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.

 

Do women REALLY need Planned Parenthood?

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: kellyjay

What about just charging the people responsible for breaking the law with a crime?


This.

If there was a crime or crimes ...

Since when do we damn 700 people because of the actions of five?

(Note, there will be no direct answer to this, only more prevarication and fear-mongering. "Well we don't know about the other 695." And the answer to that is, yes, we do.)




posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: kellyjay

I didn't ask questions, I made observations.

Thanks for sharing, though.

Your tax dollars do not go to pay for other's abortions.

Next?


yeah you made obvservations that have no bearing in the subject at hand

well done



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Yea, this crap is underhanded and low. Luckily in this day and age, it is easier to dig through to the truth of the matter since all sides of an argument are easily researchable. So maybe this time, social media presence will backfire in their faces.

Though I'm pretty sure this is a different company. Everything I've read about CMP says they are only a 2 year old company.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

you might want to do a little more digging, ya it's a different company, but I believe it has the same founder, and they seem to have the same methods of operation and motive.
the sad thing is that there were quite a few state that HAVE pulled their funding, based on nothing more than the hysteria caused by these videos. Maybe I am wrong but if I am maybe some of those calling for the defunding can do a little searching themselves and show me where I am wrong, but so far although many of the states did investigations, and none found anything done wrong (outside of the one which I would call a setup where they changed the rules recently and neglected to tell them they were changed).



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Yea, I'm a bit disappointed with those states too, but I can't do anything about that. I don't live in those states and asking the federal government to FORCE them to fund PP is unconstitutional. All I can do is just not live in one of those states.

ETA: I found what you were talking about. David Daleiden used to work with Live Action (which was founded in 2004 that made sting videos against PP). Sting Videos Part Of Longtime Campaign Against Planned Parenthood


Daldeiden previously worked at Live Action, whose young founder, Lila Rose, has become a darling among abortion opponents with her own series of sting videos targeting Planned Parenthood. Rose says she came up with the idea while at UCLA, where she got to know James O'Keefe, whose undercover videos have since targeted NPR and the community organizer ACORN. Daleiden told The New York Times he's only met O'Keefe once but considers him a friend.

Starting in 2007, Rose has gone into Planned Parenthood clinics posing as a pregnant teenager, sometimes saying she wanted to abort the baby if it was a girl, other times saying she was underage and her boyfriend was 31. Her highly-edited videos on YouTube have accused Planned Parenthood officials of condoning sex-selective abortion, covering up for sex-traffickers, and turning a blind eye to child sexual abuse, among other things.

The Live Action videos have caused a small flurry of reaction over the years. Some local governments announced investigations or suspended grants to Planned Parenthood, and at least one local Planned Parenthood staffer was fired. But the sensational charges have not stuck. As with Daleiden's videos, closer examinations have found those posted by Live Action use deceptive editing to make false claims.


Daleiden learned from the master. Unfortunately he took Rose's ideas to a very nasty level. I think I'm going to make a thread about this.
edit on 12-8-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Totally agree with you there. Just on the extremely unlikely chance they find that the PP head office knew and encouraged any illegal actions regarding selling tissue for profit, then I would rather the individuals be prosecuted, and possibly no tissue donation allowed, then to have the abortion services taken away.

But, you and I know that PP is very aware they are being watched closely by the pro-life groups, so they are careful to mind their p's and q's when it comes to the laws. I welcome an investigation, because I know they will find nothing.

I also believe this pro-life group knows that nothing will be found on PP. But their agenda is to make headline news and try to change people's opinions on abortions overall. Unfortunately, they are succeeding, at least to some degree.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: kellyjay

A working free HC system for a nation of 70million is not the same as a hypothetical free HC system for a nation of 315million.

Insurance is the only currently viable HC the U.S. can manage.



If you're originally from there, you should be able to understand the major differences that would have to be applied.


That is a good point. We would have to create a different way of doing it to avoid it becoming a giant morass of badly run beuracracy.

Medicaid is run through the States, but that also means States get to manage the budget with Federal contributions of funds. Some states go for austerity measures and under fund while others aren't efficient enough.

Honestly, the Medicaid system is old and a whole new, technologically efficient system would need to be put in place.

It gets weird with abortion, however, because you would have a conflict regarding the law that makes abortion legal and the one that says govt funds cannot be used for abortions. A fully govt healthcare system would have to reevaluate how to handle that.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: kellyjay

I didn't ask questions, I made observations.

Thanks for sharing, though.

Your tax dollars do not go to pay for other's abortions.

Next?


yeah you made obvservations that have no bearing in the subject at hand

well done


And what are you doing then? Is the the same thing you're fallaciously trying to "cite" me for? Yep.

How does your national status not relate to the matter at hand, particularly, your statements? You've complained that you "don't want to pay for anyone's abortions" in regard to the Planned Parenthood deal, and ... you aren't. Whether you're an American or Scottish citizen, you're not paying for anyone's abortions, no matter how you look at it.

If you don't like dealing with the facts, that's not my issue.

But the actuality of "paying taxes to support abortion" relates directly to YOUR COMMENTS in YOUR THREAD about the THREAD topic.

So cite yourself and move on.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Totally agree with you there. Just on the extremely unlikely chance they find that the PP head office knew and encouraged any illegal actions regarding selling tissue for profit, then I would rather the individuals be prosecuted, and possibly no tissue donation allowed, then to have the abortion services taken away.


Exactly.


