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.

 

Study measures impact of removing Planned Parenthood from Texas women's health program

page: 14
16
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

lol...remove tax money from healthcare and well, you can say goodbye to the healthcare system!

and why do you think that wal mart raised the pay for their workers? think maybe it had to do with that study they did to see how much just reducing food stamps a little bit would affect their business?

hey, but go for it, I am all for it....
but of course, at this point in my life, I am a sadistic bitch who would just enjoy watching the chaos that would result.




posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I love children. If you would rather pay the cost for another baby boomer generation, I'm all for that.


edit on 7-2-2016 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

na, they don't want to pay for that boomer generation!! they'd rather have workhouses and orphanages! cheap, slave labor!! got to be able to keep up with china and india afterall!



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Nor does it change my mind that I, nor society in general, needs to pay for someone's birth control.


The smart ones would say work with what you can afford. My wife and I have not used any form of birth control for 20 years and we have 2 planned kids. I do not like rubbers and the pill doesn't agree with her , but there are many methods out there that work too.

I think though this is a moot topic since we will most likely soon enter a stage in human existence where people will get their reproductive systems turned off and one might need to apply to have a kid to curb population growth.

I'm not against free birth control, but I feel that it should be at the state level to pay for it. Every time the federal government adopts to takeover the funding of a program that should be at the state level I cringe. I'm also not against abortions, or even subsidized abortions since it actually pays off in the end. The reduction in crime every year from 1992 and on is mostly due to legalized abortions in 1972, future criminals were never born, and free birth control plays into this too.




I do feel there is a cost to morality in all this too. When a woman uses abortions as a form of birth control or when a state/government/company heavily pushes abortions as first choice to either reduce future cost or to make money, all this affects our morality, and I think over time it cheapens the value of life, but that is my own personal opinion.

The real problem we face and why I support these things is because people can not be responsible for their own actions, I'm sorry to say. The few posting here (beating me about the head) who do not have a lot, seem very responsible and can use this service greatly, while if they didn't have the services would still find away to be responsible, are really a small percentage of the masses that just do not care. Without these services they would be popping babies out with little or no parental guidance and in full support of the Government for the rest of their lives. I would say this cost out ways free birth control and basically free abortions.






edit on 7-2-2016 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Oh, I know why WalMart did what they did. They are working the system.

I love how there are basically 3-4 different programs that cover the same crap. So, should one not get funded, people just leech off the others.

If anyone wants to see people return to personal responsibility, remove all the social programs, with minor exceptions and watch as the masses suddenly find work.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
So you do not believe in lowering social costs efficiently? You'd rather unwanted children be born, get poorly educated, and then wind up in prison where your tax dollars provide free room and board?


A strawman argument in its best form.

There are plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy without insurance or the government paying for it, even if you don't have a single penny to spend on purchasing it yourself.

But that's already been discussed by more than one person in this thread. If you willfully refuse to ignore that, none of us can fix that.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
This is great news! Less babies murdered and sold to the highest bidder.

Thanks for the post OP...



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I will not pay, my taxes should never ever be used, in something that is against my religion. Period. If it is against everything I hold dear, it is my constitutional right to be protected from participation, and participation includes funding it. I am allowed freedom of religion in this country, and I will not pay anyone to murder a child, unborn or not.

If planned parenthood gets out of the business of abortion, you can put funding back on the table and we can discuss whether government should be in the business of contraceptives. Until then, I should not be forced against my will to pay for any of it.
edit on 8-2-2016 by Kitana because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

From the 1600's when people first began entering this country, to the 1900's when the first socialist style policies began to the put into place, people in largest part, came to this country with no welfare programs and this country and its people thrived in largest part as a result.

300 years of people working and earning their own way. 300 years of the only help given were the help of friends, family, neighbors and church groups. And people in largest part thrived and were successful in this country.

People manage to forget that.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Kitana

The funds are kept separate, so your tax money would not be used to fund abortions.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

How are they kept separate. Seriously. Am I listed as a Christian so none of my tax dollars are funneled into the killing the unborn project adopted in this country?

There are no guarantees that no Christian's taxes go toward this kind of thing. None.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I'm also not against abortions, or even subsidized abortions since it actually pays off in the end. The reduction in crime every year from 1992 and on is mostly due to legalized abortions in 1972, future criminals were never born, and free birth control plays into this too.


What a massive load of guess work and correlation-equals-causation fallacies. Nothing in that video proves anything, as there are myriad amounts of variables and catalysts that come along with the ebbs and flows of crime.

