Discussion: Planned Parenthood

[Matt]

It seems like you have no experience with PP at all. I know several low income women who use PP for general maintenance. It's a worthwhile organization that adheres to the law.

Just like prisons that use my tax dollars to execute criminals all the time. This is an organization that uses my tax dollars to carry out their agenda. However because it's within the law, I can't really expect the government not to help carry out these agendas.

Planned Parenthood is a great boon to low income women all over our country and to cut our government's involvement with them only weakens our integrity as a country.

Its not my problem. Like I said, low income "pregnancy epidemics," are a result of a woman's failure to keep her legs closed and a man's failure to keep his dick in his pants. There are far better and more deserving charities that can prevent true epidemics.

If you can't afford birth control then you certainly can't afford a kid so there is a very easy solution, DON'T HAVE SEX, CERTAINLY NOT UNPROTECTED SEX! These "low income women," are hardly the victims that you make them out to be.

But, mistakes happen. And there are countless government and private organizations in place to help them out that do not push for abortion.

Furthermore, your comparison to the death penalty is faulty. Prisons are public institutions, Planned Parenthood is not.

So you want more low income babies? Or is it that you want those low income mothers to be indebted to an organization like The Church or some other private charity?

Oh Franky, now you're just trying to stir the pot.

 

[Franklin Richards]

I'm trying real hard not to stir the pot cause I got 9 infractions.




It's SO hard.

 

[TheZink]

If you can't afford birth control then you certainly can't afford a kid so there is a very easy solution, DON'T HAVE SEX, CERTAINLY NOT UNPROTECTED SEX! These "low income women," are hardly the victims that you make them out to be.

My father taught me, that if I was "man enough to have sex, then you are man enough to raise a baby." So either I was smart and had protected sex or I faced the consequences.

 

[Franklin Richards]

There's nothing wrong with subsidizing rubbers.

 

[StorminNorman]

There is something inherently wrong with subsidization in general.

 

[Franklin Richards]

I don't mind giving people a coupon to reduce the amount of traffic.

 

[StorminNorman]

I don't mind giving people a coupon to reduce the amount of traffic.

No one would prevent you from taking from your paycheck and donating to Planned Parenthood. You just have no right to take from mine.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Why not? You enjoy the comforts of this country. Why don't you try being a Libertarian in Africa? Perhaps then you wouldn't be so stingy with a few pennies.

 

[BlackSymbiote]

Why not? You enjoy the comforts of this country. Why don't you try being a Libertarian in Africa? Perhaps then you wouldn't be so stingy with a few pennies.

I'll make you a deal: I'll give up public comforts and you give up private comforts. Let's see who breaks the deal first.

 

[Franklin Richards]

If you give up Public comforts I'll just kill you with no repercussions.

 

[Marx]

You have to take into consideration how much marketing and legal expenses is used to facilitate the abortion industry. PP handle 1 out of every 4 abortions in this country.

Why should my tax dollars be used to fund abortions and birth control pills? Why should my tax dollars facilitate somebody else's lifestyle choices?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110621/ap_on_re_us/us_planned_parenthood_indiana#mwpphu-container



-----------

Federal tax dollars are not allowed by law to go to abortion procedures. Facts are facts.

As far as the part about birth control pills, it comes across as very elitist to not support helping those in lower income brackets. (Which are the larger majority of the clients who go to Planned Parenthood.)

 

[BlackSymbiote]

If you give up Public comforts I'll just kill you with no repercussions.

Almost anything you use would have to be obtained through a private business. The only way you could even begin to approach public weaponry is to join the military, but the weapons are still made through private industry.

You would also have to entirely rely on someone else to protect you, as you couldn't use any weapon obtained through private business, except your own fists.

 

[BlackSymbiote]

As far as the part about birth control pills, it comes across as very elitist to not support helping those in lower income brackets.

You're right, it does. But it also sounds elitist to say that you have to. I have no problem with people volunteering to give money to those in lower income brackets, but it's when you force people through taxation and other means, then I have a problem.

