2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Google Hyde Amendment when you get a moment. Prohibits federal dollars from funding abortion procedures.

The Hyde Ammendment is a joke.

Hiding Behind Hyde - YouTube

for Giantone: Planned Parenthood's facility income is approximately 37% from abortions.

How about this for a reasonable compromise; Planned Parenthood stops any non-morning-after pill abortions and keeps their funding.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The Hyde Ammendment is a joke.


for Giantone: Planned Parenthood's facility income is approximately 37% from abortions.

How about this for a reasonable compromise; Planned Parenthood stops any non-morning-after pill abortions and keeps their funding.

Sorry Sammy I'll go with the washington post over ....well who ever that is.Sammy you are male and so am I, why should you and I decide what a woman can do with her body?

Sammy your'e wrong,again.

[Giantone]

For sammy...........,read the link.

FactCheck.org : Planned Parenthood


Q: How much of Planned Parenthood’s services are dedicated to abortions? Does the federal government fund those procedures?
A: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law.


3% not 37%,again scare tatics.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Giantone

For sammy...........,read the link.

FactCheck.org : Planned Parenthood


Q: How much of Planned Parenthood’s services are dedicated to abortions? Does the federal government fund those procedures?
A: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law.


3% not 37%,again scare tatics.

That's 37% of all abortions performed in the USA. I'd also like to know how 10% of their clients have abortions but its only 3% of their business. I'm actually not against abortion I'm against tax payer funding. Seems the left wants freedom to do as they please without judgement but they then think its the tax payers problem to pay for their f&^k ups.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I'd also like to know how 10% of their clients have abortions but its only 3% of their business.

Checkout the chart on post #900

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Checkout the chart on post #900

That does not answer my question. If 10% of their customers have abortions then wouldn't that make it 10% of what they do?

Oh wait I can answer the question. They also come in for birth control and std's before coming back for an abortion. LMAO

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by firstdown

That does not answer my question. If 10% of their customers have abortions then wouldn't that make it 10% of what they do?

Oh wait I can answer the question. They also come in for birth control and std's before coming back for an abortion. LMAO

Does that not make sense, really? Especially with an individual woman getting more care than actual abortions? I still question everybody's figures, given how charged this whole debate is.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Sorry Sammy I'll go with the washington post over ....well who ever that is.Sammy you are male and so am I, why should you and I decide what a woman can do with her body?

Sammy your'e wrong,again.

Please read my statement it is 100% factually correct. I also did not dispute your 3% number. My numbers and yours just frame the argument differently.

"for Giantone: Planned Parenthood's facility income is approximately 37% from abortions."

We are both male, however that's not the point. Why should federal tax dollars fund abortion? If a woman wants an abortion it's her choice...I vehemently disagree with it....but it is legally (currently) her choice. However, what about the unborn girls & boys...do they get a say in this. When does the baby become a baby and not just a mass of cells....2 months, 4 months, 6 months, whenever that happens it's no longer just the mother's choice.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Please read my statement it is 100% factually correct. I also did not dispute your 3% number. My numbers and yours just frame the argument differently.

.

No Sammy it's not ,maybe in your world but not in the real word.As I documented Planned parenthood does way, way more then abortions but you don't acknowledge that.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The Hyde Ammendment is a joke.

Hiding Behind Hyde - YouTube

for Giantone: Planned Parenthood's facility income is approximately 37% from abortions.

How about this for a reasonable compromise; Planned Parenthood stops any non-morning-after pill abortions and keeps their funding.

Ah the old "fungibility argument". If we applied that argument to all gov't funding and took it to it's logical conclusion, we'd all be up the creek. Nothing would be funded, nothing would get built, no gov't programs would exist for the good of our society.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Ah the old "fungibility argument". If we applied that argument to all gov't funding and took it to it's logical conclusion, we'd all be up the creek. Nothing would be funded, nothing would get built, no gov't programs would exist for the good of our society.

There's a lot of illogic to this whole debate to me. Among many quandaries: How do you choose between an late term abortion where it really is a baby just still in the womb (whenever you think that is). Or telling a woman she must give birth to a child she doesn't want to. Both are immoral IMO.

And when does a fetus turn into a baby? I'd say based on pure logic (which may not apply here), have a study determine at what brain activity is considered "sentient" for a fetus/baby. But it seems to me both sides are scared about what that answer might be, so they argue the extremes: "conception" vs. "partial-birth-abortion".

