CDZ Abortion Perspective

[Damaged Eagle]

Why should the government fund any agency dealing with pregnancy?

It's in the best interests of our country overall.

Why?

*****SMILE*****

should the US be on the same threshold for prenatal care as any given 'shit hole' country?

Why should it be the governments job to demand everyone provide charity? I don't recall seeing that in the Constitution. Charity was provided by the churches, philanthropists, and other charities, where the funds provided are given freely. Demanding government involvement only promotes abuse of said funds while relying on charity allows the giver to decide if the funds are being spent correctly and to withhold said funds if they feel the funds are being abused.

*****SMILE*****

^ ' Demanding government involvement only promotes abuse of said fund...

PP is audited independently every year to make sure federal funds are used legally.
charity alone isn't sufficient. that's just the facts.

' charity allows the giver to decide if the funds are being spent correctly '

you mean like the trump foundation?

You think auditing prevents abuse?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[playtime]

How do you propose to make abortions unnecessary?

Isn't there something wrong with a position that only cares about having an abortion because it's their body and demanding money so they can have an abortion?

*****SMILE*****

access to birth control, whether 'free' or thru mandated coverage.

Where does it say in the Constitution that access to birth control is a right?

*****CHUCKLE*****

i didn't sat it was a right. but it is the conservative thing to do. why is the little blue pill covered, but not THE pill in some cases?

Why should either be covered?

*****SMILE*****

because we aren't sierra leone.

 

[playtime]

It's in the best interests of our country overall.

Why?

*****SMILE*****

should the US be on the same threshold for prenatal care as any given 'shit hole' country?

Why should it be the governments job to demand everyone provide charity? I don't recall seeing that in the Constitution. Charity was provided by the churches, philanthropists, and other charities, where the funds provided are given freely. Demanding government involvement only promotes abuse of said funds while relying on charity allows the giver to decide if the funds are being spent correctly and to withhold said funds if they feel the funds are being abused.

*****SMILE*****

^ ' Demanding government involvement only promotes abuse of said fund...

PP is audited independently every year to make sure federal funds are used legally.
charity alone isn't sufficient. that's just the facts.

' charity allows the giver to decide if the funds are being spent correctly '

you mean like the trump foundation?

You think auditing prevents abuse?

*****CHUCKLE*****

it sure cuts it down. there's more abuse uncovered every year in medicare than PP could ever achieve.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Why?

*****SMILE*****

should the US be on the same threshold for prenatal care as any given 'shit hole' country?

Why should it be the governments job to demand everyone provide charity? I don't recall seeing that in the Constitution. Charity was provided by the churches, philanthropists, and other charities, where the funds provided are given freely. Demanding government involvement only promotes abuse of said funds while relying on charity allows the giver to decide if the funds are being spent correctly and to withhold said funds if they feel the funds are being abused.

*****SMILE*****

^ ' Demanding government involvement only promotes abuse of said fund...

PP is audited independently every year to make sure federal funds are used legally.
charity alone isn't sufficient. that's just the facts.

' charity allows the giver to decide if the funds are being spent correctly '

you mean like the trump foundation?

You think auditing prevents abuse?

*****CHUCKLE*****

it sure cuts it down. there's more abuse uncovered every year in medicare than PP could ever achieve.

So now you're saying there is abuse.

Can I withhold funds now? After all I could do that if it was a charity.

*****SMILE*****

 

[jwoodie]

You mean like why did the Federal government force Virginia to allow mixed race marriages? Yeah why should a small group of people be able to impose their political vies on majorities who do not share those views?

Really what you mean is that why shouldn't a group of people be able to impose their own personal beliefs on every woman in a state.

Nice try, but you got your example exactly backwards. Virginia was not imposing its views on the rest of the country (but it was in direct violation of the Constitution).

If anything, your civil rights comparison supports the right to life of the unborn, not the right to terminate that life. That is why the Roe v. Wade Court had to invent a new "right to privacy" in order to justify its otherwise indefensible decision.

