It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate GOP Fast-Tracks Bill To Defund Planned Parenthood

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: OptimisticCynic

Only when you distill the two arguments down to such a silly extent does it look so hypocritical, but any honest person would know that BOTH of those issues each have their own nuances that make them totally unrelatable. I'd congratulate you for your argument, but then again you are only the 5000th person to attempt to make this invalid comparison.




posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

It appears that federal funds are not used to fund abortions. It's against the law. State tax money can be used, but each state has it's own laws.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Isurrender73

It appears that federal funds are not used to fund abortions. It's against the law. State tax money can be used, but each state has it's own laws.


Then I don't see what the problem is. As long as abortions are legal, as I am pro democracy, they should be able to employ a Capitalist Model when dealing with the fetal tissue.

Once the abortion is completed I have no concern over what happens to the tissue. If the mother was concerned I imagine she would not have an abortion in the first place.
edit on 29-7-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73



they should be able to employ a Capitalist Model when dealing with the fetal tissue.


That's against the law.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you read the actual bill, here, I believe the language leaves open the possibility that federal funds can go to entities other than PP that do offer abortions as well.

This does nothing to stop abortions in any way, it's just shifting money around because PP is now viewed as "evil". That's pretty disingenuous if you ask me.


Or it could be not because they are religious psychopaths that just want to stop abortion

It could be common sense that they just want to stop an organizTion from doing monstrous things like selling baby parts!

Duh! Simple answer there, that's why the funds can be moved to other organizations

Talk about knee jerk political reactions



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am pro life with the exception of rape and medically determined high risk pregnancy.

I personally don't think abortion should be seen as birth control. I think today's young women are making a serious mistake substituting safe sexual practices, with abortion.


Well you don't get to determine how abortion is used. The women getting them do. They will get them regardless of legality.


It seems to me that PP fetal tissue program is for profit, or at least can be. Therefore, I see no reason why the abortion part of PP even needs to be funded by taxpayers.


It isn't. It's already illegal for tax money to go to funding abortion (thanks to the pro-life crowd).


If they are running a Capitalist Model, let supply and demand dictate the cost of fetal tissue and there wil be no reason for the public to fund abortions.


This is already the case.


There is no reason to stop funding the rest of the highly needed services that PP provides.


Well that is all that will happen if this bill goes through.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: IanFleming

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IanFleming

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IanFleming

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IanFleming

Ah. So, actual facts mean nothing to you, you merely want to state your beliefs.

Got it! Carry on.


Negative. That is the fact.

What you are saying is the same as saying that the Lockheed Martin's lobbyist really isn't part of Lockheed Martin because they call themselves a PAC and have a slightly different funding tree. That's disingenuous.


Wait ... didn't you just say that discussing Lockeed-Martin in this context was off-topic?

Physician, heal thyself.

BTW, are you saying that you're against corporations being able to organize as they choose in this country?

So ... you want more government control of business???

*confused*


Not at all. What I stated was the simple and salient fact that PP is a taxpayer funded organization that lobbies for more taxpayer funding. That, sir, is a fact.

If they object to governmental control and the whims of congress, they could simply take ZERO public funds. However, when you take the public's coin, the public through their elected representatives have every right to say how it is used.


Right, and your statement is in error as I pointed out.

The "Planned Parenthoods" that receive taxpayer funds, quote/unquote are NOT the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

That's a simple fact. You can, of course interpret it as you choose and believe what you will.

Facts, however, are facts.


But that is disingenuous. No, Phillip Morris doesn't lobby, they have the Phillip Morris Tobacco Growers lobby PAC. Certainly they have created a separate legal entity to stay in the legal guidelines just like every other special interest group with their hand held out for public funds or political influence, but to say they are not the same or connected is dishonest.


So, it's only others that you want to be restricted from bringing in the realities of companies other than Planned Parenthood?

That, sir or madam, is the essence of being disingenuous.

The fact that corporations are allowed to structure their businesses how they wish including setting up affliated corporations directed at certain tasks ... is actually intended to PREVENT your accusation of "tax payer dollars being used to lobby" from happening.

You see it differently, obviously. But your perception is not fact. Period.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Isurrender73



they should be able to employ a Capitalist Model when dealing with the fetal tissue.


That's against the law.


I realize that. We should change the law and keep funding the other highly needed programs, in my opinion.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not invalid it's true

Progressives ban something as stupid as a flag because it "invites hate and racism and has a racist past, that's the big one RACIST PAST"

Yet keep open a place that's soul foundation was to eradicate black people and stop the breeding population - the ultimate act of racism

I find that extremely hypocritical.


edit on 29-7-2015 by OptimisticCynic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: OptimisticCynic

I can't tell if your post is serious or sarcasm.



