- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Planned Parenthood keeps saying 3% of their income is from abortions
Posted on 2/1/17 at 6:53 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Posted on 2/1/17 at 6:53 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:The reasons for it are the same reasons you and I no longer have to risk serious injury to make a living. Thanks for fighting for all this to happen.
quote:
Women and their roles in society have changed immensely since WWII
Regrettably
quote:Not buying it (the second sentence, not the first); the US is the greatest country ever, and there's never been a better time to live in the US, regardless of demographic.
Doesn't bother me in the bit personally because I'm one of the dudes at the top of their list to frick. But it's bad for society as a whole and the children that are being raised in our society.
0
Posted on 2/1/17 at 6:57 pm to Strophie
quote:
Say you come upon a burning house. In the house are two rooms. In one room is a rack holding 100 fully fertilized eggs (or 2 month old fetuses, or whatever). In the other room is a four year old little girl. You have exactly enough time to run into the house and save the occupant(s) of one room. The occupant(s) of the other room are guaranteed to burn to death. Now, if you truly believe, qualitatively, that human life begins at conception and is equally as valuable as born, conscious life, you would presumably choose to save the rack full of fetuses/fertilized eggs. After all, doing so would be like saving the little girl one hundred times over. And yet, I've never had anyone who I've discussed this with state that their choice would be to save the eggs/fetuses. Why is that? It's because, when it comes down to it, they don't actually believe that life at conception is qualitatively equal to born life. Note that this in no way argues that there's NO value to the fertilized eggs/fetuses. But, it certainly argues that on a scale of importance/value, they're substantially lower.
All due respect for what appears to be an honest contribution to the track of this thread ...
But, your analogy is shite. A woman walking into PP for an abortion is going to kill/destroy/murder/vacuum//free-from-future-burden/free-up-her-beautiful-uterus her unborn child. Choose whatever verb helps you sleep at night.
The girl in the house across the street is, thankfully, not dying in a fire because of that abortion, that woman's "choice." Cause/effect might be an important issue here. The "choice" is very much singular ... PP customer is either eliminating a human being or she isn't. It has absolutely zero impact (immediately) on the girl across the street, whose house you've set ablaze for some reason.
In your analogy, the 4yo is playing with her toys, perfectly happy, unaffected, and you are "choosing" to destroy a shelf full of eggs/fetuses/clumps-of-cells ... again, whatever words help you sleep at night ... across the street with a Gosnell 2000 Vacuum.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 7:12 pm to homesicktiger
Are you saying that you'd grab the jar of fertilized human eggs and leave the 4-year-old to die?
quote:"Abortion is murder"
whatever ...helps you sleep at night.
This post was edited on 2/1/17 at 7:13 pm
Posted on 2/1/17 at 7:22 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Are you saying that you'd grab the jar of fertilized human eggs and leave the 4-year-old to die?
No. You're apparently not smart enough to notice the difference. There is no "choice." Woman is having an abortion on one side of the road. Girl is playing in her room on the other side of road. There is no fire, unless you and Strophie start it after making out behind the dumpster.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 7:22 pm to homesicktiger
quote:
All due respect for what appears to be an honest contribution to the track of this thread ...
But, your analogy is shite. A woman walking into PP for an abortion is going to kill/destroy/murder/vacuum//free-from-future-burden/free-up-her-beautiful-uterus her unborn child.
Homesick,
Appreciate the contribution. I think you are overextending my analogy though. My analogy wasn't intended to argue the merits of abortion. It was merely to highlight the difference in perceived value between in utero life and born life. You could fundamentally agree with the point the analogy is making and still argue that abortion was abhorrent.
The argument for the justification (or lack thereof) of abortion would be a separate discussion.
Hopefully that makes sense.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 7:22 pm to homesicktiger
quote:
There is no fire, unless you and Strophie start it after making out behind the dumpster.
Yeah, you're definitely extrapolating way more than I was trying to convey.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 7:25 pm to ballscaster
quote:
I'm conservative.
Planned Parenthood is your foe if you are. They spend money and tons of it to keep conservatives out of office.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 7:29 pm to homesicktiger
quote:Yeah it's a hypothetical. You're treating this hypothetical like a chick would.
No. You're apparently not smart enough to notice the difference. There is no "choice." Woman is having an abortion on one side of the road. Girl is playing in her room on the other side of road. There is no fire, unless you and Strophie start it after making out behind the dumpster.
Hypothetically, which one would you save from the fire first: 4-year-old child or case of several fertilized eggs?
Posted on 2/2/17 at 1:44 am to roadGator
quote:I don't really need foes.
Planned Parenthood is your foe if you are. They spend money and tons of it to keep conservatives out of office.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 3:54 am to ballscaster
The part I love is how people act like it's only men that are opposed to abortion. Newsflash a great many of the people against abortion are WOMEN! So being against abortion has nothing to do with men are mad at women and simply want to control them.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:01 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
HOWEVER, the 3% figure they cite appears to refer to the proportion of services provided, not necessarily income from it:
quote:
Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.
That's like saying one-third of our services rendered in WWII was to defeat Italy.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 8:56 am to Strophie
quote:
Here's the thought experiment I've pondered for a long time that has helped inform my position on abortion (to an extent).