I lived in an area near Los Angeles up through 1998, and I can tell you without a doubt that youth crime was high in the 90s...it may have fallen toward the end of that decade, but in the same breath, crime also rose dramatically in the 1970s at a much steeper rate (actually, it started in the mid-60s). So what was the cause of that--did they outlaw abortions 20 years earlier? No, it was the baby boom that happened.

I would argue with much more certainty that it is an amount of population increase that contributes to crime more than unwanted pregnancies, as when there are population booms, jobs are scarce and those without marketable skills might tend to turn to a life of crime instead. But that's the thing about theories--when the evidence backs up more than one, you must take them with a grain of salt, especially when they are as anti-logic as 'more abortions equals less crime in 20 years,' when the underlying philosophy is the unwanted-baby guess work.

And don't forget about that little thing called HIV and AIDS...when it surfaced in the late-60s/early-70s, it slowly crescendoed until it became big news in about 1981, causing quite the scare and a massive campaign for people to use condoms (or to abstain from unprotected sex with partners whose medical background they didn't know). This is also a big contributor to the lack of the same age of people in the 90s that your video claims is because of legalized abortion.

Point being, your claim--and by extension, the video's claims--are unconvincing to people who have even a generalized understanding about the ebb and flow of population and crime. I'd be willing to be quite a bit that if abortion has a positive effect on lowering crime 20 years later, it would be a statistical anomaly and not even worth mentioning.


I do feel there is a cost to morality in all this too. When a woman uses abortions as a form of birth control or when a state/government/company heavily pushes abortions as first choice to either reduce future cost or to make money, all this affects our morality, and I think over time it cheapens the value of life, but that is my own personal opinion.


We can absolutely agree on that.


The real problem we face and why I support these things is because people can not be responsible for their own actions, I'm sorry to say. The few posting here (beating me about the head) who do not have a lot, seem very responsible and can use this service greatly, while if they didn't have the services would still find away to be responsible, are really a small percentage of the masses that just do not care. Without these services they would be popping babies out with little or no parental guidance and in full support of the Government for the rest of their lives. I would say this cost out ways free birth control and basically free abortions.


I disagree. I mean, children are not responsible for their own actions, either--it's tough love and good parenting that teach children to grow up and be responsible people. While I agree that there are many lost-cause family units out there with terrible parenting and minimal resources to teach the appropriate things like respect for human life and self responsibility, I don't think that it's the onus of government to perpetuate that by being enablers. If the collective we just provide for those who are not taught to provide for themselves, and those people have two kids in the system, then their kids have two kids in the system, and so on, we are building up a future nation filled with a victimhood mentality who disregard the value of life and personal responsibility.

I think that if we're really talking about the cost in the long-term, I think that is something that need be considered as well. When welfare is made more easily accessible, if a higher percentage of the population uses those resources, it's just as expensive, if not more, and then we are living with a society that may be filled with apathy. Hell, I would argue that we're a few rungs up that ladder already.

Our current generation of twenty- and even thirty-somethings never would have made it through the Great Depression nearly as well as our grandparents and great-grandparents did. That's what I'm talking about...the character and resolve of our society is being whittled away not very slowly these days by the policies of the baby-boomer generation and is embraced by the current generation of their grandchildren. I think that both generations, in general, have a character problem, and I think that the entitlement mentality of free healthcare (to include contraception) is just a wee part of it.
edit on 8-2-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Kitana


How are they kept separate. Seriously.


Accounting procedures. Conservative lawmakers are very insistent on checking the books.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

lol. We have people in government adding social security funds to the general fund for goodness sake! There are NO guarantees that no Christian's money in this country never go to planned parenthood. There are no lists of Christians tax money, there are no separate funds for their money verses anyone else, there is no accounting that keeps my money from ever finding its way to planned parenthood.

None.
edit on 8-2-2016 by Kitana because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Yes, how very refreshing.

A company paid millions of tax payer dollars, keeps funds "separate" via creative accounting.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Kitana

know what else is true about those years....

people were more likely to live in rural areas, they could have chickens, cows, had land to farm.... there were little cottage industries all over the country, women, making candles, sewing quilts, weaving fabrics. there was much less employees and many more self employed. it was till the factories and the mass production of everything came along and produced these items much more cheaply and economically than the little cottage industries could that these people became employees.

and.....get this one, and think about it real carefully!!! the average family size was much, much larger. six, seven, eight, heck ten kids wasn't that unusual!! many say that it was because they needed the kids to work the farms, or that it was because there was less chance of the kids making it to adulthood. but well, all you have to do is read about just how many women came to visit that first planned parenthood on it's first day to know that the women really didn't want that many kids! matter or fact, while you are trying to convince yourself of just how grand life was back then, maybe you should go read up on how life was in those workhouses, or just how many infants died of mysterious although suspicious circumstances, both inside and outside of those workhouses. heck, I've read reports where some women were having 3, 4, or more abortions through their lifetime!

