[smoothy]

His point is services for 10 million clients a year should be stopped because they do 300,000 abortions. By law abortions cannot be funded by taxpayer dollars. This is verified by tax filings every year. There is no ethnic cleansing when abortions are LEGAL, and voluntary.

http://plannedparenthood.org/files/4...P_Services.pdf

Planned parenthood does very little but abortions and advocating abortions despite their propaganda... and doing things behind the backs of parents.

Personally I'm glad certain groups are getting abortions.(if it prevents Welfare bums of ANY ethnicity from procreating more I'm for it) in fact I think they should get a lot more... since using birth control is either apparently too much of an inconvenience or too difficult for them.

What I take exception with and find hypocritical... is that Liberals push them into it and its considered a great service... if Conservatives pushed them into it, they would be screaming bloody murder about how we are systematically committing ethnic cleansing or Genocide.

[paraclete]

smoothy you have to understand that the society has educated people to drop out and rely of welfare, it is not their fault that employment has moved offshore, that is the result of their short sighted employers who fail to realise that less local income means a shrinking market or lower prices meaning greater volume to achieve the same result. I don't know your system but I know that here we have what we call the poverty trap where once you are on unemployment or welfare the system acts to actually reduce your income if you take a lowly paid part time job so incentive is destroyed. This works against those with larger families actually taking employment and reality doesn't sink in until the kids leave home or are older. We see full time employment being converted to casual or part time jobs.

I know there are some who are generational unemployed because they grow up in homes without their parents modelling productive behaviour but often there are no opportunities any way and the cost of reestablishment elsewhere is beyond them. So I don't think giving them the incentive to abort children through government subsidised advice is a great idea, it sounds like some sort of affirmative action crap gone off the rails

[talaniman]

So I don't think giving them the incentive to abort children through government subsidised advice is a great idea, it sounds like some sort of affirmative action crap gone off the rails

You were going fairly well until you injected this total nonsense into the equation, since there is NO government incentive to abort children nor is it subsidised by the government. Women have sought abortions since the beginning of time and they have that right, but US law clearly states that no taxpayer money can be used for an abortion (abortions are funded through private donations, and women of means have been going to ob/gyns for decades for their abortion).

Maybe you should Google the Roe v Wade case, or peruse the budget figures released every year by the government and see the small expenditure for welfare each year. It would help you also to stop comparing your own population to one that's 5 times as big, as there is NONE. We were like you, before diversity created the culture clashes we now see playing itself out. You will be like us too, as you diversify from your own singley dominant culture, and assimilation is not so easy with dwindling numbers.

You are correct about population being the real issue, but you have to be aware of the composition of the growing population. I doubt your huge island will insulate you against the migrations of other cultures for too much longer though, any more than China can remain isolated from the machinations of the rest of the world.

Sovereignty is but an illusion to deny the FACT there is only ONE human race, and keeping the blood pure is unsustainable, which makes ethnic cleansing a horrible way for humans to behave by any standard, or excuse.

[cdad]

You were going fairly well until you injected this total nonsense into the equation, since there is NO government incentive to abort children nor is it subsidised by the government. Women have sought abortions since the beginning of time and they have that right, but US law clearly states that no taxpayer money can be used for an abortion (abortions are funded through private donations, and women of means have been going to ob/gyns for decades for their abortion).

What has been bothering me is that we dont actually know for sure that government money isnt being used for abortions. Through creative bookkeeping and the sidestepping of laws there is a window where it may be happening. We need to demand answers and carefully decern where the deviding line is for the charges that are being claimed. Since we now know that some of the aborted are being harvested for research then it can be deduced that the procedure could be claimed as research and thereby sidestepping the law. If this is happening then we need explinations.


As far as the claims that continue in this debate Im posting some links as to where the claims are coming from.

BlackGenocide.org | Abortion and the Black Community

NYC: More Black Babies Killed by Abortion Than Born

KKK Lynched 3,446 Blacks in 86 Years – Abortion Claims That Many Black Babies in ‘Less Than Four Days’

[paraclete]

Tom you like to twist what I say, you know what I mean without further explanation. Consider this the advising organisation should not be the organisation carrying out the procedure irrespective of funding

[talaniman]

That's what tax filings are for and while I agree they can be creative, they can be audited and verified. The means and procedure and process is in place. I also reject the way the stats presented are spun since they do NOT reflect the circumstance of the female who VOLUNTARILY chooses abortions. Very subtle way to link abortions to murder. A typical pro-life position that is invalid and misleading.