I'm not sure how I feel about abortion full stop. But I don't believe true human life, qualitatively, starts at conception. I have lots of friends and family who are adamant that it does. But whenever I ask the following, they can't give an answer consistent with that position.
Say you come upon a burning house. In the house are two rooms. In one room is a rack holding 100 fully fertilized eggs (or 2 month old fetuses, or whatever). In the other room is a four year old little girl. You have exactly enough time to run into the house and save the occupant(s) of one room. The occupant(s) of the other room are guaranteed to burn to death.
Now, if you truly believe, qualitatively, that human life begins at conception and is equally as valuable as born, conscious life, you would presumably choose to save the rack full of fetuses/fertilized eggs. After all, doing so would be like saving the little girl one hundred times over. And yet, I've never had anyone who I've discussed this with state that their choice would be to save the eggs/fetuses.
Why is that?
It's because, when it comes down to it, they don't actually believe that life at conception is qualitatively equal to born life.
Note that this in no way argues that there's NO value to the fertilized eggs/fetuses. But, it certainly argues that on a scale of importance/value, they're substantially lower.
Sorry, but this is just stupid. The appeal to the personal intuition of the mark in this scenario to save the little girl does not negate the scientific fact that the embryos are alive human beings in every respect of what defines a human being.
The scenario and response may expose something about the person doing the saving, but it does not demonstrate anything about the people needing to be saved.
This post was edited on 2/2/17 at 8:57 am
Posted on 2/2/17 at 9:01 am to ballscaster
You are an extremely odd individual.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 9:14 am to BlackAdam
quote:
What you describe is a fund accounting shell game. Suppose all of PP's services cost $15 to operate. If PP had $10 in its right pocket to run all of their programs except abortion, and $0 in their left pocket for abortion, and the federal government comes in and gives them $5 and tells them to put it in the right pocket, and PP takes $5 out of the right pocket and puts it in the left how has the government not paid for abortion.
Anyone who says there is no taxpayer funded abortion is a liar.
When the numbers don't back your argument, call them fake?
Got it.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 9:28 am to ballscaster
quote:On an internet forum, there isn't much that can be done other than argue points with words. That's the context of my statement that you picked to respond to.
Proving my point. All you do in the abortion debate is the same thing I do in the abortion debate: judge people. If it was murder, you'd do something. But you'll do nothing. Because you don't believe that it's murder. You never did, and you never will
What I can do is vote for pro-life candidates who pledge to nominate judges who support the Constitution (which by default means overturning RvW). What I can do is contact my representatives and let them know that I vote based on this issue.
You must live in some other reality if you think that because I don't pull out a gun and shoot an abortion doctor or a mother walking into an abortion clinic that I don't consider abortion murder. That's just your favorite talking point in this discussion because you can't understand how someone can believe it is murder and not use force to stop it (or maybe you can and you're just trolling).
quote:I'm slowly coming to the realization that you are trolling. No rational person would make statements like this. But just in case you are serious... currently she can get an abortion and that action is protected by the law of this land. I support representatives who wish to limit or abolish the practice and who seek to do so through legislation and through court nominations/confirmations. I hope that ridiculous ruling that abortion is protected by "privacy" gets overturned and either abolished completely or left to the states to decide, so that those who don't wish to participate in genocide can opt out. At that point, where abortion is illegal, it isn't her choice to decide. At least not without the prospect of imprisonment.
If she wants it to, it does. You don't get to decide for her, and you don't get to find out about it if she doesn't want you to. Hers, not yours. No means no.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 9:33 am to ballscaster
quote:The argument boils down to whether or not an unborn child is considered a person and whether or not it is considered alive. If it's a live person, then it should be protected the same as a child that's already born. In such a case, it isn't a violation of liberty to outlaw the practice. You could argue that abortion is the mother's violation of the child's liberty and right to life. Liberty has limits and murder of born persons is not a protected right and liberty. Those who are anti-abortion want the same protections for unborn persons.
Perhaps it's important to note that being pro-choice usually has nothing to do with whether or not one thinks that abortion is wrong, but rather whether it is the government's place to violate Liberty in pursuit of eliminating abortion. Millions of people, such as myself, are simultaneously anti-abortion and effectively pro-choice.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 9:36 am to Haughton99
So based on that, only 21% of Planned Parenthood's income is not based on actions indirectly or directly related to sexual activity?
Why on earth is the federal government funding this?
Why on earth is the federal government funding this?
Posted on 2/2/17 at 9:43 am to skrayper
quote:
When the numbers don't back your argument, call them fake?
Got it.
It isn't my fault you can't understand very simple concepts.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 10:17 am to bcoop199
quote:For a lot of men, it does. That's why they bring up sexual habits in the dialogue.
The part I love is how people act like it's only men that are opposed to abortion. Newsflash a great many of the people against abortion are WOMEN! So being against abortion has nothing to do with men are mad at women and simply want to control them.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 10:19 am to ballscaster
quote:
For a lot of men, it does. That's why they bring up sexual habits in the dialogue.
Define "a lot" and then, let us know how you know that this number is motivated primarily by simple sexist desire to control women.
Page 6 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News