and oh ya, the deaths related to maternity and child birth was so much higher!! people claim that that's because we have such better healthcare now, and that certainly does play a part. but another reason is because it's more dangerous to have that 4th, 5th, or 6th baby than it is your first or second!

and ya know what, there's a lot of things that I didn't like my tax money contributing to. some, like bombing the heck out of little children in a "crusade" really rubbed my moral fibers the wrong way. Matter of fact, I hated what the state was doing with it so much, I started just buying whatever things that I needed second hand whenever it was possible and eventually moved out of the state. There is so much that the government does with our money that I believe causes unnecessary harm and pain to people who don't deserve it... gee, what can I say, some of us have to just suck it up accept it!!

very few abortions are funded by federal dollars though, and you can gripe about how they can't prove that they aren't all your want. There's been probably more investigatons of planned parenthood than any other business, group, government agency in this country!! It has never been proven because it isn't happening. but well, if you want to go there, there's alot of groups out there that are tied to religious organizations that also are recipients tax money. Most of us just take their word for it that that money is going for legitimate services and doesn't involve any religious missions. How is that you can believe that these groups can keep that funding separate, but not planned parenthood? I'm a fan of catholic charities, they do great work, I've received their services a couple times in my life. I know how I can be sure that they aren't trying to convert you in their counseling sessions, but well, in reality, there really isn't any way to prove that they aren't, is there? It would be much, much trickier to prove this than it would be to prove that planned parenthood isn't. I mean, most of the federal money that is given to them is through medicaid reimbursements for services rendered. Any claim that was for an abortion be rejected unless there was additional paperwork to prove that there was an acceptable reason for it. And well, I don't believe it is planned parenthood that sets the amount of the reimbursement. I think it's a standard fee, set by the government, which often times is less than it costs for a doctor or hospital to provide that service. which is why so many just don't want to take medicaid patients.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

What a massive load of guess work and correlation-equals-causation fallacies. Nothing in that video proves anything, as there are myriad amounts of variables and catalysts that come along with the ebbs and flows of crime.


The book is much better, but it is easier to post a video about it.




I lived in an area near Los Angeles up through 1998, and I can tell you without a doubt that youth crime was high in the 90s...it may have fallen toward the end of that decade, but in the same breath, crime also rose dramatically in the 1970s at a much steeper rate (actually, it started in the mid-60s). So what was the cause of that--did they outlaw abortions 20 years earlier? No, it was the baby boom that happened.


One one hand you suggest a method that reduces births, unwanted births, to have little or no effect. Then you say that increase in births had a huge effect. Actually I agree with you and them since they are both related to population. Talking about California, in the 80s I do know the state paid $800 for poor women to have abortions. They saw the $800 was much cheaper than 18 years or even a life time of subsistence, so even the state saw correlation in reduced cost.



I would argue with much more certainty that it is an amount of population increase that contributes to crime more than unwanted pregnancies, as when there are population booms, jobs are scarce and those without marketable skills might tend to turn to a life of crime instead.


This doesn't make a lot of sense since population continued to grow every year but crime decreased every year starting in 1992. Even during the recent recession with so many fitting your "no job" scenario crime still went down. The one difference is in 1992 we started to see the effects of abortions and have continued to see it year after year. Believe it or not...

Year Population Total Crime
1986 240,132,887 13,211,869
1987 242,282,918 13,508,700
1988 245,807,000 13,923,100
1989 248,239,000 14,251,400
1990 248,709,873 14,475,600
1991 252,177,000 14,872,900
1992 255,082,000 14,438,200
1993 257,908,000 14,144,800
1994 260,341,000 13,989,500
1995 262,755,000 13,862,700
1996 265,228,572 13,493,863
1997 267,637,000 13,194,571
1998 270,296,000 12,475,634
1999 272,690,813 11,634,378
2000 281,421,906 11,608,072
2001 285,317,559 11,876,669
2002 287,973,924 11,878,954
2003 290,690,788 11,826,538
2004 293,656,842 11,679,474
2005 296,507,061 11,565,499
2006 299,398,484 11,401,511
2007 301,621,157 11,251,828
2008 304,374,846 11,160,543
2009 307,006,550 10,762,956
2010 309,330,219 10,363,873
2011 311,587,816 10,258,774
2012 313,873,685 10,219,059
2013 316,497,531 9,850,445
2014 318,857,056 9,475,816



And don't forget about that little thing called HIV and AIDS...when it surfaced in the late-60s/early-70s, it slowly crescendoed until it became big news in about 1981, causing quite the scare and a massive campaign for people to use condoms (or to abstain from unprotected sex with partners whose medical background they didn't know). This is also a big contributor to the lack of the same age of people in the 90s that your video claims is because of legalized abortion.


