- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 8, 2012 at 1:50 pm #746643
redblackParticipantand where did this “over half of the population opposes abortion” number come from? i’m squinting through your posts, but i can’t seem to find a cite for it.
February 8, 2012 at 2:39 pm #746644
SmittyParticipantI would think it would be closer to 100%, really. Is anyone really “pro” abortion? If he meant over half think it should be illegal that seems like a stretch, but I think it’s closer than you think (60/40).
February 8, 2012 at 3:31 pm #746645
JoBParticipantSmitty..
Those stats depend greatly on how the question is asked. I am pro choice but I am not pro abortion… nor is any other pro choice person i know.
We think the smart way to reduce the number of abortions is to protect women’s health and educate them about family planning and safe sex.
If the goal is to prevent abortions, supporting planned parenthood is the way to do that because the real documented number you should be looking at is 3%.
yes, 3%
that’s the percentage of Planned parenthood dollars that are spent on abortions.
Very few planned parenthood locations even offer abortion. the majority of planned parenthood locations are small neighborhood health clinics that offer women who can’t afford health care basic health screenings and provide the basics for safe sex and family planning… in blunt terms, condoms and birth control.
I am not pro abortion Smitty which is one of the reasons i support planned parenthood,
but i sure am pro choice.
the day that we are able and willing to take on both the risk of forced pregnancy and the responsibility for both the mother forced to carry a child to term and her child … I may reconsider.
and yes, i did choose my words carefully.
If a woman becomes pregnant (for whatever reason) and does not want to carry her pregnancy to term, denying her her legal right to abortion is forcing her to carry that baby to term, forcing her to assume the medical, financial and legal risks and obligations of a pregnancy simply because you think it’s the right thing to do.
in the meantime, perhaps the man who impregnates a woman forced to carry a child to term should be placed on house arrest and forced to monitor their diet and health for the term of her pregnancy and be forced to wear pregnancy suits increasing in weight as the pregnancy advances.
It’s not nearly an equitable restriction on their personal freedom, but it would at least give a head’s up that there are consequences to pregnancy that go far beyond just carrying the kid and financial considerations.
i am physically reminded that i carried 3 children to term every day of my life… over 40 years later.
Wouldn’t it be smarter to support an organization that actually prevents abortions by preventing pregnancy and invest all of those anti abortion dollars in the children who do come to term?
and let women who want to take on a lifetime of responsibility have children?
Think how life would change if only women who wanted to have children gave birth.
February 8, 2012 at 4:41 pm #746646
dhgParticipantI think SOME people here haven’t been paying attention to South Dakota politics. The issue of outlawing abortion went to the ballot a couple of years ago. It was planned as the little fire that would sweep the nation. The anti-choice folks lost. Voice of the people. It got a fair hearing and it lost.
February 8, 2012 at 5:33 pm #746647
kootchmanMemberOK JoB your smokescreen … PP “spends” only 3 per cent on abortion services. What percentage of its for service revenues are derived from abortion services? It’s all in the counting isn’t it? Note the term unduplicated services… 12% of PP patients are seeking life terminations. Given the financial boost to the bottom line….right to life advocates are reasonably suspect of the emphasis of promoting alternatives to terminations. Get real… this is a multi-billion dollar enterprise and employer of hundreds of thousands of left wingers. They are as defensive of revenue streams as Exxon.
http://www.sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog/top-12-reasons-defund-planned-parenthood-now#_edn6
{Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson has written that she was given an “abortion quota” and was even told by her superiors to double the number of abortions in order to bring in more revenue.[v] Abortion patients constitute 12 percent of Planned Parenthood clients — 332,000 of 3 million unduplicated clients in its most current report. 37 percent of all Planned Parenthood clinic income revenue is from abortion procedures, according to conservative estimates. Planned Parenthood has issued a directive instructing that all affiliates must have at least one clinic that performs abortion by 2013″.
When asked specifically about taxpayer funding of abortion, polls consistently show a healthy majority of Americans, 60 to 70 percent, oppose their tax dollars funding abortion.
