This Looks Bad For Planned Parenthood?

[CorvallisBMW]

I don't subscribe to the idea these people don't know that ejaculating inside a girl will produce a baby.

I was taught about the "birds and the bees" and the consequences of sex (pregnancy/STD's) in the 5th grade. Then again in 7th and 9th. From the school.

So who are all these people that are so fucking stupid they don't know having sex can get someone preggers.

Even the first time!?!?!?!??!?!?!

It happens more often than you think.

I had a neighbor growing up who's parents were very, very religious. We're talking about a well-educated, upper-middle class family with 3 cars, a small business and a nice home and plenty of $. They sent all of their kids to a very strict religious school. When they arrived at grade 5 their parents opted them out of health class for the portions that had any dealings with sex or sexual health (keep in mind this was a religious school that only taught abstinence-only education). They did the same thing for all their kids every year, apparently hoping that if they isolated their children from the truth, they would never have sex.

Guess what? First kid ended up pregnant at 15 because she LITERALLY did not know that having sex led to pregnancy. She didn't know what birth control or condoms were. Second and 3rd girls (now both about 20) are also pregnant, though more out of stupidity than ignorance

Does it sound unbelievable? Damn right it does. But it happens.

[tjts1]

Thats so meta.

[ck_taft325is]

Yes, it's a refuge for those with weak arguments.

As are pointless rebuttles to "weak arguments".

Just like this post in response to your post in repsonse to his post.

[BraveUlysses]

Yeah, I got what he was implying. Just thought it was a weak argument as you can "indirectly" fund just about anything.

Yes, it's a refuge for those with weak arguments.

[z31maniac]

Agreed.

But does it make it less important? I don't know.

[KenC]

Yeah, I got what he was implying. Just thought it was a weak argument as you can "indirectly" fund just about anything.

[z31maniac]

I think he's making the point that let's say, yes no Fed money DIRECTLY pays for abortion, but maybe the Fed money pays the staff/electricity/insurance whatever. So without staff, electricity or insurance they couldn't perform the abortions.

So at least indirectly Fed money could support.

Not saying I agree or disagree, just that's how I think he is building his argument.

[KenC]

Hello?
tax dollars go to PP
PP is an abortion mega center business
therefore
tax dollars go to pay for abortions

The tax money is specifically NOT used for abortions.


Oregon Health & Science University in Portland receives tens of millions of dollars from taxes, and they provide abortions. However, as in the case of PP, they cannot use Federal funds to perform them.

Each have accountants and controllers that allocate and account for each dollar spent. If either of them were fully funded by tax revenue, neither would perform abortions.

I can't make it any simpler than that...

[gwb72tii]

Abortions aren't paid for with tax dollars.
They use the tax money to provide birth control, pap smears, and other medical services.

Hello?
tax dollars go to PP
PP is an abortion mega center business
therefore
tax dollars go to pay for abortions

[BraveUlysses]

Sounds the same to me. The idea gives them an out because "they don't know better". I don't subscribe to the idea these people don't know that ejaculating inside a girl will produce a baby.

I think you'd be surprised, unfortunately.

I know what you're saying but when you support the organization like that it becomes a "Six of one ..." situation. It's very easy to still give them money and say it doesn't go toward abortions. It's not direct support to abortions but giving them money keeps them in business so they can give more abortions.

Yes but this is why I asked earlier in the thread, what percentage of all the procedures that PP does annually are actually abortions?

They aren't "in the business of giving abortions" but they are in the business of treating and assisting with a wide variety reproductive health issues.

[z31maniac]

I was taught about the "birds and the bees" and the consequences of sex (pregnancy/STD's) in the 5th grade. Then again in 7th and 9th. From the school.

So who are all these people that are so fucking stupid they don't know having sex can get someone preggers.

Even the first time!?!?!?!??!?!?!

[e30e]

Sounds the same to me. The idea gives them an out because "they don't know better". I don't subscribe to the idea these people don't know that ejaculating inside a girl will produce a baby.

Have you watch these preggo chicks on tv or seen what the education system produces abstinence only education. There are really ignorant people out there that truely don't know what makes a baby until after there pregnant. Do we punish them, no; we do give them the better choice of choosing abortion.

[z31maniac]

I agree with the principle, but I'm worried about implementation of deciding which product brand is OK and which isn't. I think you'd have a ton of Kraft and Yoo-Hoo (does that shit still even exist, by the way?) lobbyists causing a shitstorm.

I'm not sure about other states, but you can't buy prepared foods, tobacco or booze with the cards here.

You can buy just about anything here, and you've been able to for years. It's only become more "open" with what you can purchase stuff with here.


I'd be happy if they would just implement drug testing for ALL WELFARE recepients over the age of 18.

If you've got money to spend on pot/crack/booze, guess what? You've also got money to feed you or your family instead.

[joshh]

Never said mistakes should get a free pass, but if you punish your child for something they had no clue they were doing wrong; who's the asshole the parent or the kid. Society wants to punish people for people's mistakes when they didn't know right from wrong due to there upbringing. That doesn't teach them right from wrong, it teaches them anger and to rebellion even more. This isn't waffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffles liberal speak, this is common sense from dealing with people.

Sounds the same to me. The idea gives them an out because "they don't know better". I don't subscribe to the idea these people don't know that ejaculating inside a girl will produce a baby.

I agree with the principle, but I'm worried about implementation of deciding which product brand is OK and which isn't. I think you'd have a ton of Kraft and Yoo-Hoo (does that shit still even exist, by the way?) lobbyists causing a shitstorm.

I'm not sure about other states, but you can't buy prepared foods, tobacco or booze with the cards here.

I know what you're saying but when you support the organization like that it becomes a "Six of one ..." situation. It's very easy to still give them money and say it doesn't go toward abortions. It's not direct support to abortions but giving them money keeps them in business so they can give more abortions.

[KenC]

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

They don't use tax dollars for abortions.

PP is the only source of "female care" (paps, etc) that many people without health insurance have.