That is kind of bull...

Even in 1987 HIV was just getting to the point that people started to understand it. I flew air evacs in the Air Force back then and HIV patients were labeled Hep C. To be honest I do not think HIV has ever changed any behaviors, even with the gays as they are still the highest risk group out there for STDs of all kinds and so it has done little even in the most affected group.



I disagree. I mean, children are not responsible for their own actions, either--it's tough love and good parenting that teach children to grow up and be responsible people. While I agree that there are many lost-cause family units out there with terrible parenting and minimal resources to teach the appropriate things like respect for human life and self responsibility, I don't think that it's the onus of government to perpetuate that by being enablers. If the collective we just provide for those who are not taught to provide for themselves, and those people have two kids in the system, then their kids have two kids in the system, and so on, we are building up a future nation filled with a victimhood mentality who disregard the value of life and personal responsibility.


It is not that easy just to teach people to be better, and in many cases impossible. There are uncounted numbers that should never have kids in the first place and if an abortion stops one of those train wrecks from happening then we stopped the 2 having 2 having 2 scenarios. Now if you say 1 million abortions that adds up to a lot of twos never happening.



I think that if we're really talking about the cost in the long-term, I think that is something that need be considered as well. When welfare is made more easily accessible, if a higher percentage of the population uses those resources, it's just as expensive, if not more, and then we are living with a society that may be filled with apathy. Hell, I would argue that we're a few rungs up that ladder already.


At some point science will solve this with 100% inability to have children until the reproductive system is turned back on, maybe though obtaining a licence to have children. We are a long way from that and a long way from abortions outweighing the cost of an unwanted child born in a horrendous environment, so right now that is all we have to work with.



Our current generation of twenty- and even thirty-somethings never would have made it through the Great Depression nearly as well as our grandparents and great-grandparents did. That's what I'm talking about...the character and resolve of our society is being whittled away not very slowly these days by the policies of the baby-boomer generation and is embraced by the current generation of their grandchildren. I think that both generations, in general, have a character problem, and I think that the entitlement mentality of free healthcare (to include contraception) is just a wee part of it.


This isn't going to change anytime soon, sorry to say.



edit on 9-2-2016 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kitana

lol. We have people in government adding social security funds to the general fund for goodness sake! There are NO guarantees that no Christian's money in this country never go to planned parenthood. There are no lists of Christians tax money, there are no separate funds for their money verses anyone else, there is no accounting that keeps my money from ever finding its way to planned parenthood.

None.


Abortion were made legal in 1972 so how can you mix church and state on this issue to suggest your taxes can not go towards this? I know this is a very emotional issue, but religion and government are not to mix. You must also remember there are many other religions out there too that also would like their doctrine to be included.

I'm not arguing the morality side of this I just do not see how the religious side can dictate what is legal.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The book is much better, but it is easier to post a video about it.



Video or book--malarkey is malarkey.

Please note that 1973 and the years following were nothing special in the way of massively declined birth rates (especially including other factors, like prime baby-making aged men being sent off to war in massive numbers).



This doesn't make a lot of sense since population continued to grow every year but crime decreased every year starting in 1992. Even during the recent recession with so many fitting your "no job" scenario crime still went down. The one difference is in 1992 we started to see the effects of abortions and have continued to see it year after year. Believe it or not...


Yes, I looked at the population increases over the decades from the '60s through 2014, too. What I said actually makes sense, but like I also said, it may not be the reason, or even an accurate correlation. But we need to understand that population increase is not the same as the birth rate--population increases because of factors other than birth, like immigration.

Speaking of possible reasons, though, for a population decrease in the early '70s, let's look at a study that considers something much more intellectually honest than trying to say that Roe v. Wade caused a population decline:


In this paper, we exploit variation across states and over time on Vietnam-era inductions to analyze the effects of the wartime mobilization on these family formation patterns. Our results suggest that having a larger share of men aged 19-25 drafted led to a decrease in birth rates for women aged 15-30. These results are statistically significant, robust to a number of different specifications, and demographically meaningful in magnitude.


