Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion

Abortion Abortion Forum - A complex ethical, moral, philosophical, biological, and legal issue


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 5th, 2011, 08:25 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
azchurchmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arizona...USA
Posts: 3,472
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...business-model



Quotas........numbers.......... at the risk of unsafe abortion practices. And people think the clinics are safe.....how little they know.

All they are interested in is numbers and the cash brought in by abortion.
azchurchmouse is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 6th, 2011, 03:02 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
OnTheLeft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by azchurchmouse View Post
http://thehill.com/b...-business-model



Quotas........numbers.......... at the risk of unsafe abortion practices. And people think the clinics are safe.....how little they know.

All they are interested in is numbers and the cash brought in by abortion.
Abortion in the first 12 weeks of gestation is as safe as any other procedure out there. Don't let the anti-choice whackaloons on "The Hill" website tell you otherwise. What IS unsafe are the many different methods of self-induced abortion that would occur if abortion were made illegal.













Were you aware that women aren't brood mares? We can't be forced to gestate.
OnTheLeft is offline  
Old April 6th, 2011, 04:23 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
azchurchmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arizona...USA
Posts: 3,472
You are so pro-death to the unborn..that it warps your thinking and judgement. The facts are the facts no matter who reports them.



PP is being exposed.....
azchurchmouse is offline  
Old April 6th, 2011, 04:26 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
azchurchmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arizona...USA
Posts: 3,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheLeft View Post
Abortion in the first 12 weeks of gestation is as safe as any other procedure out there. Don't let the anti-choice whackaloons on "The Hill" website tell you otherwise. What IS unsafe are the many different methods of self-induced abortion that would occur if abortion were made illegal.













Were you aware that women aren't brood mares? We can't be forced to gestate.




Honey there is something called....keeping your legs together, taking responsiblity for your own actions. But sad death is your only solution. And honey the coathanger is just hype thrown into the ring by those who love abortion. Even PP said this was false reporting.
azchurchmouse is offline  
Old April 6th, 2011, 05:54 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
OnTheLeft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by azchurchmouse View Post
You are so pro-death to the unborn..
Incorrect. I'm against FORCING women to gestate and give birth against their will. Women aren't ambulatory incubators; we are human beings with legal rights of choice.



If you want to save the fetus, maybe you should work towards perfecting this: Link
OnTheLeft is offline  
Old April 6th, 2011, 06:13 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
OnTheLeft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by azchurchmouse View Post
And honey the coathanger is just hype thrown into the ring by those who love abortion. Even PP said this was false reporting.
Do you understand the concept of symbolism? Also, no one "loves" abortion. Your own hyperbole destroys your argument.
OnTheLeft is offline  
Old April 6th, 2011, 06:36 PM   #7
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,805
"While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."



Roger Streitmatter has claimed that Sanger's opposition to abortion stemmed primarily from a concern for the dangers to the mother rather than moral issues.Nonetheless, in her 1938 autobiography, Sanger notes that her 1916 opposition to abortion was based on the taking of life: "To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger









imaginethat is offline  
Old April 7th, 2011, 04:19 AM   #8
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
"While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."



Roger Streitmatter has claimed that Sanger's opposition to abortion stemmed primarily from a concern for the dangers to the mother rather than moral issues.Nonetheless, in her 1938 autobiography, Sanger notes that her 1916 opposition to abortion was based on the taking of life: "To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun." http://en.wikipedia....Margaret_Sanger











Your point?



Today's Planned Parenthood and Sanger's beliefs are not comparable. So what if she was controversial and had some fringe beliefs that were not fringe at the time? That changes nothing about a woman having the fundamental right to decide if she carries a pregnancy to term or not. When to become a mother is her choice alone. Children are not punishment or a way to keep women in "their place".

Each time, azchurchmouse, that you attempt to nicely argue against a woman's right to choose, I see a bit more of a side that you don't show here very often, and it has to do with a chip on your shoulder over women and women's rights. Or let me say, what you perceive that to be. Because we don't quite see things the same way on that subject. I guess it's baggage or religious belief, but it certainly has no place in taking up against women's Constitutional protections and guarantees. I don't think that cancer secreenings and birth control and general gynecological care for poor women is a radical political activity.
waitingtables is offline  
Old April 7th, 2011, 06:38 AM   #9
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Your point?



