Cecile Richards admits that 86% of Planned Parenthood’s (non-government revenue) is from abortions

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
You know .. it would be much easier if the ladies just kept their legs closed than it is to actually chuck a baby into a meat grinder.

Why just the ladies? The man involved is JUST as responsible for the bun in the oven. But who EVER blames men for abortion? NO ONE! It would be easier if he just kept it in his pants...

How the hell is that ?

Remember ?

It's a woman's body she can do what she wants.

NOW a man is just 'responsible'.

Can't have it both ways.

Not to engage in an explanation of the birds and the bees...but..

Impregnation...requires both a man and a woman...both are responsible for making the woman pregnant.

The woman is the one who actually becomes pregnant...thus it is her body and her choice once arriving in that state.

Men can not get pregnant, but they can be responsible for making someone pregnant.

I hope that clears it up.

Please take it up with nature or God if you have issue with that arrangement.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

For me personally I don't think so.

I am sure we are going to see that talk track, but would not offering one service out weigh what they do offer?

NOW who's picking and choosing the issues? Bit of a double standard there, IMO.

If PP really IS all about women's health, and NOT the bottom $, then don't you think that mammograms are ....well, gee, I don't know...important? I do believe that cancer is the #2 cause of death in women (breast cancer being the most aggressive), not being pregnant. Yet, they just happen not to offer one of the most important preventative, diagnostic tools available to women? One that is quite expensive for those without insurance, btw.

So do tell me: why is this? Are we really talking about women's health, or what is misrepresented as women's rights? (because I don't see the most invasive procedure possible, to mutilate and kill a baby, as being a GOOD thing for a woman. Taking away the ONE thing that makes her unique as a woman....the ability to conceive.)

You like to talk about propaganda, but I see the PP and the whole 'choice' supporters, as the biggest propaganda pushers in history.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

I don't tolerate lies .. so a book of lies isn't something I would read.

You know .. it would be much easier if the ladies just kept their legs closed than it is to actually chuck a baby into a meat grinder.

or maybe it isn't?

Ahh yes. It's all the fault of them Damn whores who can't close their legs. Because men take no part in the creation of babies huh. Nope, just women who open their legs and the babies start flying out.

It's ironic, because that book of lies you don't read seemed to portray women in a similar way as well.

originally posted by: neo96
How the hell is that ?

Remember ?

It's a woman's body she can do what she wants.

NOW a man is just 'responsible'.

Can't have it both ways.

They are both equally responsible for starting the process. However, after that the man get's to choose his involvement while the woman is responsible for it whether or not she wants to be.

Notice how the Man get's to "choose" his degree of participation. Now they want to take the ability away from women to "choose" their degree of participation. If you can't see the obvious double standard there you do so knowingly.

originally posted by: xuenchen

And, according to reports on TWITCHY, 86% of PP's revenues are from abortions.

The question and answer specified "Non-Governmental Revenues"...seeing as legislatively Abortion procedures have been specifically denied government funds, this would make sense? at least to anyone with cursory understanding of Mathematics?

If a company earns 2 Billion dollars selling crackers...and 1 Million selling candy..

You can state that 100% of their non-cracker revenues come from selling candy! And that candy only accounts for .0005 of their revenue.

Geez...has the GOP banned thinking? Math? Logic?

If federal tax dollars are specifically forbidden from being spent on Abortion services, then the 86% of NON-GOVERNMETAL revenues makes sense and does not contradict abortion being only 3% of services

Also while revenues are discussed, profit is the relevant figure...which is ZERO.

"It is 3% of all the procedures we provide," Richards responded. "All the services we provide."

"Let's talk about Planned Parenthood revenue from abortions. If you look at the 2013 statistics that you report, abortions revenue would have been over 86% of your non-government revenue. How do you explain this massive disparity between the amount of revenue you collect from abortion and the fact that you only report 3% of your services being abortion?" Lummis asked

"Well, I think there's two questions you sort of mixed in there so let me try to address both," Richards answered. "One is, as we've already stated, federal money does not go for abortions. So the federal portion that we were discussing is reimbursement for preventive care services."

www.realclearpolitics.com... m_abortions.html

Now..gotta be honest..this is me pretending that the OP and associates actually care about facts or math..

originally posted by: westcoast
If PP really IS all about women's health, and NOT the bottom $, then don't you think that mammograms are ....well, gee, I don't know...important? I do believe that cancer is the #2 cause of death in women (breast cancer being the most aggressive), not being pregnant. Yet, they just happen not to offer one of the most important preventative, diagnostic tools available to women? One that is quite expensive for those without insurance, btw.