 

[Markle]

planned parenthood does not take federal funds for abortion services. they are healthcare providers, usually for low income people - both female & male & those who fall thru the cracks where any healthcare may be completely outa pocket.

That is a flat out LIE!

Please look up the word "FUNGIBLE".

 

[Markle]

planned parenthood is independently audited every year for oversight. not since the days of carter has federal funds paid for an abortion.

google 'hyde amendment'.

Have you always been so gullible?

Please look up the word "FUNGIBLE".

 

[playtime]

should the US be on the same threshold for prenatal care as any given 'shit hole' country?

Why should it be the governments job to demand everyone provide charity? I don't recall seeing that in the Constitution. Charity was provided by the churches, philanthropists, and other charities, where the funds provided are given freely. Demanding government involvement only promotes abuse of said funds while relying on charity allows the giver to decide if the funds are being spent correctly and to withhold said funds if they feel the funds are being abused.

*****SMILE*****

^ ' Demanding government involvement only promotes abuse of said fund...

PP is audited independently every year to make sure federal funds are used legally.
charity alone isn't sufficient. that's just the facts.

' charity allows the giver to decide if the funds are being spent correctly '

you mean like the trump foundation?

You think auditing prevents abuse?

*****CHUCKLE*****

it sure cuts it down. there's more abuse uncovered every year in medicare than PP could ever achieve.

So now you're saying there is abuse.

Can I withhold funds now? After all I could do that if it was a charity.

*****SMILE*****

i didn't say there was abuse in PP. i said oversight helps with cutting down abuse - period. there has been documented abuse in medicare. ask (R) rick scott.

i don't recall any one time PP has been found to misuse funds & di-rect them to cover abortion services. if you have, please show a credible unbiased source.

 

[playtime]

planned parenthood does not take federal funds for abortion services. they are healthcare providers, usually for low income people - both female & male & those who fall thru the cracks where any healthcare may be completely outa pocket.

That is a flat out LIE!

Please look up the word "FUNGIBLE".

no audit has shown that to be true unless you can show me credible links to prove it.

 

[Markle]

i didn't say there was abuse in PP. i said oversight helps with cutting down abuse - period. there has been documented abuse in medicare. ask (R) rick scott.

i don't recall any one time PP has been found to misuse funds & di-rect them to cover abortion services. if you have, please show a credible unbiased source.

Have you always been so gullible?

Please look up the word "FUNGIBLE".

 

[Markle]

planned parenthood does not take federal funds for abortion services. they are healthcare providers, usually for low income people - both female & male & those who fall thru the cracks where any healthcare may be completely outa pocket.

That is a flat out LIE!

Please look up the word "FUNGIBLE".

no audit has shown that to be true unless you can show me credible links to prove it.

NO abuse? What do you call selling infant body parts?

Once again.

Have you always been so gullible?

Please look up the word "FUNGIBLE".

 

[Damaged Eagle]

i didn't say there was abuse in PP. i said oversight helps with cutting down abuse - period. there has been documented abuse in medicare. ask (R) rick scott.

i don't recall any one time PP has been found to misuse funds & di-rect them to cover abortion services. if you have, please show a credible unbiased source.

These sites say there is abuse in PP...

100 Abuses of Planned Parenthood

8 Nonpartisan Reasons To Defund Planned Parenthood

Former Planned Parenthood staff: We were told not to report sexual abuse

*****SMILE*****

 

[Disir]

The controversy rages. Both sides at each others throats over an issue that neither will give ground on. One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point for mankind has many laws both religious and secular. Which in turn can lead to many questions on the subject. One such question that I've never seen asked is the following...


If these pro-abortion people don't want others telling them 'what to do with their body' what gives them the right to demand government funding to support an institution/agency (Planned Parenthood) to tell them what to do with their bodies?