Examining the issue of abortion in such narrow terms is akin to saying the Civil War was about states rights and not slavery. Both cases are about the RIGHT to make choices as individuals based on individual circumstance. Both cases are about one group taking away that choice from a second group.

So we can holler our objections to the choices others make, those choices for having an abortion are both legal and voluntary, and while pro-lifers are insistent against it, they won't step up and defend those babies after they are born. That's the real hypocrisy of those who are against abortions, and no doubt the incentive to have one in the first place. Especially given most women already have kids and want no more.

The number of abortions has been declining

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/us...inds.html?_r=0

But Dr. Joffe agreed with the report that the wider use of contraceptives — IUDs that can prevent pregnancy for up to 10 years and injectable hormonal drugs that do so for months — appears to be an important factor in the reported recent decline.
These long-term, more reliable methods can have high upfront costs, Dr. Joffe noted. The cost may be a factor in the significantly higher rates of abortion among black and Hispanic women and the poor compared with white women, she said, and also points up the importance of providing health insurance that covers contraception to low-income women.

We both know CDad, there is much opposition to health care AND contraceptives by those that oppose abortions. Even in the educating of people to those better options.

[cdad]

Under an audit the findings can be classified as research when the intent was to get an abortion paid for with government funds. That is the part I am leary about since the discovery of the way they have been handling fetal tissues.

I dont know if it is happening or not but it does raise the question.

Another conflicting stat is that the number of abortions has been declining but why is it consistent through the years that the percentage of abortions at PP remains at a constant 3%. That again raises red flags to me.

[talaniman]

Would seem that if the private donations support the number of abortions performed then what's the worry?

Abortions are contracted to private doctors, and the procedure is the same be it PP, or a private clinic, depending on the doctor. I do know that mothers have to consent and sign forms for the tissue to be used any way, as do anyone who donates anybody part either for research or transplants under federal law and has been even before PP and stem cell research were ever thought of.

I get knowing the graphic details can be disturbing to many, but so would an autopsy, or images of the reality of war (Imagine the images after the Newtown shooting). I don't make light of such sensibilities either, but clinicians discussing their craft may be something not accepted by the general public especially not over lunch. I can respect that, yet feel the purpose was to inflame rather than educate by this group releasing the heavily edited video. That it was edited is a red flag to me, but I cannot totally dismiss your red flags either and have to research those numbers deeper.

A valid argument CDad, though I expect that 3% to reflect a slower decline than may have been alluded too, but will still verify if possible.

[tomder55]

Under an audit the findings can be classified as research when the intent was to get an abortion paid for with government funds. That is the part I am leary about since the discovery of the way they have been handling fetal tissues.

I dont know if it is happening or not but it does raise the question.

Another conflictins stat is that the number of abortions has been declining but why is it consistent through the years that the percentage of abortions at PP remains at a constant 3%. That again raises red flags to me.

They can deny it all they want to . Money is fungible . PP gets more money from taxpayers than from private sources .

PP makes the absurd argument that only 3 % of their services are abortions . You want to talk about playing games with figures ? This is how they come up with theirs . A pregnant women comes in for an abortion . PP does a pregnancy screening ,maybe an STD screening ;and after the abortion she's given birth control pills. So for that one women ;the abortion only accounts for 25% of the services provided . Yet the sole reason that woman went to PP was to get that abortion. So I ask myself ;was taxpayer dollars being used for 75% of the services related to that abortion ? I'm betting it was.

Like I said ...there is NO reason for taxpayer to give a dime to a clinic that performs abortions ;regardless of the other services it provides . PP isn't the only option for other women's health services .

[paraclete]

Like I said ...there is NO reason for taxpayer to give a dime to a clinic that performs abortions ;regardless of the other services it provides . PP isn't the only option for other women's health services .

I agree with you Tom

[talaniman]

Unfortunately, you both seem to be in a minority as to should PP receive federal funding.

Reuters Poll: Most Back Funding Planned Parenthood on Women's Health Services

Just curious where those better options are for those 10 million clients that PP serves a year? While it's true money is fungible, you do understand PP has to show a level of donation (Non government funding) to support the number of abortions they do?

[paraclete]

Unfortunately, you both seem to be in a minority as to should PP receive federal funding.