Simply put… abortion services are a cash cow for PP…they market the option actively. The greater public does not want to fund it. PP is a profitable foundation built on providing termination of life services… the least amount of expense for the greatest amount of return.
Even PP can’t resolve their conflicting data… they “say” abortion is only 3 per cent of their expense… but by their own admission it is 14 per cent of their revenue.. not bad eh? The procedure has a gross profit of over 400 per cent.
http://liveaction.org/blog/planned-parenthoods-revenue-comes-from-paying-non-abortion-customers/
February 8, 2012 at 5:41 pm #746648
kootchmanMemberdhg…S Dakota was not a ringing endorsement of pro choice… it was a message to government… get the hell out of our private decisions… this is not a government issue. I am fine with that.. as are most republicans.. you make tour own individual choices, don’t ask me to fund your personal choices. You have the right by law to terminate life…. don’t ask others to subsidize that choice.
February 8, 2012 at 6:18 pm #746649
JanSParticipantI’m sure I’ll get comments on this..this just came up in something I opened…WARNING:NSFW ! Gotta love George Carlin..
http://front.moveon.org/what-george-carlin-knew-about-the-pro-life-movement/#.TzKsXqk6SUw.facebook
February 8, 2012 at 6:32 pm #746650
dhgParticipantThat’s all you got, Kootchman? SD was not a ringing endorsement? The majority spoke, they said a woman’s right to choose is paramount. SD is not a liberal state. The anti-choice got it on the ballot and had their hat handed to them. You can bet a lot of conservative bucks was spent to win them over but mid-america, middle-class america spoke. You may not call it a ringing endorsement but I’m betting it made a few conservative heads hurt! I don’t recall anyone saying get the hell out of our private decisions. I thought that was the gay marriage issue.
LOL, Jan, Carlin nailed it.
February 8, 2012 at 6:56 pm #746651
kootchmanMemberDid ya read the initiative? I did.It was so draconian as to be cosmic right out there… it deserved the death it got. That was a true wingnut…. but SD is like most conservatives,… stay outta my business. Tis the nature of SD to not invite radicalism or disharmony… but that does not mean they support or want to pay for abortions. Bet if you put it on the ballot…. the state shall not use state funds for abortion providers it would be a landslide. Why do lefties source actors, comedians, entertainers so much Jan? But ya did note that the pro termination of life campaign was funded not by South Dakotans…. but by the national offices of Planned Parenthood… and they gushed money, outspending the pro-life groups by over a 3:1 margin. It will be back.. it’s the delicate balance act … a more nuanced bill I suspect will pass. Time will tell. That’s the good thing about PP taking public money the pro-life folks get sooo many bites at the apple.
February 8, 2012 at 7:16 pm #746652
kootchmanMemberdhg… let’s check the scorecard for 2011… SD pop 815,000 overturns pro life
Indiana, population 6, 500, 000
http://rtlsoin.org/IndianaAbortionLaws.aspx
I’d have to give the pro life the winning score for 2011…. now personally.. I would have been content to see no public funding as complete enough remedy… as JaN points out… it is legal. But there is a certain aura of “payback” when people rebel against being compelled to violate their conscience by government mandate and confiscation.
February 8, 2012 at 7:37 pm #746653
kootchmanMemberNow what is shaping up to put even more drama is the fight Obama and Sebelius have picked with the Catholic church. The man should read his history… the Catholic Church has unseated and created empires, nations, kings, for 2000 years… big empires! Even took down the Soviet Union. They have a big play book. Now we are getting into Superbowl sorta elections. And… Hispanics are over 90 per cent Catholic or Evangelical… watch him back down on this one!
Amazing, Obama may be the greatest force for ecumenical restoration in the nations history. The KKK was founded on anti-Jew, black and Roman Catholic sentiment… the south has more Baptist churches than we have 7-11’s or Starbucks… but they are now in solidarity and alliance. Is this drama or what? Lets watch the candidate on this one.
“On Tuesday, Catholics, who accounted for about a quarter of the electorate, supported Obama, at 54 percent, over McCain, at 45 percent.”