So do tell me: why is this?

If you researched it a little more you'd find out that they do a lot of breast exams for cancer there. If other tests are needed they will also refer you to another facility with the right equipment that will do the exam for free.

Sometimes you have to middle man those kinds of things. You might get your blood taken at the doctors office but that doesn't mean the test it there. Not every facility can have all the equipment and everything right there. That stuff isn't cheap ya know and requires people to run it all.

So now you're blaming PP because they are being financially responsible by outsourcing some procedures. Seems they just can't win in the eyes of some people no matter what they do.

a reply to: westcoast

I wonder how many other clinics out there that are able to be reimbursed by medicaid are equipped to do mammograms?
Even the family practitioner that I went to wasn't equipped to do xrays and sent me somewhere else. and gee, they never referred me to a charitable organization that was willing to offer me some financial help if I needed it.

a reply to: dawnstar

All these conservatives questioning PP on mammograms better be careful. At some point someone's going to agree with them and decide that PP should be giving them and they'll have talked themselves into giving PP more funding to buy all that equipment.

How classic would that be. They try and use a false argument to attack and defund PP only to argue their way into funding them more.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

I don't tolerate lies .. so a book of lies isn't something I would read.

You know .. it would be much easier if the ladies just kept their legs closed than it is to actually chuck a baby into a meat grinder.

or maybe it isn't?

Ahh yes. It's all the fault of them Damn whores who can't close their legs. Because men take no part in the creation of babies huh. Nope, just women who open their legs and the babies start flying out.

It's ironic, because that book of lies you don't read seemed to portray women in a similar way as well.

I think the fairy tales you read claim babies get there all by themselves. All yu have to do is pick up the baby from the cabbage patch and chuck it in a meat grinder.

You can even make money off of parting the baby out - just like an old dodge pick up ... yee haw!

Planned Parenthood is a redundance.

It is a political fund machine for the Democratic Party like many so-called non-profits that get government grant money then turn around and give it back to politicians, after their own pockets have been greased.

It gets YOUR tax dollars, does an accounting modification to "show" your money isn't used for abortions (on paper), then rewards Democrat politicians by giving that money back to them in donations.

They call themselves a non-profit, yet they are sitting on a profit of $127,000,000 while paying Richards over half a million dollars a year, and logging travel expenses of $14,000 per DAY!!

Republican, Democrat, or Independent ---- open your eyes to these non-profit scams!

a reply to: queenofswords

You clearly don't know what the stipulations are to be able to classify an organization as non-profit. Plus, I'm pretty sure you aren't an accountant, so your views on PP's accounting practices are likely ignorantly founded (and even if you ARE an accountant, you aren't one of PP's accountants so you don't have access to their financial books in any case).

I have zero problem with the government funding Planned Parenthood. Hell I wouldn't care if tax money actually DID pay for abortions. I'd rather the government fund Planned Parenthood then some other war fought halfway around the world under the guise of "protecting freedoms".

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

I think the fairy tales you read claim babies get there all by themselves. All yu have to do is pick up the baby from the cabbage patch and chuck it in a meat grinder.

You can even make money off of parting the baby out - just like an old dodge pick up ... yee haw!

I'm not sure what gives you that idea. I know where babies come from, believe me. You're the one who seems confused about procreation as you think all it takes is a woman to make one. As if immaculate conception has produced all 7 billion of us somehow.

I suppose you could make some money off of parting out those baby bodies but of course that is illegal and something you'd have to do on the black market, but I wouldn't recommend it. Or they could be used in research to actually save lives which is typically what happens.

Reality, while being a little less dramatic, is much more reasonable than your paranoid fantasy version. But I'm sure your version would make a great sci-fi show.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: queenofswords

You clearly don't know what the stipulations are to be able to classify an organization as non-profit.

