Check out some similar questions!

tomder55 · Jan 1, 2015, 05:21 AM

The numbers are in .
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/fil...EB_VERSION.pdf
Planned Parenthood's infanticides totaled 327,653 babies in 2014. That's one every 90 seconds last year.

In doing so they were supported by $528.4 million from government grants and reimbursements;41% of the group’s total revenues. Now Title X says that Federal Money cannot 'directly ' pay for abortions. However the Federal money does directly support the operations of PP ,of which abortions are a major part(95% of their 'services' for pregnant women) .

joypulv · Jan 1, 2015, 05:47 AM

I support abortion, not because I like killing fetuses, but because without it, we would be killing people of all ages for whom we can't provide medical and other care, and adding about a million babies a year these days (in the US) who need supporting for at least the next 18 years of their lives, compounded. Do the math! Are you going to support them? You support plenty of them already. SOCIETY CAN'T HANDLE IT. And people from infancy to old age suffer and die as a result of spreading the tax dollar farther than it can go.

I support my tax dollars going to them, to save BILLIONS on what we would be spending for welfare for unwanted babies, most of whom wouldn't be adopted.

Societies throughout history killed fetuses and the elderly. Tahiti and other island cultures killed babies according to what caste-like group you were in. Eskimos left elderly out on the ice or dumped them in the sea. It is really the same - what is needed for the social group. I hate throwing money into the medical maw (mine and Medicare's) as I get old and wouldn't mind the ice floe routine for myself.

At least we have birth control now. When I was a teen, the RCC was still adamantly opposed to birth control, and I had to find one of a tiny number of doctors willing to write me a prescription. I got pregnant and had an abortion in Mexico. No regrets.

I'm suspicious of the stat about 95% of PP's money goes to abortions. What does that MEAN? If counseling a woman about birth control, and giving her some, or counseling about deciding whether to have a baby or an abortion, costs them 1/10 of the cost of an abortion, then do they do 10 times as much counseling as abortions? I guess so, based on my limited experience with them. It is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that all they do is abortions.

tickle · Jan 1, 2015, 06:02 AM

Thanks for the utterly horrible topic to start 2015 on here, tomder.

I support abortion, only because I know what will happen otherwise in some cases. Do they hand out condoms and support sex education in your schools down there??

paraclete · Jan 1, 2015, 06:06 AM

Hi Tom I find it difficult to comment other than to say that given the population of your nation and world statistics that this statistic appears extraordinarily low.
I don't have recent statistics on my own nation but those I do have suggest a rate of 7 per 1000 of female population which is consistent with your own region and as the same source suggested 1.5 million in 2008 in north america I would be extremely surprised if the rate wasn't at least twice or three times the number you have provided.

DoulaLC · Jan 1, 2015, 06:10 AM

Tom... the pie graph states that 3% of their medical service was for abortions. I didn't see 95% stated in the article... where is that from?

joypulv · Jan 1, 2015, 06:15 AM

The number of abortions in the US is just over a million, most not provided by PP. The rate is going down, thanks to more morning after pills that can be taken more and more hours (now 72) after sex. With girls and young women often not prepared with birth control before they have sex, this is having a huge effect on pregnancy prevention.

My feeling is this: If you want to take a stand against abortion, do so only if you are willing to provide alternatives, and how to PAY FOR THEM!!!!
Not much disgusts me more than the high moral ground while looking down your nose at the masses.

tomder55 · Jan 1, 2015, 06:49 AM

I clearly cited '95% of their 'services' for pregnant women'. The other 5% is probably prenatal care and other useful services . Maybe the abortion rate would go down even further if they would devote more resources to adoption services. I'm all for preventive counseling . Willing to bet they don't invest a lot of time and resources counseling abstinence.

tomder55 · Jan 1, 2015, 06:56 AM

Margaret Sanger despised the 'masses ' . Especially minorities . She saw abortions and sterilization as a means to control the Black population. She said ' Colored People are like weeds and are to be exterminated ' . With Blacks being 12% of the population ,but having 35% of the nations abortions performed on them ,I'd say she is on her way to having her goal realized.

Catsmine · Jan 1, 2015, 07:49 AM

Let me start by dispensing with the "when does life begin?" argument. I like omelets. Sometimes an egg has a blood spot in it. Is that life? Yes. Do I make the omelet anyway? Yes (I spoon out the blood spot. Messes up the flavor.) Caviar is lots and lots of lives ended to make a luxury food. Carrots and potatoes are viable lives ended for soup. Until someone can teach me this photosynthesis thing I (and the rest of you) will continue to take lives to survive.

I make a good living taking lives for the convenience and health of others, legitimately. So do some Gynecologists. If I had to take the Gynecologist's role, it would be a great deal messier.

Thus the only question in my mind would be the role of the taxpayer in the Gynecologists' function. Arguments abound regarding the taxpayer's role in all medicine, not just this one aspect. I pay my own way, and subscribe to a Hospitalization crowdsourcing fund.

