, not a human.

Sapience is the very essence of what makes us human. A fetus isn't sapient.

Take a fetus out of the womb at 3 months and see how well it works for you.

Per dictionary.com, Sapient means 'having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment'. Sure, a fetus doesn't have great wisdom or sound judgement, but neither does a toddler. Do we have to start calling a toddler a 'pre-human' now?

That's an odd definition, since any reasonable definition wouldn't use "great wisdom."

Sapience is essentially the step above sentience. You can argue that a fetus demonstrates sentience, since it can react in a reflexive way to external stimuli, but it does not demonstrate sapience.

I looked around at other definitions of sapience, and pretty much everything has being "wise" or "sagacious (having or showing keen mental discernment and good judgement)" or "of sound judgment" in the definition. One version did have "intelligent life", but it was listed down in the alternate definitions with the notation "chiefly used in science fiction". Not the best word choice.

Based on your '3 months' line above, I think what you're trying to say is that because fetuses are incapable of survival outside the womb, they are not humans. Well, leaving aside the point that, by that definition, fetuses become human three weeks before birth (the last three weeks of pregnancy are completely unnecessary for the purpose of allowing the fetus to survive without an incubator's help), what you're also implying here is that dependency on someone else makes one not human. Since any human under 12 or so would surely die if left to survive on the streets absent some helpful bystander, what you are essentially saying is that humans are not humans in their first years of life outside the womb.

Ah, how an argument can fall apart.

I'm going to break this down for you, since you don't seem to grasp the concept. That's okay, I'm here to help you understand it. I'll put it in really simple terms, so even you can comprehend it.

A toddler, an infant which is out of the womb and surviving, is capable of conscious action. Conscious action based on their own thought. A fetus does not do this. All the talk of fetuses having "feeling" are based on the idea that since they react to external stimuli, they must be sapient. This is not the case. They react based on subconscious reflex. There's no thought to such action.
 
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 29, 2015, 10:23:01 PM »

I don't understand why they need funds from the government. Why can't they just be a private non-profit? I hope they try to defund it, even though Obama will veto it.

Because these sort of programs pay for themselves. Less burden on government services and all.

Universal euthanasia at 80 would also reduce the burden on government services, you know. I'm not convinced this is the best line of reasoning to justify this.

You got me - although I should add that I don't consider embryos persons, while I do consider granny a person and would thus object to euthanising her.

And that is where we differ. Smiley
You don't consider grandma to be a human?!
Logged
Pandaguineapig
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,608
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 30, 2015, 09:49:53 AM »

Yeah I'm sure the liberal defense of this shady organization has nothing to do with planned parenthood spending millions on ads for democratic candidates
Logged
CapoteMonster
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 486
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.49, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: July 30, 2015, 10:57:19 AM »

Yeah I'm sure the liberal defense of this shady organization has nothing to do with planned parenthood spending millions on ads for democratic candidates

Or maybe because we don't want millions of women to be denied access to Pap smears, birth control, pre nadar testing, or STD and cancer screenings. You guys act like Planned Parenthood is some sort of abortion factory when it's 3% of their services and their goal is obviously to make sure women have intended pregnancies and guidance through them. PP prevents hundreds of thousands more pregnancies than abortions they perform. Furthermore people like Wulfric and CC are completely ignoring the dichotomy of personhood and life. If you define any fetus as a person we could easily charge women with negligent behavior for miscarriages at every stage of pregnancy. Would you constitute a zygote as human just because it's living? If so how is it any more human than a egg or sperm and would you ban birth control or abortion a week or two after a coopuole conceives? I hope not.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: July 30, 2015, 12:26:23 PM »

I don't understand why they need funds from the government. Why can't they just be a private non-profit? I hope they try to defund it, even though Obama will veto it.

Because these sort of programs pay for themselves. Less burden on government services and all.

Universal euthanasia at 80 would also reduce the burden on government services, you know. I'm not convinced this is the best line of reasoning to justify this.

You got me - although I should add that I don't consider embryos persons, while I do consider granny a person and would thus object to euthanising her.

And that is where we differ. Smiley

You don't consider grandma to be a human?!

I was waiting for someone to make that joke.

All I will say is this: there is no intrinsic difference between a child a second before leaving the womb and a second after leaving it. Neither can survive on its own, neither can communicate with other people, neither understands the world around it, and so forth. With that in mind, at what point, if not implantation, can a definitive line be drawn between being human and not being human?
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: July 30, 2015, 12:40:51 PM »

Yeah I'm sure the liberal defense of this shady organization has nothing to do with planned parenthood spending millions on ads for democratic candidates

You guys act like Planned Parenthood is some sort of abortion factory when it's 3% of their services and their goal is obviously to make sure women have intended pregnancies and guidance through them.

This is a misleading statistic. Planned Parenthood deflates the proportion by breaking down their "services" into their individual components. Getting an STD test, getting some pills, and taking a condom in one visit count as three individual "services". It's estimated that abortions account for around a third of their revenue, and that they carry out around forty percent of the country's abortions.

It also bears saying that they carried out 327,653 abortions in fiscal 2014, compared to 18,684 "prenatal services" and just 1,880 adoption referrals.
Logged
CapoteMonster
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 486
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.49, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: July 30, 2015, 12:56:09 PM »

Yeah I'm sure the liberal defense of this shady organization has nothing to do with planned parenthood spending millions on ads for democratic candidates

You guys act like Planned Parenthood is some sort of abortion factory when it's 3% of their services and their goal is obviously to make sure women have intended pregnancies and guidance through them.

This is a misleading statistic. Planned Parenthood deflates the proportion by breaking down their "services" into their individual components. Getting an STD test, getting some pills, and taking a condom in one visit count as three individual "services". It's estimated that abortions account for around a third of their revenue, and that they carry out around forty percent of the country's abortions.

It also bears saying that they carried out 327,653 abortions in fiscal 2014, compared to 18,684 "prenatal services" and just 1,880 adoption referrals.

That's not misleading. If someone got an abortion with those three other services no one would say it's stretching the truth that the procedure is only 1/4 of those services. You say they carry out 300k abortions which is closer to 1/3. Guess what, the Title X funding they receive prevents many more (per SWE on AAD).


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-02-24-family-planning_N.htm?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-22IUchRvV.iL.BvPFHrg5Q
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: July 30, 2015, 01:01:22 PM »

You don't think it's not even a little disingenuous to suggest that getting a STD test and getting an abortion are comparable activities?
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: July 30, 2015, 02:13:12 PM »

You don't think it's not even a little disingenuous to suggest that getting a STD test and getting an abortion are comparable activities?

Nope, both are legal women's health activities.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.093 seconds with 14 queries.