People who are against abortion and birth control have no option to say no, so they're being forced to pay for something they don't agree with. You don't like it when private business gets public money, but you're still forced to pay. It's something you have no problem with, so you don't care.

I have no problems with abortions to certain extents, and I don't care if people use birth control, but I also don't see why you have to force people to give money.

 

[StorminNorman]

If you give up Public comforts I'll just kill you with no repercussions.

That's why I have a right to arms. And for those cops now unemployed? My local community, now making 100% of their paycheck, invest in a mutual (and voluntary) private defense agency. The richer citizens, having more to lose, are willing to invest more in the agency.

 

[BlackSymbiote]

That's why I have a right to arms. And for those cops now unemployed? My local community, now making 100% of their paycheck, invest in a mutual (and voluntary) private defense agency. The richer citizens, having more to lose, are willing to invest more in the agency.

And because you know the criticism is coming, this private defense agency would still have to follow the law.

 

[SentinelMind]

Federal tax dollars are not allowed by law to go to abortion procedures. Facts are facts.

This reminds me of a joke I heard many years ago

A tourist was walking down the street and passes a homeless guy asking for money for food.

The guy reaches into his pocket, but then pauses and asks "hey...how do I know you're going to use this money to buy food and not buy drugs?"

The homeless guys responds..."you don't have to worry, I already got my drug money in my back pocket."

PP can operate successfully when their other less controversial procedures and maintenance expenses are covered by federal tax dollars, they can then allocate their private funds towards covering abortions. Without federal funding, they would have to prioritize what is truly important to them. If we are simply reimbursing PP so they allocate their money for abortions, why not simply fund other medical services centers that don't give out abortions.

As far as the part about birth control pills, it comes across as very elitist to not support helping those in lower income brackets. (Which are the larger majority of the clients who go to Planned Parenthood.)

It's elitist not to want my tax dollars to go to subsidizing someone else's sex life? That's not a medically necessary- life or death procedure. With insurance, you typically want to cover risk of medical needs that you're trying to avoid. When it comes to birth control, you're encouraging even riskier behavior because the patients knows the government will fund it.

Furthermore, there are many providers that provide birth control pills outside of PP.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, I understand not wanting to pay for this, but on the other, I'd much rather pay so that someone can get birth control pills then pay to raise their unwanted children.

 

[Schlosser85]

Franklin's posts on this page make me hear a violin.

Seriously, whose fault is it that we have so many "low income babies"? The "low income mothers" who don't keep their legs closed and have kids they can't afford, either because they're too uneducated to practice safe sex, or because they know they'll get more welfare if they pop out a few kids.

Harsh? Maybe. True? You betcha.

 

[mrvlknight21]

Franklin's posts on this page make me hear a violin.

Seriously, whose fault is it that we have so many "low income babies"? The "low income mothers" who don't keep their legs closed and have kids they can't afford, either because they're too uneducated to practice safe sex, or because they know they'll get more welfare if they pop out a few kids.

Harsh? Maybe. True? You betcha.

^^ This.
I have actually heard two women talking about this and one flat out telling the other one that she needed more kids so she could get a bigger government check.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Let's take away the one joy poor people have. Sex.

 

[mrvlknight21]

Let's take away the one joy poor people have. Sex.

Not sure if serious....oh....you are stirring the pot again, yes?

 

[Schlosser85]

Let's take away the one joy poor people have. Sex.

Oh boo frickin hoo!

Go ahead and have sex, just use protection, is that so hard?

 

[Franklin Richards]

It isn't. And it's much easier when you get a coupon for rubbers.

 

[hippie_hunter]

It's not like they're that expensive to begin with.

EDIT: My point being, if you have a problem being able to afford a 25 cent condom, you have a problem. A coupon or subsidy isn't necessary for something as cheap as condoms.

 

[Schlosser85]

^ This.

Save coupons and subsidies for necessities. Not a condom you can get from a vending machine for a quarter.