But, you and I know that PP is very aware they are being watched closely by the pro-life groups, so they are careful to mind their p's and q's when it comes to the laws. I welcome an investigation, because I know they will find nothing.


Yea, me too. I was one of the first people on ATS calling for an investigation. Heck I DEFINITELY beat any pro-lifers to the punch, they totally skipped that pesky "investigation" phase and had already judged them guilty and had moved onto the defunding argument.


I also believe this pro-life group knows that nothing will be found on PP. But their agenda is to make headline news and try to change people's opinions on abortions overall. Unfortunately, they are succeeding, at least to some degree.


I believe this as well. That's why the investigation discussion has taken so long to rear its head. When you know your accusations are unfounded, you are naturally going to obscure this fact, and with the way that the pro-life crowd gets so damn emotional about this issue, it is REALLY easy to deceive them by appealing to their confirmation biases.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

well actually you might be able to do something...
I just visited planned parenthood websites looking for information on their donations hoping to find out just how much donated money would be lost if planned parenthood went out of business on those other services that the op claims there's other providers for. I didn't find that but I did find out that we could make donations and well we could if we had a little money to spare, designate it to our choice of areas and help boost the funding for those states.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: kellyjay

I didn't ask questions, I made observations.

Thanks for sharing, though.

Your tax dollars do not go to pay for other's abortions.

Next?


yeah you made obvservations that have no bearing in the subject at hand

well done


And what are you doing then? Is the the same thing you're fallaciously trying to "cite" me for? Yep.

How does your national status not relate to the matter at hand, particularly, your statements? You've complained that you "don't want to pay for anyone's abortions" in regard to the Planned Parenthood deal, and ... you aren't. Whether you're an American or Scottish citizen, you're not paying for anyone's abortions, no matter how you look at it.

If you don't like dealing with the facts, that's not my issue.

But the actuality of "paying taxes to support abortion" relates directly to YOUR COMMENTS in YOUR THREAD about the THREAD topic.

So cite yourself and move on.


i didn't say i didn't want to pay for peoples abortions regarding PP...here is what i ACTUALLY SAID

"agreed, personally im pro choice, i dont like abortion, but i recognise that a woman has a right to choose....which is why abortion is legal, and that's where the support from me ends.

I dont however think that tax payers should foot the bill, i think if you want an abortion you should pay for it ,wether it be through insurance coverage or cash, i'm not a christian but i can see their point in why they don't want to fund abortion, and i think its up to the government to make it more fair for those who are against it.

fine keep it legal, but don't force those who are against it to pay for it..pay for it yourself.

And as ive stated tax payers here DO pay for abortions....we have a socialised healthcare system here so YES i am paying for peoples abortions.

if you dont like dealing with comprehension thats not my issue...and you didnt state any fact as i just corrected you soo....



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay

Tax payers do not "pay for" abortions for others even in the UK.

That's like saying that I pay for drones, or for waterboarding, or for corporate welfare.

Of course, you have the right to lobby your MP however you choose.

And within limits, say whatever you choose.

Your opinion doesn't make it true, however.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
maybe someone could fill me in, is it private funding or state funding that pays for the abortions at PP?



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Krazysh0t

you might want to do a little more digging


Here you go, I did the digging


Center for Medical Progress



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

That's a good point. Maybe I'll do that when I get paid next time.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: kellyjay

Tax payers do not "pay for" abortions for others even in the UK.

That's like saying that I pay for drones, or for waterboarding, or for corporate welfare.

Of course, you have the right to lobby your MP however you choose.

And within limits, say whatever you choose.

Your opinion doesn't make it true, however.

when your TAXES are what fund a healthcare system that all tax payers pay into, and people are able to get abortions on that healthcare system then YES taxpayers fund those abortions.

derp






posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are right - tax payers don't "pay for abortions".

If you were anti-gun and your friend wanted a gun but couldn't afford one, you wouldn't buy him one. However you could pay his rent and utilities for two months so he could buy his own gun. Your conscience would be clear because you didn't pay for the gun, right?

Semantics.
edit on 12-8-2015 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay
the same could be said of insurance then, which you seem not to have a problem with....
all the policy holders pay their premiums, some of the money is taken out and used to pay the administrative costs, and the rest goes into a pool, and well as the insured people need healthcare the money in that pool it taken out and used to pay for the services.
ain't no different.
except that the administrative costs probably take out a greater portion of the money paid by the policy holders so that the people on the top of the food chain can enjoy their extra hundred dollar pay raise and big ass bonuses!



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: kellyjay
the same could be said of insurance then, which you seem not to have a problem with....
all the policy holders pay their premiums, some of the money is taken out and used to pay the administrative costs, and the rest goes into a pool, and well as the insured people need healthcare the money in that pool it taken out and used to pay for the services.
ain't no different.
except that the administrative costs probably take out a greater portion of the money paid by the policy holders so that the people on the top of the food chain can enjoy their extra hundred dollar pay raise and big ass bonuses!



i dont think there should be a need for insurers, just cut them out of the equation and thats another step towards a socialised healthcare system....i dont need to deal with insurers here, i pay 20% income tax and a portion of it goes towards the publically owned NHS, if i break a leg i go to the hospital and get treatment...no forms need to be filled out, no insurance providers need to be called etc.....get rid of them



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

it's probably one of the sources that caused me to come to the conclusions I did..
thanks for posting it here.
I wonder how the criminal investigations into them are coming along, I know that both the federal and state of california opened them up, but haven't heard much since.
have you heard anything else?
keeping my fingers crossed!!




top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join