The man is sure doubling down… if he loses Catholics or Independents, or Hispanics he loses the election. A mere 10% of the faithful who switch horses in 2012 hand him his ticket to the lecture circuit. Who advises this man? Think he will get a guest speaker invite to the National Conference of Bishops … he better take it if offered. Ah..what the heck … he bows to Saudi royalty… a little papal ring kissing should be no big deal.
The talking points… ouch!!!
February 8, 2012 at 8:35 pm #746654
JanSParticipantoh, get off it, kootch…George Carlin is /was great. I just happened to open that from a friend just this morning, and considering the discussion, I put it here. Your question was like me asking..”why do conservatives always thump the bible so much?”. Carlin was a funny man..and he was spot on…
February 8, 2012 at 8:37 pm #746655
JanSParticipantIf the Catholic hospitals are taking public monies, then, hey, they need to play by the rules. Period.
February 8, 2012 at 11:51 pm #746656
kootchmanMemberI hear a “crinkle, crinkle” sound… it’s the sound of Obama folding like a cheap suit. A fantasy scenario… Catholic schools should wait until August, then just before school starts, take a page from the teachers unions, announce they are not opening their schools. Drop that multi-billion dollar bomb on the states. Over 8,200 schools nationwide. Just the building costs would sink the government ship the SS Lollipop Pander The price of surrender. It would bankrupt WA state. This includes Catholic schools that do not take public money other than those that accept charter fees from failed public school systems. These are “new” rules created by Obama for his base of radicalized hirsutes.but go for it…this is too good a fortune to be wasted.. Carlin was funny…back in the 60’s when we, the most irresponsible generation to ever infect the national psyche held sway. Those poor kids and young adults below the age of 35 who are getting the bill… for our dalliances. I just watched a documentary on why Ron Paul has this following of young enthusiasts… number one reason? They think they are being screwed over by overspending government..with all their future earnings going to the great welfare state… not a peep about trying to rectify it by class warfare. They want a minimalist government. The smart ones … the other ones are in pup tents…”occupying”. The great schism goes on.
February 9, 2012 at 12:10 am #746657
JanSParticipantnow if they’d only get an education about Ron Paul, beside what they read online/in the media, huh…maybe we could all learn from that, I suppose. George Carlin is still funny, rest his little soul. You just don’t seem to have a sense of humor anymore…maybe you need to lighten up. Even a life threatening illness hasn’t killed my funny bone.
February 9, 2012 at 12:16 am #746658
JanSParticipantclass warfare..a soundbite…maybe we should all stop with spouting what we hear on the TeeVee, what we read in the NYT, the WSJ. It’s manufactured jargon that someone came up with when they couldn’t find an answer to the problem. It’s hogwash.
February 9, 2012 at 4:39 am #746659
JoBParticipantkootch…
i most respectfully suggest you stuff it.
do you not understand that your revenue stream numbers have nothing to do with where donations to planned parenthood are spent?
isn’t that the rant…
MY TAX DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT TO SUBSIDIZE ABORTIONS!
even if your figures are correct..
and considering the source, i suspect they aren’t…
that 400% profit you mention on abortion services is spent largely on funding basic health services.
REVENUES FROM ABORTION SERVICES ARE BEING SPENT TO SUBSIDIZE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES FOR WOMEN!
oh wait.. that doesn’t quite have the ring you were hoping for, does it?
Abortion providers providing basic health services that right to lifers decline to fund…
even outside of clinics funded by Planned Parenthood.
kinda makes your side sound mean.. doesn’t it :(
February 9, 2012 at 4:42 am #746660
JoBParticipantkootch
“Carlin was funny…back in the 60’s “
Will Rogers was funny back in the 30s and 40s…
you really should read him.
humor transcends generational limits
it has a way of making hard truths palatable ..
even to those who would prefer not to hear them
February 9, 2012 at 11:49 pm #746661
kootchmanMemberThe sources were from Planned Parenthood. JoB… tell them to stuff it!! YOU NEED TO READ POSTS before you rant on em.. DIRECT from PP… look at what they PAY..for abortion services, the “only” three per cent of their budget..and THE REVENUE they collect from the abortion services… it’s a profit center. R-E=profits. A PP center manager tells you in the first person the national center encourages them to increase their market share of abortions … cause it makes money. Yet another one of those personal choices people make that you would hold us responsible for.