Today's Planned Parenthood and Sanger's beliefs are not comparable. So what if she was controversial and had some fringe beliefs that were not fringe at the time? That changes nothing about a woman having the fundamental right to decide if she carries a pregnancy to term or not. When to become a mother is her choice alone. Children are not punishment or a way to keep women in "their place".

Each time, azchurchmouse, that you attempt to nicely argue against a woman's right to choose, I see a bit more of a side that you don't show here very often, and it has to do with a chip on your shoulder over women and women's rights. Or let me say, what you perceive that to be. Because we don't quite see things the same way on that subject. I guess it's baggage or religious belief, but it certainly has no place in taking up against women's Constitutional protections and guarantees. I don't think that cancer secreenings and birth control and general gynecological care for poor women is a radical political activity.


Come out swinging, WT.



I expressed surprise, no more, no less.



On topic, do you believe that Abby Johnson's allegations are false?



Do you believe these commercials aren't the product of PP?



[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrLxEYYYPBk&feature=related[/media]





[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4LugpwIbYU&NR=1[/media]





You set up a false equivalency, WT: If a person opposes abortion as a means of birth control, then they are on the side of keeping a woman in "their place," by "punishing" her with a child.



It upsets the hell out of me that my taxes are used by D and R politicians to fight their interventionistic wars of choice. I oppose these wars in every way I can. I've been called un-American, unpatriotic, told I was "siding with America's enemies," that I "don't side with Israel," and more. Still, I will oppose an interventionistic foreign policy.



It upsets the hell out of some people that their taxes are used to fund abortions. One of the charges leveled by people comfortable with abortion is yours above, that opposition to abortion translates to being anti-women's rights.



It's a false equivalency.
imaginethat is offline  
Old April 7th, 2011, 07:56 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
elmo5159's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 970
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
It upsets the hell out of some people that their taxes are used to fund abortions.


You do know that the Hyde Amendment specifically prohibits federal funds -- i.e., taxpayer money -- from being used to pay for abortions, except in cases of incest, rape, or danger to the life of the pregnant woman?
elmo5159 is offline  
Old April 7th, 2011, 08:08 AM   #11
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Come out swinging, WT.



I expressed surprise, no more, no less.



On topic, do you believe that Abby Johnson's allegations are false?



Do you believe these commercials aren't the product of PP?



[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrLxEYYYPBk&feature=related[/media]





[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4LugpwIbYU&NR=1[/media]





You set up a false equivalency, WT: If a person opposes abortion as a means of birth control, then they are on the side of keeping a woman in "their place," by "punishing" her with a child.



It upsets the hell out of me that my taxes are used by D and R politicians to fight their interventionistic wars of choice. I oppose these wars in every way I can. I've been called un-American, unpatriotic, told I was "siding with America's enemies," that I "don't side with Israel," and more. Still, I will oppose an interventionistic foreign policy.



It upsets the hell out of some people that their taxes are used to fund abortions. One of the charges leveled by people comfortable with abortion is yours above, that opposition to abortion translates to being anti-women's rights.



It's a false equivalency.




False equivalency? No one said anything about abortions as birth control. Planned Parenthood prescribes birth control. I was certainly not referencing abortions as birth control. And elmo is 100% correct. The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding of abortions and that is that.



Opposition to fund women's reproductive health centers that offer medical care to low income women is anti-woman. Your false equivalency claim is way off target.



Honestly Imaginethat, I expect more from you. That post was ridiculous.



waitingtables is offline  
Old April 7th, 2011, 09:05 AM   #12
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmo5159 View Post
You do know that the Hyde Amendment specifically prohibits federal funds -- i.e., taxpayer money -- from being used to pay for abortions, except in cases of incest, rape, or danger to the life of the pregnant woman?


I serve on the county recreation board. We annually make grants to non-profits providing recreational services. In our funding guidelines we prioritize building projects. Last on the list is funding for operations.



In some cases, it's clear that the grant requests merely free up operating expenses.



PP is an organization, and it's mere wordplay to say that funds it receives are not used for abortions. On the books, that's how it is accounted. In reality, all funds go into one pot of money.
imaginethat is offline  
Old April 7th, 2011, 09:14 AM   #13
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
False equivalency? No one said anything about abortions as birth control. Planned Parenthood prescribes birth control. I was certainly not referencing abortions as birth control. And elmo is 100% correct. The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding of abortions and that is that.



