Planned Parenthood

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by 5stringJeff, Dec 17, 2003.

  1. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    I was not aware that Planned Parenthood received federal money. If they do, the figures in this story outrage me all the more. I understand that abortion on demand is currently the law of the land. But for the federal government to give $254 million to an organization that turned a $36 million profit in 2002 and performed over 220,000 abortions in that year is outrageous. Planned Parenthood should not get a dime of taxpayer support.
     
  2. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    agreed.
     
  3. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    Also agreed. Where'd you get that "profit" figure? That would really be interesting, don't you know?
     
  4. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    What the anti-choice movement won't tell you is that Planned Parenthood prevents far more abortions from occuring each year then they have performed throughout their entire history. You can't quantify the number of teen pregnancies Planned Parenthood has prevented from occuring. There are no statistics for the number of unwanted pregnancies family planning and education prevent each year. The source of your figures, which is a militant anti-choice activist organization, does not differentiate between money spent for education, and that spent on direct provision of medical services. Planned Parenthood is very careful to separate monies so that no taxpayer dollars fund abortion services. If you look at the numbers, you see that the taxpayer money recieved (both federal and state, which you also didn't mention) is almost equaled by donations. The profit or surplus you mention is very little compared to the total budget and, since Planned Parenthood is not-for-profit, is simply put back into services. If PP has a surplus at the end of the year it is because it is well run.

    Planned Parenthood is a noble organization whose primary goal is education. If we continue to educate our young people as to the risks of pregnancy and STDs, then abortion will become far less common. Those who want to hide their heads in the sand and pretend that young people won't have sex if we don't talk about it do a lot to increase the number of abortions performed in this country.

    As someone who is morally opposed to abortion unless it is to protect the life and/or health of the mother, I support Planned Parenthood's continued mission of education and family planning. Keep funding Planned Parenthood.

    acludem
     
  5. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    I wonder how much of PP's education talks about teens sticking with abstinence. Tha prevents more pregnancies than any condom handout program could.

    Glad to hear that PP keeps the surplus... I would too! :)

    Regardless of which pot of money pays for abortions and which pot pays for education, the fact that PP performs abortions should automatically disqualify them from receiving federal funds.

    If PP focused on education and/or birth control, I wouldn't be complaining. The fact that 37% of their budget goes to abortion clinic operating costs makes me think that PP has more than one agenda.
    As far as "hiding our heads in the sand," abstinence education works, despite the shrill cries of the Left. In fact, today's teenagers are more likely than the previous two generations to choose abstinence. Telling teens to wait to have sex has a positive effect on keeping them from having sex. Just throwing your hands up in the air and saying, "Well, they're gonna do it anyways" is giving up, and I - and millions of others - refuse to do so.
    To be fair, I think that birth control techniques should also be taught; however, I believe that stressing abstience should be the way to go in health/sex ed classes.

    I am glad to hear that you are pro-life, acludem. I also support family planning and sex education for teens, as discissed below. I do not support federal funding of organizations that perform abortions.
     
  6. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    You imply, gop_jeff, that PP doesn't provide education as it relates to abstinence. Actually, they provide and advocate more of that but sadly they are the tool that many seek after the abstinence thing is only a memory. Given their purpose in existence, an education in choice after the fact, their message of abstinence falls on an empty audience. Abstinence should be taught at home primarilly and in every other avenue that is available. PP does that as well as anyone. Maybe the other avenues are failing.

    You, gop_jeff, are obviously not a voluntary contributor to PP and it's already been stated in here that your involuntary contributions (ie your tax dollars) are not used for the procedure that you express such disagreement with, abortion. The part that you involuntarilly contribute with your tax dollars is spent on exactly what you advocate, abstinence and prevention of std's which are also described elsewhere in this thread. But even the baby Jesus was considered a bastard and the product of nonadherence to abstinence. Abstinence is not a NEW subject at all, is it? The Immaculate Conception is not a new subject for you, is it? Just how do you suppose the PP "keeps" their surplus?

    I realize that much of what I say here is wasted on you, gop_jeff, but somewhere we have to find compromise. I don't want to return to the days of "coat-hanger" abortions and botched procedures in filthy environments that we had in the '50's and '60's. As Americans, we expect better from each other, don't we?

    One final note here, why is it that the Party that preaches too many laws and increased freedom seeks to create more laws and limit freedom? The passage of the abortion legislation was actually a reduction in laws and an increase in freedom. I guess other factors tend to cloud the ideology, don't you think?
     
  7. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    My stance is that we need to increase abstinence-focused education, and that as a result, there will be fewer teen pregnancies (and fewer teen abortions).

    You, gop_jeff, are obviously not a voluntary contributor to PP and it's already been stated in here that your involuntary contributions (ie your tax dollars) are not used for the procedure that you express such disagreement with, abortion. The part that you involuntarilly contribute with your tax dollars is spent on exactly what you advocate, abstinence and prevention of std's which are also described elsewhere in this thread.[/quote]

    I understand that the monies are kept "separate." I still take the stance that an organization that performs abortions should not be given any federal money for anything.

    NOW we're treading on some thin ice. Any doubts in Joseph's mind about Jesus's conception were put away when an angel appeared to him and told him what was going on. I think it is a bit of a stretch to consider Jesus a "bastard" child.
    And no, the Immaculate Conception is not a new concept to me - except that, in Catholicism, the IC is the theory that Mary was conceived as a sinless person, which allowed her to carry Jesus, the sinless child.

    Coat-hanger abortions... the scare tactics of the Left never change, do they?
    The freedom that the Republican Party preaches includes the freedom of babies to have life. The justification of the pro-life stance is that babies have the right to life, and that, once conceived, that right supercedes the woman's right to "choose," barring a threat to the mother's life. So the pro-life plank is a continuation of freedom, not a limitation on it.
    And, by the way, there was never any abortion "legislation," as you state. Abortion was legalized by Roe v. Wade, a decision based on the previously unknown "right to privacy" that was read into the 4th Amendment.
    I, personally, would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned in a SCOTUS decision that stated that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the subject of abortion, and let the fight go to the state legislatures.
     
  8. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    I don't think the very touchy subject of abortion will be nor should it be solved on any of these political message boards. I think the Federal Government expends monies on thousands of programs that I fundamentally disagree with. I consider thousands of laws to be over-reaching and not in the best interests of the peoples they were purported to protect. It's a good thing that it is not I that enacts and enforces legislation and tax criterion.

    I have no quarrel whatsoever with Joseph and his attitudes, angelically inspired or not, towards Mary or Jesus. I didn't mean to get out there on thin ice with you. My point was that many don't agree with either of us. Religion is and should be a private and personal matter and should be rejected in any form in legislation. The good judge Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court is now learning that the hard way. This is America, not the Church of England or ANY other.

    Like you, I fundamentally disagree with abortion for the sole purpose of birth control. But I've raised a few adopted kids. Most of the more adamant anti-abortionists wouldn't consider a single mile in my shoes in that respect, at least that's the way it looks to me.

    You indicate that you think the "coat hanger" abortions of the '50's and '60's to be some kind of a "scare tactic". If you are not aware of the conditions that women were reduced to in those days then I suggest you either weren't there or you were insensitive to what was going on around you. It's regretful that you missed it. Moreso that anyone had to go through it.
     
  9. X.P. Alidocious
    Online

    X.P. Alidocious Guest

    Ratings:
    +0


    If you can't quanify them, superstar, you can't say
    they prevent more than they perform.

    Nice try, though.
     

Share This Page