LOL! Au contraire mon frère.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: queenofswords

You clearly don't know what the stipulations are to be able to classify an organization as non-profit.

LOL! Au contraire mon frère.

Great comeback. Disagree with me without actually proving your disagreement correct. Though I didn't expect you to; you didn't source your first outlandish claims that I responded to. Why source your disagreement claims with me?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
No. While the process of creating the baby is half of the responsibility of the man, he has no responsibility in carrying and bearing the child. Only the woman can bring the child to full term.

I do support a male abortion, in which the man is absolved of all financial responsibility and rights, however. As long as the decision is made early in the pregnancy, with enough time for the woman to decide if she wants to do it on her own, or have an abortion.

So, reading between the lines and getting right to the point, you basically advocate the mother's right to kill the father's baby without his consent, and you support the idea of deadbeat dads who want nothing to do with the child that they are "JUST as responsible for" creating in the first place?

Please don't tell me that you also have a hard time figuring out why there's such a lack of respect for human life in our society these days--the irony would be too much for me to handle.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I like the idea of each male baby being temporarily sterilized, with it only being reversed when both the man and the woman who want to have a baby together sign off on paperwork agreeing to take responsibility for the child that gets filed with the government.

But, wait...isn't the male baby's body his own, and you shouldn't force your opinion on the individual?

Maybe in the same breath, then, you'd support the temporary sterilization of all women willing to have an elective abortion (for convenience's sake, not rape/incest), and only have that reversed when the woman and man sign a contract that the baby will not be aborted?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

the fact is you can't drag a women into an abortion clinic kicking and screaming and force an abortion on her...this isn't china.
and you really can't force her to carry the baby to full term if she doesn't want to....women have been finding ways to abort throughout history, they don't really need a nice safe comfy clinic to get the job done in! so, I think what you want if rather infeasible.
ya know I've known women who've gotten abortions because it was what their partner, husband wanted even though they weren't that overjoyed with the idea themselves. and I've know them to decide not to abort, for their partner's sake also.
it's nobody's fault but the man if he finds himself in a spot where the mother of their child and himself can't discuss the problem rationally and come to an agreement, cede their wishes to the other if need be. if that is the case then they really should have kept their zipper zipped!!!

a reply to: SlapMonkey

heck I wanted to have my tubes tied after my third child....we couldn't afford to have the danged baby let alone the tubal. so, my question to who is.....who's gonna be willing to pay for it?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: SlapMonkey

the fact is you can't drag a women into an abortion clinic kicking and screaming and force an abortion on her...this isn't china.
and you really can't force her to carry the baby to full term if she doesn't want to....women have been finding ways to abort throughout history, they don't really need a nice safe comfy clinic to get the job done in! so, I think what you want if rather infeasible.
ya know I've known women who've gotten abortions because it was what their partner, husband wanted even though they weren't that overjoyed with the idea themselves. and I've know them to decide not to abort, for their partner's sake also.
it's nobody's fault but the man if he finds himself in a spot where the mother of their child and himself can't discuss the problem rationally and come to an agreement, cede their wishes to the other if need be. if that is the case then they really should have kept their zipper zipped!!!

Well, it cold be the fault of the woman if she refuses to discuss the problem rationally as well--both can be at fault. But I get your point and I'm not disagreeing with this reply to me.

Like I've said in other threads on abortion, I have a sister who lives with regret on a daily basis because she had an abortion at age 16...she's now 38. Half of her life has been lived with regret over that decision, so I fully get that women have abortions even if they don't truly want to.

a reply to: westcoast

Planned Parenthood has never claimed to do mammograms themselves, although they assist in getting them for women. Why do people think PP has claimed to do mammograms ?

Planned Parenthood offers comprehensive breast health care management, which includes manual breast exams as well as patient education on breast health. That care management program includes providing women with information about mammograms, referring them to health centers where they can obtain mammograms, and assisting them in covering the costs of the procedure by referring them to government programs that provide free mammograms or by using grant funds to reimburse the medical providers who perform the mammograms.

Read more at Source