III. Discussion and Conclusion


In this paper, we present a preliminary look at the effects of Vietnam-era inductions of men into the armed forces on family formation. We find robust evidence that higher rates of inducted men led to significantly lower birth rates. Our results are consistent with theoretical models of sex ratio effects, as well as with the related empirical literature...


Birth Rates And The Vietnam Draft

The takeaway from this study is that the relatively massive decline in births in our country in the early 70s was due to the Vietnam draft, and as each year passed, the ability to avoid the draft for things like going to college was chipped away (college students could be drafted starting in Sept. of 1971). And let's not forget the number of people who died because of Vietnam...that affects total population as well, probably way more than abortions.


That is kind of bull...

Even in 1987 HIV was just getting to the point that people started to understand it. I flew air evacs in the Air Force back then and HIV patients were labeled Hep C. To be honest I do not think HIV has ever changed any behaviors, even with the gays as they are still the highest risk group out there for STDs of all kinds and so it has done little even in the most affected group.


Maybe it is bull..., maybe it's not. The point is that you don't really know, and it's just one of the many, many variable out there that could cause an effect on people's willingness to have unprotected sex. Just because you "do not think HIV has ever changed any behaviors" doesn't make it so. I remember being a kid in the '80s and knowing what HIV/AIDS was and there was a pretty big issue about it on the news and that is was scaring a lot of people. Maybe that was just hype by the MSM news outlets, much like they treat Ebola and SARS and Zika and everything else, but if I remember it from a time when I was under 10, it was a big enough issue that I'm sure people took notice. Maybe not on a massive scale, but I do think that it's absolutely nonsense to say that HIV hasn't EVER changed any behaviors, sexual or otherwise. Hell, there are even laws against knowingly having unprotected sex with people if you're HIV positive--you even have to notify them before hand, as far as I know.

Sounds like some changed behavior, because I'm willing to bet that there are many people who would forego sex with someone just because they have HIV. I would...that's a changed behavior.



It is not that easy just to teach people to be better, and in many cases impossible. There are uncounted numbers that should never have kids in the first place and if an abortion stops one of those train wrecks from happening then we stopped the 2 having 2 having 2 scenarios. Now if you say 1 million abortions that adds up to a lot of twos never happening.


Well, I never said that teaching people culminates in a 100% success rate--of course there are always going to be people who can't be taught how to be decent human beings and think beyond the bedroom as to how their actions will affect more than just them. That is not what I was arguing--I was arguing that just enabling these people when even some of them can be reached over time...maybe even over generations...has a worse effect on society as a whole. Sometimes learned behavior takes generations to overcome.

Look at racism; we are leaps and bounds better as a society concerning racism than we were even 100 years ago. Sure, we have a long way to go, but if we had never bettered as a society through things like the civil rights movement, and instead just enabled racists, I'm guessing that racism would be more prevalent today than it was 100 years ago, or at least as bad.

That's my point--the problem is that we live in a world that expects immediate fixes and outcomes. Often times, meaningful changes takes decades, not days.



At some point science will solve this with 100% inability to have children until the reproductive system is turned back on, maybe though obtaining a licence to have children. We are a long way from that and a long way from abortions outweighing the cost of an unwanted child born in a horrendous environment, so right now that is all we have to work with.


That's not how a free society works, where someone has an on/off switch for our reproductive systems. If that's what you're looking forward to, I don't think this conversation has any basis in reality--at least not this portion of it, anyhow. Plus, what makes you assume that all unplanned/unwanted births are in horrendous environments and are an absolute drain on the system? That's not the case at all.



This isn't going to change anytime soon, sorry to say.


And it never will if society is an enabler.
edit on 9-2-2016 by SlapMonkey because: changed up a few things (third edit)

edit on 9-2-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




You must also remember there are many other religions out there too that also would like their doctrine to be included.


the birth control mandate is being challenged in the supreme court again as many know. On of the briefs or whatever that was filed on the behalf of the little sisters, used the argument that neither the courts, or the gov't can determine just what is a sin, or to decide that any particular sin would be more sinful for one group than another...
they are trying to get the same exemption as the churches do in other words.

so, well, if the court actually buys this arguments, then it seems that we could just decide for ourselves what is a sin and what isn't and well....they will have to just go along with it...
and I will never have to mow my lawn again and hear all those poor blades of grass cry out in pain.. or do whatever else I don't want to and can think of some crazy belief that makes doing it as a sin...

I know this isn't what they want, after all, there are other religions out there and even within the christian religion individual morality standards differ. and a whole slew of athiest, who although they don't practice any religion still function with a moral base... everyone just a tad bit different and many times conflicting with another's.

www.rightsidenews.com...




edit on 9-2-2016 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join