This Looks Bad For Planned Parenthood?

[kronus]

how about leaving it in the tax payers wallet?

gross annual tax income: 1,175,422,000,000
planned parenthood budget: 300,000,000
new gross annual tax income: 1,175,122,000,000

Average savings per tax payer: 0.0255227484% (that's 2/100ths of a %)
If you pay 20K a year in taxes, this savings represents... $5.

[mar1t1me]

Ain't no fair way around the fact that stupid people will do stupid things. We do not have the resources to righteously proclaim we are pro-life at all costs. Some of the biggest pro-lifers seem to also be against welfare, which blows my mind. If you are going to force a low-income woman to carry to term and give birth to a child she does not want, but then remove the supports that might allow for care of said child by a mother who must also work,.....well it just seems self-righteously naive.

Since PP serves as an educational and resource center for women who either do not wish to get pregnant (they dispense birth control devices, as well as counseling) or who are pregnant whether or not they choose abortion, it is possible to consider them as more than just a baby killing factory, which is what the pro-lifers would have you believe is all they do.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, there are about 3000 abortions per day in the US. Of those, the data suggests that PP is only performing about 10% of them.

There are 844 PP clinics, but only 295 offer surgical/medical (rather than pill induced) abortions, so it would seem they do more counseling than killing.....

I guess I'm OK with 2 tenths of a cent per day to keep the US from having an extra million or so unwanted babies born every year....

Don't get me wrong....I'm not in love with abortion, but I don't see a way past the reality of what prohibiting abortion would mean to this country.

Maybe in some distant future, we'll harvest a woman's eggs and collect sperm from men after puberty, then render them both sterile. Later, after they've passed all the tests and have been certified as able parents, the "state" will allow impregnation......that way you can fuck til you faint without worry. Shit.....that right there would probably end war!

[gwb72tii]

Yeah, that 300 million will do a whole lot of good otherwise. We can send it to Israel or build one F-22 or something.

how about leaving it in the tax payers wallet?

[kronus]

well if you cant afford the kids (or refuse to take responsibility and provide properly) , be responsible and dont fuck.

But yeah we know thats not gonna happen as thats would require people to do the right thing

Exactly. It's not going to happen. With a large population, there will always be a substantial subgroup that will not "do the right thing", due to accidents, incidents, and general stupidity. Look into the law of large numbers.

Some scenarios I can think of:
- rape, in all its forms (physical, psychological, whatever)
- contraceptive malfunction
- contraceptive misuse
- lack of contraceptive-centered sexual education, reliance on abstinence-based education
- accidents
- grotesque birth defects
- whores that can't keep their legs shut

Most of these situations are not avoidable by thinking "If I need to get an abortion, it will be really expensive, dangerous to my health, and probably illegal"

[mrsleeve]

It's funny that you defend "the life expectancy of Children" but viciously attack welfare and health care which primarily benefit those children.

well if you cant afford the kids (or refuse to take responsibility and provide properly) , be responsible and dont fuck.

But yeah we know thats not gonna happen as thats would require people to do the right thing

[xwill112x]

I'm pro choice, its not my kid, not my choice..but personally i dont think i would abort my own child. I hate to say it...but kronus does have a point, althought it may not cover all areas of the topic.

[kronus]

So statistics should determine the life expectancy of Children? A lot of you are single or without kids, huh?

It's funny that you defend "the life expectancy of Children" but viciously attack welfare and health care which primarily benefit those children.

[ck_taft325is]

^ it could be argued that paying for whore abortions (btw "whore abortions" is a gross misrepresentation of the actual clientele of Planned Parenthood clinics) is as vital to society as maintaining roads, in terms of economic impact. Easier abortions = less low-income children = fewer drug addicts, fewer people on welfare, fewer people "milking the system", fewer criminals, fewer orphans, fewer black people, fewer middle-class liberals.

If I remember correctly, all of those are statistics conservatives tend to favor.

So statistics should determine the life expectancy of Children? A lot of you are single or without kids, huh?

[kronus]

no, because there are specific federal gas tax dollars specific to transportation related issues, that's why.
this is a private company getting $300 million/yr to perform abortions. there is no specific tax involved dedicated to abortions, it comes from my social security withholding (ie the general fund, which BTW borrows $0.40 for every dollar spent).
and the tax savings is moot
if you can't start here and defund PP and Acorn and others like them, there will never be a balanced budget

Yeah, that 300 million will do a whole lot of good otherwise. We can send it to Israel or build one F-22 or something.

[gwb72tii]

So anything vital to society should be (at least partially) paid for with tax dollars?

no, because there are specific federal gas tax dollars specific to transportation related issues, that's why.
this is a private company getting $300 million/yr to perform abortions. there is no specific tax involved dedicated to abortions, it comes from my social security withholding (ie the general fund, which BTW borrows $0.40 for every dollar spent).
and the tax savings is moot
if you can't start here and defund PP and Acorn and others like them, there will never be a balanced budget

[kronus]

^ it could be argued that paying for whore abortions (btw "whore abortions" is a gross misrepresentation of the actual clientele of Planned Parenthood clinics) is as vital to society as maintaining roads, in terms of economic impact. Easier abortions = less low-income children = fewer drug addicts, fewer people on welfare, fewer people "milking the system", fewer criminals, fewer orphans, fewer black people, fewer middle-class liberals.

If I remember correctly, all of those are statistics conservatives tend to favor.

[jrhaile]

So anything vital to society should be (at least partially) paid for with tax dollars?

Anything vital to the growth of society such as safety, infrastructure, streets, bridges, etc, yes I would say so. We live in cities where we pay taxes and we want something in return. Paying for whores who can't keep their legs shut is not vital to society.

[frankenbeemer]

Because roads are a vital part of modern society. It is part of a collective infrastructure that has allowed civilization to progress at leaps and bounds over the last 100 years.

So anything vital to society should be (at least partially) paid for with tax dollars?

[jrhaile]

I'll answer your question first, then respectfully request that you answer mine.

Your question was: o'rly, how so?

My response: You have engaged in the informal logical fallacy called Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.

More to the point, I did not make that argument, because I am not sure it's a valid argument. I asked a question, with hopes of getting an answer. I don't have an agenda, I'm not trying to trap you or anyone else on this thread. I have some opinions about the matter, but I'm not trying to force them on anybody. So, respectfully, why should tax dollars be spent on roads?

Because roads are a vital part of modern society. It is part of a collective infrastructure that has allowed civilization to progress at leaps and bounds over the last 100 years.

[frankenbeemer]

o'rly? How so? Do tell... Because by your argument you're saying that taxes are used to build roads and pay for abortions which are both okay or are you inferring to the topic that our government wastes our money on tons of shit? Or are you saying that people need abortion's like roads so the act of wasting tax dollars on abortions is just? I don't get your argument, at all.

I'll answer your question first, then respectfully request that you answer mine.

Your question was: o'rly, how so?

My response: You have engaged in the informal logical fallacy called Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.

More to the point, I did not make that argument, because I am not sure it's a valid argument. I asked a question, with hopes of getting an answer. I don't have an agenda, I'm not trying to trap you or anyone else on this thread. I have some opinions about the matter, but I'm not trying to force them on anybody. So, respectfully, why should tax dollars be spent on roads?