Planned parenthood is full of, for lack of a better word, confusion to me.

1. Talking about government funding in your post above. It's good that we apply the "all or nothing" approach to organizations and educational entities. They must follow federal law on civil rights, mandates on quality of care or education, or they lose all funding. So why does Planned Parenthood get a pass on the "all or nothing" requirement when it comes to funding abortion?

2. It seems like the name Planned Parenthood is just a PR move. It's not really wrong, people frame debates all the time by calling someone pro-abortion or anti-choice. It just strikes me as disingenuous that they name themselves after a situation they aren't needed in: a planned parenthood. Contraception, abortion, STDs apply in any case parenthood or not, isn't what their name implies. Fertility clinics, conception aids, and birth centers are what an organization named "planned parenthood" would be about, IMO.

3. The statistics being tossed about. I really have no idea what's the truth. On Planned Parenthood's website, they say "One in three women has an abortion at some point in her life. Do you know anyone who has had an abortion?" Yeah, but 1-3 seems high to me. Does the "1 in 3 women get abortions" ratio sound high for where you live, or about right, or an underestimate?



edit: And what is going on here? Is abortion mandated "all or nothing" here?

The Department of Health and Human Services announced on Thursday that a Texas law excluding Planned Parenthood from the state's Medicaid Women's Health Program violated federal rules, meaning the program would no longer receive any federal funding.

The Texas law, which went into effect this week, prevents patients using the Women's Health Program from going to any clinic that has an affiliation with an abortion provider, including a shared name, employee, or board member.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

There's a lot of illogic to this whole debate to me. Among many quandaries: How do you choose between an late term abortion where it really is a baby just still in the womb (whenever you think that is). Or telling a woman she must give birth to a child she doesn't want to. Both are immoral IMO.

And when does a fetus turn into a baby? I'd say based on pure logic (which may not apply here), have a study determine at what brain activity is considered "sentient" for a fetus/baby. But it seems to me both sides are scared about what that answer might be, so they argue the extremes: "conception" vs. "partial-birth-abortion".

Planned parenthood is full of, for lack of a better word, confusion to me.

1. Talking about government funding in your post above. It's good that we apply the "all or nothing" approach to organizations and educational entities. They must follow federal law on civil rights, mandates on quality of care or education, or they lose all funding. So why does Planned Parenthood get a pass on the "all or nothing" requirement when it comes to funding abortion?

2. It seems like the name Planned Parenthood is just a PR move. It's not really wrong, people frame debates all the time by calling someone pro-abortion or anti-choice. It just strikes me as disingenuous that they name themselves after a situation they aren't needed in: a planned parenthood. Contraception, abortion, STDs apply in any case parenthood or not, isn't what their name implies. Fertility clinics, conception aids, and birth centers are what an organization named "planned parenthood" would be about, IMO.

3. The statistics being tossed about. I really have no idea what's the truth. On Planned Parenthood's website, they say "One in three women has an abortion at some point in her life. Do you know anyone who has had an abortion?" Yeah, but 1-3 seems high to me. Does the "1 in 3 women get abortions" ratio sound high for where you live, or about right, or an underestimate?



edit: And what is going on here? Is abortion mandated "all or nothing" here?

The Department of Health and Human Services announced on Thursday that a Texas law excluding Planned Parenthood from the state's Medicaid Women's Health Program violated federal rules, meaning the program would no longer receive any federal funding.

The Texas law, which went into effect this week, prevents patients using the Women's Health Program from going to any clinic that has an affiliation with an abortion provider, including a shared name, employee, or board member.

Its because you have no way of seperating the funds so federal money does go toward abortions. TX tried to correct this problem.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Its because you have no way of seperating the funds so federal money does go toward abortions. TX tried to correct this problem.

So Planned Parenthood can't separate funds and get federal money either, as long as they fund abortions. Right?

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Its because you have no way of seperating the funds so federal money does go toward abortions. TX tried to correct this problem.

I deal with federal monies fairly regularly at work. I can tell you this, we're very strict about what is appropriated for X may NOT be used for Y. I'm not working on anything near as controversial as that -- but money is put in seperate pools that cannot be touched by other processes. Fairly strict record keeping behind all of those accounts. I don't have any direct knowledge of this particular situation, but there are ways of seperating funds established and enforced in other areas.