"The sacredness of Human life?" I like my dog a lot better than most of the people that espouse that argument. Terry Jones, Westboro Baptist, and Louis Farrakhan are such sterling examples of how to live.

talaniman · Jan 1, 2015, 07:49 AM

Women of means and education don't worry about planned parenthood services, they go to private specialists and get early care and services without all the moral scrutiny and finger pointing.

Guess its easier to denigrate women who have no means, or support, and actively make sure they don't get it. That's the problem, not the females.

joypulv · Jan 1, 2015, 07:59 AM

I don't care in this discussion what Sanger said. This is now. Joe Kennedy was a robber baron. Do you despise his offspring?

I am sick of quotes about blacks vs white when it's really about INCOME. Theirs and their parents, when it comes to girls. Income means much more than just the money to pay for a child. I don't think I need to explain the sociology of poverty to anyone here.

joypulv · Jan 1, 2015, 08:53 AM

That 95% (of PREGNANT women) is so contrived when 3/4 of the women are there for STD or birth control testing/treatment/advice/pills.

DoulaLC · Jan 1, 2015, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

I clearly cited '95% of their 'services' for pregnant women'. The other 5% is probably prenatal care and other useful services . Maybe the abortion rate would go down even further if they would devote more resources to adoption services. I'm all for preventive counseling . Willing to bet they don't invest a lot of time and resources counseling abstinence.

While obviously not everyone approves; people will have varying opinions on the topic of abortion, some pregnant women who seek an abortion will go to Planned Parenthood, but the vast majority of services at Planned Parenthood are not for abortions. The title of the article regarding the 95% states that 95% of the services Planned Parenthood offers is for abortions, it is only in the context of the article that is specifies it is in reference to "pregnant women". Most pregnant women will not be having an abortion so they will see their doctor, ob/gyn, or midwife for prenatal services instead of Planned Parenthood.

talaniman · Jan 1, 2015, 10:51 AM

Most pregnant women will not be having an abortion so they will see their doctor, ob/gyn, or midwife for prenatal services instead of Planned Parenthood.

The women with insurance, or money.

ScottGem · Jan 1, 2015, 11:37 AM

The title of the article regarding the 95% states that 95% of the services Planned Parenthood offers is for abortions, it is only in the context of the article that is specifies it is in reference to "pregnant women". Most pregnant women will not be having an abortion so they will see their doctor, ob/gyn, or midwife for prenatal services instead of Planned Parenthood.

Doula,
You beat me to it. That was a perfect pin to burst the bubble of that article and the spin put on it. PP is much more about helping people prevent pregnancy then it is about ending them. So its not surprising at all that the vast majority of woman who are already pregnant go to PP to end their pregnancy. That's like saying that 95% of people entering a grocery store are there to buy food. It is a totally skewed statistic and it shows the bias of the authors of the article. So the real question is how many people TOTAL go to PP and what percentage of them are pregnant.

What really bugs me about this thread was the reference the Holocaust. Whether one agrees with abortion or not, those who have them have made the choice to do so. Those who were affected by THE Holocaust had no choice in the matter. Tom, I think you owe those people an apology.

talaniman · Jan 1, 2015, 11:45 AM

I objected to the "carnage" reference to planned parenthood, as well as the "holocaust".

paraclete · Jan 1, 2015, 02:13 PM

Why Tal holocaust is not a reserved word, it describes the wanton destruction of human life very well

ScottGem · Jan 1, 2015, 02:50 PM

Para, that is very insensitive and wrong. First, because, the word has historical context. It may not be reserved, but the historical context is significant. Second, not everyone believes an abortion is the loss of human life. Where abortion is legal it is not. Please feel free to support your opinion on that score, but it is possible to do so without being insensitive to others.

joypulv · Jan 1, 2015, 02:50 PM

Let's say that for the last 18 years, 3/4 of the 1,000,000+ births that were going to be abortions were by teens unable to care for babies, drug addicts, destitute women, girls raped by mom's boyfriend, and so on. I think that's a conservative number but don't know, so am saying 3/4 for sake of argument. So about 750,000 a year. At the end of 18 years, you and I have paid for 13,500,000 babies and probably their mothers too, in many cases. Let's say that care is 20K/yr. 20 x 750,000 the first year, plus 20 x 1,500,000 the second year... all the way to 20 x 13,500,000 the 18th year. That last year is $2.7 BILLION ALONE. Now add all the increasing years before that. It's CUMULATIVE!!
Of course the costs would really be higher, what with abused, unloved, abandoned, malnourished kids struggling to make it to adulthood, never mind a productive existence. The taxpayer revolt would be a real revolt. We'd be right back to where we are now in no time.

So again, if you can't come up with ways to PAY for all life, much less take an unwanted baby into your home, then you have no rights to complain.

paraclete · Jan 1, 2015, 03:10 PM

Scott it is not insensitive to say what you think and feel without being directly accusative. If there are those who fail to understand the truth that abortion is unnecessary particularly in this age of sophisticated birth control then I cannot and will not asswage their guilt. I am not one who regards an unwanted pregnancy as an accident which can be quickly remedied. If my mother had opted to terminate her unwanted pregnancy I would not be here so I side with the child and it is a child and cannot be dismissed as anything else. This is as personal for me Scott as it is for anyone else.