You Can't Beat Something With Nothing

[gcthomas]

Okay fair enough for the rest of this thread dicussion any statistic provided by the guttmacher institute , a private organisation advocating a strong intrest on one side of the abortion debate, will be treated as an unreliable source.

You can take that as read if it is true. Has anyone been presenting their data on this thread as reliable?

 

[jeffblue101]

By who? How would this be directed or handled? What clinics would qualify and under what criteria?

Cmon Granite know that I provided a resonible alternative to PP funding you're going to trying to nitpick any criterion I put foward. How about this criterion, not engaging in criminal activity. Also PP does not have some super incredible "trade secrets" that allows our society to turn a blind eye to abortions they perform. And if PP wants to reduce the number abortions in america than it should also support defunding the largest abortion provider in america.

 

[Granite]

Cmon Granite know that I provided a resonible alternative to PP funding you're going to trying to nitpick any criterion I put foward.

Asking for an explanation isn't "nitpicking." How are we gonna just hand out this money to some, uh, clinics? At random? Is there a lottery, or something? Who will allocate this funding and why? And would you oppose this funding going towards birth control?

 

[MrDeets]

The last time I was in a PP, the receptionist was giggling at the protesters out front because the two most protested clinics in my city don't perform abortions, while the least(VERY RARELY, according to her) protested does perform them. A little off topic, but oh well. :wave:

 

[jeffblue101]

You can take that as read if it is true. Has anyone been presenting their data on this thread as reliable?

Yes Granite in post 29 of this thread

 

[Quetzal]

Cmon Granite know that I provided a resonible alternative to PP funding you're going to trying to nitpick any criterion I put foward. How about this criterion, not engaging in criminal activity. Also PP does not have some super incredible "trade secrets" that allows our society to turn a blind eye to abortions they perform. And if PP wants to reduce the number abortions in america than it should also support defunding the largest abortion provider in america.

The problem with defunding abortion providers is people will still seek out abortions. They will just do them in more dangerous, unregulated places instead.

 

[jeffblue101]

Asking for an explanation isn't "nitpicking." How are we gonna just hand out this money to some, uh, clinics? At random? Is there a lottery, or something? Who will allocate this funding and why? And would you oppose this funding going towards birth control?

Honestly any healthcare clinic , hosptial, and doctors office would be better than the unregulated and secretive abortion indutrsty.

 

[GuySmiley]

http://www.vocativ.com/news/217868/planned-parenthood-treats-more-women-for-cancer-than-abortion/

It’s worth comparing some raw numbers here. In that year, Planned Parenthood completed 327,653 abortions. Compare that to the 1.1 million pregnancy tests, 1.4 million emergency contraception kits and more than 487,000 breast exams that the organization provided.

I'd like to know what organization PP's foes would propose to replace the services provided by PP. Women who need birth control or a breast exam need these services. PP is their most affordable option. So where are these gals expected to go?

A pap smear or breast exam might not mean a thing to a politician in Washington. But it's a big deal to these women. So, again, I ask: What if anything does any PP foe here propose replace Planned Parenthood?

The majority of what they actually do serves to prevent abortion, whether you like it or not.

Are there are any actual, real alternatives, solutions, or replacements folks have in mind? The "just don't have sex" crowd is beyond idiotic so I'll just tune that asininity out.

I propose we replace Planned Parenthood with Planned Parenthood clinics that don't chop up babies and sell them for parts. If a Planned Parenthood clinic just can't stand to not chop up babies, then women could go to other clinics that don't chop up babies. Tax funding would go to PP clinics or other clinics that offer the same services*, except for the baby chopping. The criteria for selecting those clinics would be the same as the current criteria with the new rule of no baby chopping.

* except breast exams, which will be handled by fool.

 

[GuySmiley]

Also, we now have the Afordable Care Act, so any service PP might offer is available affordably to all women at regular doctors offices and hospitals.

 

[jeffblue101]

The problem with defunding abortion providers is people will still seek out abortions. They will just do them in more dangerous, unregulated places instead.

And these regulations some how stoped kermit gosnell from performing abortions for 30 years. These regulations also forced PP to openly discuss and document its organ "donations" without the need for pro life "extremists" exposing them to the public.

 

[jeffblue101]

I propose we replace Planned Parenthood with Planned Parenthood clinics that don't chop up babies and sell them for parts. If a Planned Parenthood clinic just can't stand to not chop up babies, then women could go to other clinics that don't chop up babies. Tax funding would go to PP clinics or other clinics that offer the same services*, except for the baby chopping. The criteria for selecting those clinics would be the same as the current criteria with the new rule of no baby chopping.

* except breast exams, which will be handled by fool.

Its not possible for PP turn away from abortions since it accounts for 30% to 40% of its self genrated revenue stream.

 

[GuySmiley]

The problem with defunding abortion providers is people will still seek out abortions. They will just do them in more dangerous, unregulated places instead.

Who cares? It shouldn't be safe and clean to murder people.

 

[Quetzal]

Its not possible for PP turn away from abortions since it accounts for 30% to 40% of its self genrated revenue stream.

Where is this data coming from? I am genuinely curious. A bunch of you are throwing figures around and aren't sharing where you get them.

 

[Quetzal]

Who cares? It shouldn't be safe and clean to murder people.

It wouldn't bother you that women who partake in abortions die?

 

[GuySmiley]

Its not possible for PP turn away from abortions since it accounts for 30% to 40% of its self genrated revenue stream.

I'm shocked!! Liberals have been saying abortion is only 3% of what PP does! Are you suggesting liberals might skew the facts?

 

[GuySmiley]

It wouldn't bother you that women who partake in abortions die?

Yes, it would bother me. It would be tragic.

 

[Quetzal]

I'm shocked!! Liberals have been saying abortion is only 3% of what PP does! Are you suggesting liberals might skew the facts?

I would be over the moon if anyone provided any facts or statistics that don't appear to be random.

 

[GuySmiley]

I would be over the moon if anyone provided any facts or statistics that don't appear to be random.

Could you provide a list of what you consider reputable sources?

 

[gcthomas]

Yes Granite in post 29 of this thread

Provider address data?! It's that contentious enough that your lists of PP addresses disagrees with it?

Hardly important in the ethics of the issue. But if you don't trust that list that's up to you.

 

[jeffblue101]

I'm shocked!! Liberals have been saying abortion is only 3% of what PP does! Are you suggesting liberals might skew the facts?

revenue and individual service are two different things. Yes PP does many other services but the cash cow of PP is abortions. Im trying to acess PP annual reports to show it to you but its real pain doing so on my tablet. Give me a few minutes.