*****SMILE*****





NOTE: This is the Clean Debate Zone and it would be greatly appreciated if mod involvement for flaming and other offences not be required for this thread.

Both men and women use Planned Parenthood. The government doesn't "fund abortions".

Men's Medical Health Services | Planned Parenthood

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Both men and women use Planned Parenthood. The government doesn't "fund abortions".

Men's Medical Health Services | Planned Parenthood

And yet we have people who represent Planned Parenthood selling aborted baby parts.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Lysistrata]

The controversy rages. Both sides at each others throats over an issue that neither will give ground on. One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point for mankind has many laws both religious and secular. Which in turn can lead to many questions on the subject. One such question that I've never seen asked is the following...


If these pro-abortion people don't want others telling them 'what to do with their body' what gives them the right to demand government funding to support an institution/agency (Planned Parenthood) to tell them what to do with their bodies?

*****SMILE*****





NOTE: This is the Clean Debate Zone and it would be greatly appreciated if mod involvement for flaming and other offences not be required for this thread.

PP does not tell people what to do with their bodies. It neither encourages nor discourages abortion.
Funding access to technology to prevent unwanted pregnancy would serve both sides of the abortion debate and the public at large.
Government should not take sides on the abortion issue. The current administration is blatantly taking sides, which is totally unacceptable, and writing rules and distributing funding deliberately to anti-choice groups, including religious groups, exclusively, which means that pro-choice taxpayers are being forced to fund anti-abortion groups.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The controversy rages. Both sides at each others throats over an issue that neither will give ground on. One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point for mankind has many laws both religious and secular. Which in turn can lead to many questions on the subject. One such question that I've never seen asked is the following...


If these pro-abortion people don't want others telling them 'what to do with their body' what gives them the right to demand government funding to support an institution/agency (Planned Parenthood) to tell them what to do with their bodies?

*****SMILE*****





NOTE: This is the Clean Debate Zone and it would be greatly appreciated if mod involvement for flaming and other offences not be required for this thread.

PP does not tell people what to do with their bodies. It neither encourages nor discourages abortion.
Funding access to technology to prevent unwanted pregnancy would serve both sides of the abortion debate and the public at large.
Government should not take sides on the abortion issue. The current administration is blatantly taking sides, which is totally unacceptable, and writing rules and distributing funding deliberately to anti-choice groups, including religious groups, exclusively, which means that pro-choice taxpayers are being forced to fund anti-abortion groups.

And anti-abortion groups are being forced to fund pro-choice initiatives like Planned Parenthood.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[PoliticalChic]

The controversy rages. Both sides at each others throats over an issue that neither will give ground on. One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point for mankind has many laws both religious and secular. Which in turn can lead to many questions on the subject. One such question that I've never seen asked is the following...


If these pro-abortion people don't want others telling them 'what to do with their body' what gives them the right to demand government funding to support an institution/agency (Planned Parenthood) to tell them what to do with their bodies?

*****SMILE*****





NOTE: This is the Clean Debate Zone and it would be greatly appreciated if mod involvement for flaming and other offences not be required for this thread.

Both men and women use Planned Parenthood. The government doesn't "fund abortions".

Men's Medical Health Services | Planned Parenthood

The government doesn't "fund abortions".

Of course it does.....and that's all PP does.




Obama…a supporter of infanticide…which is why he lies to support Planned Parenthood.