It could be common sense that they just want to stop an organizTion from doing monstrous things like selling baby parts!


But this bill does not stop that. I leaves the door open for others to pick up where PP left off.



Talk about knee jerk political reactions


Could you expand on that? Whom are you referring to? Your post is a bit "ranty" and doesn't make much sense.
edit on 29-7-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: OptimisticCynic

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you read the actual bill, here, I believe the language leaves open the possibility that federal funds can go to entities other than PP that do offer abortions as well.

This does nothing to stop abortions in any way, it's just shifting money around because PP is now viewed as "evil". That's pretty disingenuous if you ask me.


Or it could be not because they are religious psychopaths that just want to stop abortion

It could be common sense that they just want to stop an organizTion from doing monstrous things like selling baby parts!

Duh! Simple answer there, that's why the funds can be moved to other organizations

Talk about knee jerk political reactions


And how do you know this is even true? A handful of youtube videos? Where is the official investigation that actually PROVES they are breaking the law?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: OptimisticCynic



Progressives ban something as stupid as a flag because it "invites hate and racism"


The flag was not banned. It was removed from a public place by a Republican governor.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: OptimisticCynic
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not invalid it's true

Progressives ban something as stupid as a flag because it "invites hate and racism"


That flag hasn't been banned.


Yet keep open a place that's soul foundation was to eradicate black people and stop the breeding population - the ultimate act of racism

I find that extremely hypocritical.


That wasn't its sole foundation either.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IanFleming

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IanFleming

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IanFleming

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IanFleming

Ah. So, actual facts mean nothing to you, you merely want to state your beliefs.

Got it! Carry on.


Negative. That is the fact.

What you are saying is the same as saying that the Lockheed Martin's lobbyist really isn't part of Lockheed Martin because they call themselves a PAC and have a slightly different funding tree. That's disingenuous.


Wait ... didn't you just say that discussing Lockeed-Martin in this context was off-topic?

Physician, heal thyself.

BTW, are you saying that you're against corporations being able to organize as they choose in this country?

So ... you want more government control of business???

*confused*


Not at all. What I stated was the simple and salient fact that PP is a taxpayer funded organization that lobbies for more taxpayer funding. That, sir, is a fact.

If they object to governmental control and the whims of congress, they could simply take ZERO public funds. However, when you take the public's coin, the public through their elected representatives have every right to say how it is used.


Right, and your statement is in error as I pointed out.

The "Planned Parenthoods" that receive taxpayer funds, quote/unquote are NOT the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

That's a simple fact. You can, of course interpret it as you choose and believe what you will.

Facts, however, are facts.


But that is disingenuous. No, Phillip Morris doesn't lobby, they have the Phillip Morris Tobacco Growers lobby PAC. Certainly they have created a separate legal entity to stay in the legal guidelines just like every other special interest group with their hand held out for public funds or political influence, but to say they are not the same or connected is dishonest.


So, it's only others that you want to be restricted from bringing in the realities of companies other than Planned Parenthood?

That, sir or madam, is the essence of being disingenuous.

The fact that corporations are allowed to structure their businesses how they wish including setting up affliated corporations directed at certain tasks ... is actually intended to PREVENT your accusation of "tax payer dollars being used to lobby" from happening.

You see it differently, obviously. But your perception is not fact. Period.


I disagree. My perception is indeed fact. This is how the lobbying shell game is played in DC. It has been this way for quite a long time.

And my point was in response to the philosophy of "STFU as long as other people do it too." It is quite valid to point out that this is a common practice amongst those who would lobby for money and/or influence.


edit on 29-7-2015 by IanFleming because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Other organizations haven't been caught doing it yet. I suppose if they are they will get the same treatment. Simple really



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

If you change the law you open a huge can of worms for trafficking of human parts on a much larger scale.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
what other organizations? find me a few that does what planned parenthood does....



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your right it was to cut down the population and stop the breeding of anyone UNSAVORY , she just spoke mostly about how to erdadicate the Blackman

Funny the hoops people will jump through to defend an organization whose founder has stated under no uncertain terms what she thought

So mental Gymnastics and excuses will have to do

Because it's ok to be a business founded by racists as long as you serve the progressive agenda

Black lives matter right


edit on 29-7-2015 by OptimisticCynic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: OptimisticCynic
a reply to: introvert

Other organizations haven't been caught doing it yet. I suppose if they are they will get the same treatment. Simple really


Other organisations already do it. Why aren't we going after them as well as PP?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OptimisticCynic
a reply to: introvert

Other organizations haven't been caught doing it yet. I suppose if they are they will get the same treatment. Simple really


Other organisations already do it. Why aren't we going after them as well as PP?


Proof other organizations are illegal selling baby parts for profit please



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join