The opposition of conscience is not ready to throw in the towel and say terminating life is ok to make profits to provide health care. Moral relativism… has been used to justify the most heinous of human actions. Mugging someone at the ATM is not “ok” cause the mugger had a better use for the money than you. I think the left should stop talking a good game… and put up the 14% since they are such stingy folks, and the rest of the 60% of the country who object to federal funding of abortion have no case to argue do they? What WILL happen..is PP will lose 40% of their funding if they persist. It may be legal, it may be constitutional, but it doesn’t mean we have to fund it. See again post # 60…and read the Indiana abortion law which has been found constitutional. That’s the future of PP.
February 10, 2012 at 3:47 am #746662
JoBParticipantkootchman..
neither of your links was to planned parenthood..
but just assuming your numbers are correct
which is one heck of an assumption considering the sources
Planned Parenthood is a non-profit
so any “revenue” generated in the abortion clinics funds other services…
like basic health clinics…
far from your tax dollars going to fund abortions…
the “revenue” from the planned parenthood abortion clinics subsidizes the clinics your tax dollars are supposed to fund.
February 10, 2012 at 7:39 am #746663
JanSParticipantKman…did you look at the revenue from non-abortion sources, from private contributions? Much more. And…did you see what the expenses were for breast cancer screenings? Over a million…and that’s what would have been cut if KAren Handel, Ari Fleischer, and Komen had their way. But, noooooo, all you can effing talk about is abortion, abortion, abortion…again, perfectly legal, and they can spend those revenue dollars however they want, for G-d’s sake ! Again with the trite saying…don’t like it? Don’t contribute, and don’t get one…oh, yeah…that’s an impossibility…
February 10, 2012 at 2:01 pm #746664
redblackParticipantwell-said, smitty. i’ve been meaning to come back to this thread for a couple of days and amend my statement, but i got busy.
February 10, 2012 at 7:10 pm #746665
kootchmanMemberLike I said Jan..liberals are moral relativists. You don’t get it.. 60 per cent or more of Americans don’t approve of federal funding of organization who promotes or who generates one dime for life termination on demand. No one said it wasn’t legal… that does not obligate people to put away their consciences, and say ok, well it’s legal. Jim Crow laws were “legal too” didn’t mean they were right,… we are merely trying to extend civil rights and protections to the unborn who have no advocate. The war won’t end until you take the unwilling out of the equation. Support the heck out of it .. with your dime. You can’t be a relativist when it involves terminating life. I don’t care how many screenings they did. They are NOT the only option to breast screenings. Stand up and fund them yourselves if you believe in them so much.
February 10, 2012 at 7:14 pm #746666
kootchmanMemberPP is as non profit as AARP…. it is a multibillion dollar enterprise who may not show a taxable profit, but they do pay handsomely don’t they? Thousands have a vested interest in the economics of perpetuating the system. They take human life. Good enough reason for most Americans to take them off the federal sugar tit. They show 1.2 billion in assets and 235 million in liabilities… sounds like a healthy institution by any measure. If it has such a groundswell of support… take the federal dollars away. I mean, you DO support them right? Show it. As long as they do one termination of a viable life… they should never get one dime of federal money.
February 10, 2012 at 7:30 pm #746667
JanSParticipantI do fund them when I can. And , for the record, as others have said, I am not pro-abortion. I am pro choice. I have never been faced with the prospect of perhaps “needing” an abortion. My conscience says that it’s between a woman and her doctor. But one doesn’t cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face, as Komen was doing. It’s reversed for now. The argument, in my book, is moot. You will feel differently than me on most things, I think.
But , of course, once more, I suppose we have to defer to you and your seemingly “superior” view. It gets tiresome.I don’t get it? The same could be said for you, kind sir. Again, if your conscience dictates that one shouldn’t get an abortion, then don’t get one, and don’t contribute to PP, or any other abortion provider. But your conscience should have no bearing on what PP does or doesn’t do legally. Period. Have a nice Friday.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.