“....on abortion, Obama is an extremist. He has opposed the Supreme Court decision that finally upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act against that form of infanticide. Most startlingly, for a professed humanist, Obama – in the Illinois Senate – also voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

I have reported on several of those cases when, before the abortion was completed, an alive infant was suddenly in the room. It was disposed of as a horrified nurse who was not necessarily pro-life followed the doctors’ orders to put the baby in a pail or otherwise get rid of the child.” Infanticide candidate for president




…who has stated that he didn’t want his daughters ‘punished’ with a baby…..told this lie:


You’ve got issues like Planned Parenthood, where that organization provides millions of women cervical-cancer screenings, mammograms, all kinds of basic health care.”— President Obama during an interview on “The Tonight Show,” Oct. 24, 2012

“The president has suggested time and again that Planned Parenthood directly provides mammograms, but the organization only offers referrals and helps women find financial resources for the exams. This suggests an intentional attempt to mislead voters…”
Obama’s ‘Tonight Show’ remark: Planned Parenthood provides mammograms

"....past-President Cecile Richards falsely claimed her organization provided mammograms. Even the Washington Postdebunked that claim. Ultimately, former Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards was forced to admit under oath in a congressional hearing that the abortion giant doesn’t provide mammograms."
Planned Parenthood on the Defensive

 

[Lysistrata]

The controversy rages. Both sides at each others throats over an issue that neither will give ground on. One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point for mankind has many laws both religious and secular. Which in turn can lead to many questions on the subject. One such question that I've never seen asked is the following...


If these pro-abortion people don't want others telling them 'what to do with their body' what gives them the right to demand government funding to support an institution/agency (Planned Parenthood) to tell them what to do with their bodies?

*****SMILE*****





NOTE: This is the Clean Debate Zone and it would be greatly appreciated if mod involvement for flaming and other offences not be required for this thread.

PP does not tell people what to do with their bodies. It neither encourages nor discourages abortion.
Funding access to technology to prevent unwanted pregnancy would serve both sides of the abortion debate and the public at large.
Government should not take sides on the abortion issue. The current administration is blatantly taking sides, which is totally unacceptable, and writing rules and distributing funding deliberately to anti-choice groups, including religious groups, exclusively, which means that pro-choice taxpayers are being forced to fund anti-abortion groups.

And anti-abortion groups are being forced to fund pro-choice initiatives like Planned Parenthood.

*****CHUCKLE*****

You're a little late. The stupid pig who pretends to be vice president already picked a side blatantly and prevented funding for PP, but the government is still funding anti-choice organizations and more are applying to suck off the taxpayers' tit through programs like Title X. They already have the Hyde Amendment. If federally funded groups are prohibited from even mentioning the existence of abortion as an available choice, they should also be prohibited from pushing the anti-choice view. Equal funding or no funding.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

You're a little late. The stupid pig who pretends to be vice president already picked a side blatantly and prevented funding for PP, but the government is still funding anti-choice organizations and more are applying to suck off the taxpayers' tit through programs like Title X. They already have the Hyde Amendment. If federally funded groups are prohibited from even mentioning the existence of abortion as an available choice, they should also be prohibited from pushing the anti-choice view. Equal funding or no funding.

Late??? I think you missed my point of the thread.

My position is no government funding for anyone and start a charity for your little righteous causes.

*****SMILE*****

 

[task0778]

The controversy rages. Both sides at each others throats over an issue that neither will give ground on. One side says that it's murder while the other side says that others no right to tell them what to do with their body. In perspective both are have a point for mankind has many laws both religious and secular. Which in turn can lead to many questions on the subject. One such question that I've never seen asked is the following...


If these pro-abortion people don't want others telling them 'what to do with their body' what gives them the right to demand government funding to support an institution/agency (Planned Parenthood) to tell them what to do with their bodies?

*****SMILE*****





NOTE: This is the Clean Debate Zone and it would be greatly appreciated if mod involvement for flaming and other offences not be required for this thread.

Both men and women use Planned Parenthood. The government doesn't "fund abortions".

Men's Medical Health Services | Planned Parenthood

Are you sure? You tell me, how many abortions would PP be doing if they got no gov't funding at all, compared to how many they do now? You can play with the words all you want, but if they weren't getting a heckuva lot of our tax dollars then they wouldn't be doing nearly as many abortions. If you pay for your own, fine. Don't like it, but fine. If you can get a pro-choice group to pay for it, fine. Don't like it, but fine.