Reuters Poll: Most Back Funding Planned Parenthood on Women's Health Services

Just curious where those better options are for those 10 million clients that PP serves a year? While it's true money is fungible, you do understand PP has to show a level of donation (Non government funding) to support the number of abortions they do?

You miss the point entirely Tal. Women can receive advice from their doctors and should PP no longer offer abortion services then they may receive service from such organisations but it is entirely inappropriate that PP should be both the advisor and provider of the service. You may be unaware but incentives are common among the medical profession which leads to over servicing and the government should not play a part on what is, after all, a private enterprise

[tomder55]

tal there are Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) all over the country . Not only that ;but if PP was defunded ,Obamacare provides block grants for FQHCs. Just as these walk in clinics are springing up in just about every strip mall over changes in the health care laws ,so would more FQHCs that cater to women's health open .

Where Obamacare gets it wrong is that it tells these clinics that if they become FQHCs, they'll receive federal funding IF they distribute contraceptives, including abortifacient ...and give written referrals to other FQHCs that provide abortions if they don't do abortions .Obamacare in other words has it completely backwards .

All we need to do is make a provision in the law that no women's clinic or organizations that perform abortions are qualified for Federal Funding . I know that won't happen with the emperor ,Evita ,or Bolshevic Bernie in office . But it is doable if a Repubic (besides Trump and other RINOs running ) becomes President .

[talaniman]

I think it's you who miss the point that right now PP is popular (and in demand) and preferred by the populace, and women have a right to an abortion. Not surprising that you are against poor and minority people that fall between the cracks of health care services that YOU deem wrong.

It's YOU who have sought to curtail the rights of this segment of the population. Loud as you may be on the subject, you are a rapidly growing minority, and until the options you speak of become a VIABLE realistic reality your protest will be seen as another failed attempt to control the free expression and choices of other Americans.

Personally trying to tie women's health choices to religious morality is disgusting, and hypocritical given the science behind reproductive health issues, and focusing on such a narrow core of the population who have the least resources defeats the whole purpose of making abortions UNNECESSARY in the first place.

So let me know when those clinics popping up in stripmalls everywhere can offer the full range of services women need, and lawfully demand, without the moral stamp of approval of the MINORITY.

Change the law then... but you tried that and FAILED already right? Further you make no bones with unneeded embryos being destroyed, sold, after the IVF process is completed. Not a peep at all.

[tomder55]

There are already some FQHCs . Abortion being legal is wrong ,but that is not my point . Taxpayer funding for abortions ,either legally or by the shell games that PP plays is unacceptable . If PP disappeared tomorrow it would take days for alternative FQHCs to pop up .

But even that is irrelevent . Let PP survive without funding if they can OR stop performing abortions if they wish to continue to receive federal funding .
I think that lets them off easy after what has been revealed about their monstorous practices .

[talaniman]

Defunding efforts have failed, so your point is a moot one, and right or wrong abortions are LEGAL. Those are the FACTS.

[tomder55]

I already stated the conditions under which defunding will happen. In the meantime I want Congressional hearings and a special prosecutor to investigate their harvesting of body parts like the Nazi's did "for medical research " .
Yes ethic cleansing . PP is ground zero in this country not some local-yokel dj in Iowa.

[talaniman]

I have no problem with the MARKET defunding PP. PP exists because there is a DEMAND for the services and very little supply. You don't need congressional hearings for that. Nor does it appear enough support for one. There was not for defunding.

[paraclete]

I have no problem with the MARKET defunding PP. PP exists because there is a DEMAND for the services and very little supply. You don't need congressional hearings for that. Nor does it appear enough support for one. There was not for defunding.

Do you hear yourself? But the statistics give the lie to your argument. PP provide a third of abortion services, that doesn't sound like very little supply, It sounds like a market in which there is plenty of competition and PP are a major player. As a major player it should be capable of standing alone without government support

[talaniman]

The niche that PP fills is for people with limited to non existent resources and fewer options. Of course that need will not go back in the closet, or the back alley's and that's the purpose of government to serve the needs of the least. Maybe another business model will emerge to compete for those dollars but until then PP is all some have.

Because you are of the opinion that it's wrong to even have abortions is totally irrelevant since its legal. Actually it's none of your business you hypocrite since the sanctity of life you scream about so incessantly seems to end after birth. You scream about the problem of man being population then it's a responsible choice to limit the population voluntarily, but of course you holler without listening to YOURSELF.

Until such time education and science are the normal practice abortions are and have always been viable options for women. Did I mention they are LEGAL?