Opposition to fund women's reproductive health centers that offer medical care to low income women is anti-woman. Your false equivalency claim is way off target.



Honestly Imaginethat, I expect more from you. That post was ridiculous.


You may dispense with the expecting more from me. You didn't answer any question I posed to you.



Abortion isn't birth control? Please.... And part of PP's mission isn't providing abortions? Now, I'm disappointed and expect more from you.



You're slicing and dicing here. I have no problem with PP's mission as stated. And you know that I don't take the anti-abortion stance which characterizes the "pro-life" movement. But, your opinions on abortion are well documented, so to say, "I was certainly not referencing abortions as birth control," as though only what you say in any one post is all that may be commented on is .... ridiculous ... honestly.



You claim the right to abortion as a fundamental womens' right. OK. My stance is only a little different in that I think government should not attempt to exert its control over a woman's uterus, same net effect.



Do you believe that Abby Johnson's allegations are false? If so, what reasons do you have?
imaginethat is offline  
Old April 7th, 2011, 09:14 AM   #14
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,805
duplicate post
imaginethat is offline  
Old April 7th, 2011, 09:19 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
PaperAlchemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by azchurchmouse View Post
You are so pro-death to the unborn..that it warps your thinking and judgement. The facts are the facts no matter who reports them.



PP is being exposed.....


So says the woman who had an abortion. You are a massive hypocrite of epic proportions. You have no more right to slam other women for wanting to have the right to choose whether or not they get an abortion, anymore than Newt Gingritch has the right to slam other people for infidelity, or any anti-gay Republican bashing gays when they themselves are off boffing gay prostitutes on tropical getaways.



Sit down, and shut up Sue-Ellen, your opinion is not wanted. Not needed. Nobody asked for it. You can have it, but nobody wants it but you. Thanks.



I guess the "pro-death" rules only apply to women who aren't you.
PaperAlchemist is offline  
Old April 7th, 2011, 09:22 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
PaperAlchemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by azchurchmouse View Post
Honey there is something called....keeping your legs together, taking responsiblity for your own actions. But sad death is your only solution. And honey the coathanger is just hype thrown into the ring by those who love abortion. Even PP said this was false reporting.


So should I say the same thing to you? "Honey there is something called keeping your legs together, taking responsibility for your actions, and giving birth to the baby you had after enjoying pre-marital sex with your soon-to-be hubby." But it seems you get a free pass. After all, you found Jesus. That allows you to hypocritically call other women baby killers for wanting to make the same choice.
PaperAlchemist is offline  
Old April 7th, 2011, 09:28 AM   #17
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaperAlchemist View Post
So says the woman who had an abortion. You are a massive hypocrite of epic proportions. You have no more right to slam other women for wanting to have the right to choose whether or not they get an abortion, anymore than Newt Gingritch has the right to slam other people for infidelity, or any anti-gay Republican bashing gays when they themselves are off boffing gay prostitutes on tropical getaways.



Sit down, and shut up Sue-Ellen, your opinion is not wanted. Not needed. Nobody asked for it. You can have it, but nobody wants it but you. Thanks.



I guess the "pro-death" rules only apply to women who aren't you.


Total BS.



You've no right to order her to "shut up." She has every right to her opinion. You don't want it. You don't need it. You didn't ask for it.



Noted. You have a right to your opinion, and so does az.



Indeed, if az had her way, I'm sure she'd outlaw abortion. That may make her totalitarian, but not hypocritical. The canned, repetitive responses to az remind me of ... never mind, you can figure it out.
imaginethat is offline  
Old April 7th, 2011, 09:39 AM   #18
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
You may dispense with the expecting more from me. You didn't answer any question I posed to you.



Abortion isn't birth control? Please.... And part of PP's mission isn't providing abortions? Now, I'm disappointed and expect more from you.



You're slicing and dicing here. I have no problem with PP's mission as stated. And you know that I don't take the anti-abortion stance which characterizes the "pro-life" movement. But, your opinions on abortion are well documented, so to say, "I was certainly not referencing abortions as birth control," as though only what you say in any one post is all that may be commented on is .... ridiculous ... honestly.



