Yeah but the point I'm making is why are you casting doubt on her story but not on the stories that put PP in a good light?
Because some stories are more rational than others and the weight of evidence is on the side of the "good light" stories.
Yeah but the point I'm making is why are you casting doubt on her story but not on the stories that put PP in a good light?
And by "rational" I take it you mean "confirming my biases"?Because some stories are more rational than others and the weight of evidence is on the side of the "good light" stories.
Do some research ok? PP has been very transparent about what their funding goes toward and NONE of the money that they receive from the government goes toward abortions. NONE OF IT. I've done my research. And you know what? You don't have a uterus. You don't get a say on it.That's disingenuous. Funding is fungible, so whatever public money they receive ostensibly for other purposes offsets what they have to pay for abortions from their own funds. If public money goes to PP, in other words, then the public is supporting abortions indirectly.
Do some research ok? PP has been very transparent about what their funding goes toward and NONE of the money that they receive from the government goes toward abortions. NONE OF IT. I've done my research. And you know what? You don't have a uterus. You don't get a say on it.
I keep out of the political forum for a reason.
Don't bring your political ploys here.
You want to side with someone whose post history is outlandish and full of shit, go ahead, but don't go making accusations about me.
Fuck off.
And besides, that wasn't what my original post was even about, if you read it.
I said REGARDLESS about what your stance is on abortions - why would you want to possibly deny health services to both MEN AND WOMEN who couldn't afford it - just because you don't support abortions. It's cutting your nose off to spite your face. But hey, you only read what you want to read. I don't expect much else.
You didn't understand my point. If PP gets money to pay for non-abortion services, that still leaves them more money from their own funds to pay for abortions. The entire organization DOES provide abortions, so public support for PP effectively means support for abortions, even if indirectly.
And if it involves my money as a taxpayer, then it IS my business and I DO have a say. Your uterus doesn't entitle you to other people's stuff.
If you don't want a political discussion, don't make a political post.
If you really cared about PP continuing to provide non-abortion services, you should be the first to pressure them into abandoning their more controversial activities that are jeopardizing their public funding.
LOLI didn't make a political post.
You really must be illiterate, again I said REGARDLESS OF THE ABORTION SERVICES THEY PROVIDE WHY WOULD THEY BE DEFUNDED WHEN THEY PROVIDE SO MANY OTHER AMAZING SERVICES TO PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD THEM.
DO you speak ENGLISH?
Your precious tax payer money doesn't go towards abortions.
I'm done with you.
You clearly are a stubborn blockhead who can't see past his nose.
3% of Planned Parenthood's program is abortions. And really, this statement literally changes nothing about my post.Other than killing babies. Many Many Many other services and origination's preform the same services as PP, and FREE. Look around.
They actually don't. That's the point.Other than killing babies. Many Many Many other services and origination's preform the same services as PP, and FREE. Look around.
You won't even address it and then you address it.They actually don't. That's the point.
Many other services DO NOT accept medicaid. Many men and women would be at a disservice if funding were to be cut.
I won't even address the baby statement, but there is a significant difference between a cluster of cells/embryo/fetus and an actual sentient being baby.
You can't differ on science.You won't even address it and then you address it.
The point is people differ on the question of whether an embryo/fetus is different from a baby. There isn't any clear cutoff between the two, which is why it's such a fraught issue. My personal opinion is that abortion should be freely available until the baby can survive outside the womb and then it should only be allowed to preserve the mother's life. But others disagree, and I guess I'm old-fashioned and believe that people shouldn't be forced to pay for things their consciences disagree with. That's why I don't believe in federal funding for PP, at least not while PP provides abortions (my impression is aside from abortions, most people support what PP does). And yes, I know that federal money can't itself be used to fund abortions, but you're still supporting an organization that does abortions so it's an indirect form of support. The argument that the money itself can't be earmarked for abortions isn't particularly persuasive if you're seriously pro-life.
LOL science has nothing to say on the matter. It's an ethical and philosophical issue, not a scientific one.You can't differ on science.
Science says what is an embryo, what is a fetus, etc.LOL science has nothing to say on the matter. It's an ethical and philosophical issue, not a scientific one.
Yeah, and what about my taxes that pay for a man's cialis and viagra but my health insurance wouldn't cover my medically necessary birth control pill that covers intense mood swings, that without I feel like killing myself?Wait, what about my tax money that goes to fund wars? What about my tax money that gets used in frivolous lawsuits against other members of the government? What about my tax money that goes to fund another inquisition into Benghazi only to turn up no wrong doing again? What about gay people's tax money to a government that doesn't fully allow them all the benefits of said government? I do agree there needs to be a cut-off date for abortions. "X" amount of weeks in, or whatever. But defunding Planned Parenthood completely isn't the answer.
This is also why I oppose all those foreign ventures.Wait, what about my tax money that goes to fund wars? What about my tax money that gets used in frivolous lawsuits against other members of the government? What about my tax money that goes to fund another inquisition into Benghazi only to turn up no wrong doing again? What about gay people's tax money to a government that doesn't fully allow them all the benefits of said government? I do agree there needs to be a cut-off date for abortions. "X" amount of weeks in, or whatever. But defunding Planned Parenthood completely isn't the answer.
LOL. And what exactly are specifically non-political "issues of women" that you hoped to discuss with respect to PP funding? That's right, there are none. It's an intrinsically political issue and you can't reasonably have expected any non-political discussion to have arisen out of it.Science says what is an embryo, what is a fetus, etc.
Yeah, and what about my taxes that pay for a man's cialis and viagra but my health insurance wouldn't cover my medically necessary birth control pill that covers intense mood swings, that without I feel like killing myself?
Cmon. I put this in women's issues because I wanted to keep it focused ON THE ISSUES OF WOMEN. NOT THE POLITICS so thanks LONG AND SKINNY for fucking that up you're a peach.
But hey, after months of this horrible site change, I finally learned how to multiquote.
So there's that.