[joypulv]

I don't mind discussion. I just recently found out about Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton, who says 'Yes, abortion is killing; we do kill; that doesn't mean it's all wrong.' I felt liberated by that notion, because arguing over when life begins wasn't cutting it for me, and a woman gets to decide what to do with her own body was too, although not as much.

[Catsmine]

Joy, see my post #9. During this existence, you kill to survive. Take a deep breath, hold it for 5 seconds, let it out. You just killed 5 million organisms. Life is cheap.

[joypulv]

I read your post, Cats. I went right to ethics of human abortion because of all the people who already recognize that we 'kill,' but who place human life in a category of it's own.

[talaniman]

The same people hollering about too much government, and regulation are the same people who want to make laws telling people what to do with their lives. They want to ban all abortions, but holler when you have to feed, clothe, and educate the babies.

I think we let females make their own decisions and give them as much FACTS, and SUPPORT as quickly and early as possible. That does start with a doctor as soon as possible, no matter who pays for it. We all pay in the end one way or another anyway.

I think its deplorable to reduce the value of such a complex subject as female health to who can and cannot afford it then justify it with simple soaring rhetoric that broad brushes hand picked situations that lump all cases into the same basket.

For some it comes down to who can afford to survive and how. Its easy to blame and criticize the have nots for not having, while placing a higher value on those that have. Moral righteousness by networth.

[joypulv]

Well spoken, tal.

And I as a woman sit here with my TV on, with every other commercial one for an ED drug, a drug covered by Medicare for any bozo who whines about his sex life, so OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS are paying for those ads and those drugs!

And yes, I'm exaggerating the whiny men wanting those drugs, but only a TINY BIT, and I did it for effect. That will surely be lost on the men who sit on their high moral perches.

[Catsmine]

They want to ban all abortions

You have to ask these wannabe doctors just how many of those unwanted babies they're willing to raise. You'll find a couple of sincere folks who've adopted, but not many.

[paraclete]

Talking in absolutes changes nothing, there are solutions to these problems but insufficient responsibility to implement them

[Catsmine]

To get back to the OP, some people reading the report note that the group's terminations went up while most of the rest of their services went down.

Planned Parenthood Performed 174 Abortions for Every Adoption Referral in 2014

[joypulv]

What solutions do you have in mind?
With all the birth control handed out, it's mind boggling what we would have without it. And PP hands out tons of it.

[joypulv]

327,166 to 327,653? How meaningful.

Isn't it wonderful how we can make a stat sound any way we want?

PP provides OPTIONS, all of them. If referrals are down, that is because of they are rejected by the women. DUH!

If contraception provided is down, that could be because the 72 hour pills need a doctor's script. Girls who want to hide from parental knowledge may be joining the women who are getting them overseas, I hear. Not too sure, but I don't trust that article anyway.
Anyone who thinks PP's agenda is to give abortions is a rabble rousing fool.

[NeedKarma]

Well the women choose whether to abort or carry and put up for adoption. I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

[paraclete]

Karma I think what we have here is much barking, but you know as well as I do that these arguments will go on unresolved

[Catsmine]

My solution is quite simple, Joy. Planned Parenthood should increase fundraising efforts and curtail grant-writing. The only objection I have to the organization is their receiving funding from their opponents. A privately funded non-profit would not be controversial, except for the WBC jihadists protesting them.

[paraclete]

So your solution is to withdraw funding from these quasi non-profits, a non-profit should be about promoting a cause not provinding services, but if you do that you have to do it across the board, which will cut into many government programs

[joypulv]

Countless non profits provide services and get tax dollars. I have worked for one in the mental health field. It was called "cheaper than a hospital bill.' Same with PP - cheaper than 18 years of welfare supporting an unwanted child, usually of a girl much too young to be a parent and often not wanting anyone to know she is pregnant.

[Catsmine]

if you do that you have to do it across the board, which will cut into many government programs

The down side of that is ... ??

[talaniman]

Go ahead, cut the government programs and many who need services won't get them. Hope you never get in that position and have nowhere to go.

[Catsmine]

cut the government programs and many who need services won't get them

The fundamental difference in viewpoint between the libertarian and statist viewpoints. Statists believe with religious intensity that only the government can provide charity. Libertarians believe with equal fervor that charity should not be funded at gunpoint.

[talaniman]

I am neither, but when churches and private business cannot provide for the needy, the government should step in and help. The great recession made a lot of people needy. Even during good times churches miss many and a breast exam may be a bit out of religious expertise.

[Catsmine]

the government should step in

That's the problem. Being made up of bureaucracies, the government cannot stop stepping in since the fundamental mission of any bureaucracy is to grow its budget. How does the old one about the camel getting its nose under the tent go?