You claim the right to abortion as a fundamental womens' right. OK. My stance is only a little different in that I think government should not attempt to exert its control over a woman's uterus, same net effect.



Do you believe that Abby Johnson's allegations are false? If so, what reasons do you have?


No, you are the one slicing and dicing here. Abortion is not on Planned Parenthoods list of forms of birth control. And no government funds are used for abortions. All of your experiences are not really relevant to what PP does with it's funds and how it accounts for them. You are making assumptions and asserting them as facts. Unless you have some first hand knowledge of what PP does and how it separates it's funding, then.....



What on earth do my opinions on abortion have to do with my saying that I was not referencing abortions as birth control and why is that ridiculous? I do not reference abortions as birth control and your statement is again incorrect. You don't have to use only one post to know my opinions on abortion, but I am talking about defunding PP and the lies being sold to the people about it. And you are merely making assumptions without proof. Either government has the right to exert control over a woman's uterus or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it pretty much goes to show that it is a fundamental right of a woman to choose, as the SCOTUS decided decades ago.



What point are you trying to make here? Again.
waitingtables is offline  
Old April 7th, 2011, 09:45 AM   #19
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,368


This is PP's response to those allegations. I believe them.







Quote:


Abortion represents three percent of our services nationally, a statistic based on Planned Parenthood’s use of professional protocols for its data reporting, following government requirements for tracking and calculating services performed. Some opponents of legal abortion make unfounded statistical claims about Planned Parenthood, erroneously asserting that Planned Parenthood exaggerates its estimates of the preventive care it delivers. For example, claims that Planned Parenthood counts a 12-month supply of birth control pills as 12 visits are simply untrue.



Opponents of legal abortion use a plethora of false allegations and dubious tactics to question Planned Parenthood’s policies and practices. The fact is that our high standards rival those of any top-tier national health care organization, and patient health and safety is always our top concern. That is why one in five women trusts Planned Parenthood to provide her with care at some point in her life. It is this special relationship with so many women that has allowed Planned Parenthood to do more than any other organization in the United States to help lower the rate of unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion. That is the Planned Parenthood I know.





waitingtables is offline  
Old April 7th, 2011, 09:51 AM   #20
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
No, you are the one slicing and dicing here. Abortion is not on Planned Parenthoods list of forms of birth control. And no government funds are used for abortions. All of your experiences are not really relevant to what PP does with it's funds and how it accounts for them. You are making assumptions and asserting them as facts. Unless you have some first hand knowledge of what PP does and how it separates it's funding, then.....



What on earth do my opinions on abortion have to do with my saying that I was not referencing abortions as birth control and why is that ridiculous? I do not reference abortions as birth control and your statement is again incorrect. You don't have to use only one post to know my opinions on abortion, but I am talking about defunding PP and the lies being sold to the people about it. And you are merely making assumptions without proof. Either government has the right to exert control over a woman's uterus or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it pretty much goes to show that it is a fundamental right of a woman to choose, as the SCOTUS decided decades ago.



What point are you trying to make here? Again.


That you were slicing and dicing, and you continue so doing.



Abortion isn't on PP's list of birth control.... slicing and dicing. Are you denying that abortion is a means of preventing unwanted pregnancies ... i.e. birth control?



My first-hand knowledge of how budgets work is relevant. Sources of "funding" is an accounting exercise. Without federal funding, cuts would have to be made. I do not believe, yes it's just a belief, that were federal funds withdrawn that PP would choose only to cut funding for other reproductive services. You are entitled to your opinion.



You've yet to answer my question: Is Abby Johnson mistaken in her analysis? If so, why?
imaginethat is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion

Tags
business, exposing, model, parenthood, planned


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Planned Parenthood Truths knot_e_lady Abortion 42 January 14th, 2013 09:04 AM
Planned Parenthood ad gmeyers1944 Abortion 44 September 5th, 2010 06:36 AM
Planned Parenthood and Nazi Germany Grace Abortion 528 October 22nd, 2008 12:43 PM
Planned Parenthood reacts to Palin choice forester814 Politicians 8 September 1st, 2008 10:49 PM
Planned Parenthood supports race genocide Grace Abortion 94 April 17th, 2008 05:59 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.