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: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




Healthcare isn't a right.

It is a commodity that should be purchased.


first let me reword this for you:

Healthcare isn't a right. It should have always been seen as a commodity to be purchased in a transaction solely between doctor and patient! no insurance, no gov't benefits...
I'd agree with that, but that is not what happened! There was advantages to this, our healthcare wouldn't never have become as advances as they are without that interventions. but there was also some disadvantages, since employers were the ones most people depended on to provide insurance, coverage became less and less reliable as employers switched from seeing their employees as lifelong investments to easily replaceable commodities. and well, the power of the insurance and gov't influence, along with the employee paying a share of that insurance served as an inflating factor driving up the cost well beyond what the patients could be reasonably be expected to pay...

no, in some parts of this country, my area included, over 50% of the revenues being brought into the providers are through gov't programs.

so, are you saying that we should just stop gov't involvement in healthcare entirely? hey, great, let's do that...but well, I don't expect the healthcare system to hold together that long if you do!!

or, more than likely you are saying that you don't want the gov't to be involved with the family planning. you are more than happy to pay for the delivery, and future medical care of all those babies who the various forms of contraception has prevented being created, but you don't want to pay for the contraception...which is much cheaper. This position makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, unless of course you view babies as a punishment for women who have sex and you are ticked off that they are managing to avoid the punishment!
It has been proven over and over again by countless investigations that no federal money goes to abortions, except in a extreme cases where there is rape or incest or the health of the mother is at risk!




posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: windword

They should get funding for contraceptives, I don't see your point


Read the OP! Texas has cut funding for Planned Parenthood's CONTRACEPTION services!



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Bennyzilla

This thread is more about removing contraception options from poor people, but if you want to get into abortions, I feel that it is better to end the potential life before it is born than to make a child suffer who is already here.

You don't seem to understand my point that there are children born whose parents can't or won't take care of them. Yes, you can charge the parents with neglect or abuse, but then what happens to the children? They usually get taken away and put in the foster care system. Who pays for that? You and I. Who suffers? The children.

Many women do better with contraception that is implanted or injected, because it removes the risk of forgetting to take a pill or insert a diaphragm or being with a man who refuses to use a condom. These implanted/injected forms of contraception are not usually offered for free/very low cost at just any old place. Planned Parenthood, being one of the largest family planning organizations is one such place. Removing their ability to offer these types of contraception has had the expected result of more unwanted pregnancies, which means more money out of your and my pocket. You can complain about the stupid irresponsible poor people all you want, but facts are facts. It is cheaper to help pay for a better type of contraception than it is to pay for the unwanted children once they are born.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Bennyzilla

they funds aren't going to kill babies, the funds are going to prevent those babies from becomming a reality to begin with.... contraception! they are also going toward other services, cancer screenings, ect. but no, you just want to focus on abortions!



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Bennyzilla




Sorry but I think it's pretty abusive language to try to pass off the notion that killing a human to save it from of life of being poor (Oh the Humanity) is socially acceptable.


So, you think that contraception is murder?



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

So if I don't want government involved with healthcare or family planning, you think I should pay for other peoples mistakes and their irresponsibility?

So if I don't want government involved, your solution is to get government involved so I have to pay for it.

You're totally side-stepping individual responsibility.

You are absolving all responsibility of the individuals that created the child in the first place.

Shouldn't ALL the responsibility rest with the parents?



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   
What this boils down to:
Use the same defense in a court of law.....I knew what might happen , but I did it anyway
The least you are going *and I mean the least that will happen* you will be charged with negligence.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Nope made it crystal clear earlier I like contraception. Seeing as it PREVENTS conception. That isn't murder, there's no life there to be killed.

Whereas abortion can only occur post conception where a life now exists. They are separate issues that you want to combine into one.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Bennyzilla

that was because I wasn't talking about abortion, I was talking about effective birth control, contraceptions, that a WOMEN can use...which I doubt if they are passing out condoms for women for free, and even if they are they aren't the most effective means, so the fact that you can get condoms for free is kind of lame!



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Bennyzilla

The OP isn't about abortion! It's about defunding the services that provide birth control. Abortion isn't being funded through the State of Texas. Never has been.

Your argument is misplaced.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




So if I don't want government involved with healthcare or family planning, you think I should pay for other peoples mistakes and their irresponsibility?


Is birth control a mistake?



So if I don't want government involved, your solution is to get government involved so I have to pay for it.


There's lots of things that I don't want the government involved in that I have to pay for anyway. Buck up 'lil soldier!



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dawnstar

So if I don't want government involved with healthcare or family planning, you think I should pay for other peoples mistakes and their irresponsibility?

So if I don't want government involved, your solution is to get government involved so I have to pay for it.

You're totally side-stepping individual responsibility.

You are absolving all responsibility of the individuals that created the child in the first place.

Shouldn't ALL the responsibility rest with the parents?



geez.....you already pay for government!!.....you pay the government when the wealthy get a tax break, because then you have to make up the difference, or, like all republicans like to do, put that debt on the national credit card to be paid by someone else at a later date.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy


Shouldn't ALL the responsibility rest with the parents?



And what happens to the children when the parents can't or won't accept the responsibility?



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Let's just be done responding to one another because I can't wrap my head around the idea that you really believe being dead is better than being alive. A life of suffering is better than a life never had. At least one has the possibility of success, happiness, love, ect. You act like your doing them such a favor by preventing them from having to experience the pain this world can throw at you, but it's that same pain and struggle that creates a full human experience.

You can't just kill people because you can't guarantee you can't shelter them from harm or a hard life.

Plus your focusing so much on the cost as if you can monetize a humans potential. It's not about money.

I appreciate your passionate about the subject so let's just agree to disagree.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Gothmog

Yes, yes - It's a shame that everyone isn't as perfect as you and Edumakated. So now that we have established that there are people out there who make mistakes and then are too poor to pay for them, what happens to the babies who through no fault of their own, are brought into this world in poverty? You okay with paying for them if their parents can't? If no, are you okay with them starving to death or being abandoned in a dumpster? You okay with that?


I know people make mistakes. I grew up with several people and family members who seem to keep making the same damn mistake multiple times with multiple baby daddies / mamas.

Here is what me and my wife did. She was on pill. I used condoms. Did this for five years until we were married. Figured if she got pregnant after two forms of birth control, we'd name the kid Jesus. After we got married, we weren't ready for kids because of our careers, but we could afford them. She used the pill only and figured if she got pregnant, no big deal. Once we decided to actually have children, we stopped all protection and just let it happen.

This is what RESPONSIBLE people do.

It isn't a matter of being perfect. I don't have a problem with Planned Parenthood services as I recognize that some people are just irresponsible or just can't afford other medical services. What I do have a problem with is GOVERNMENT spending tax dollars on this nonsense.

If this issue is important to you, then by all means, please donate your OWN MONEY. State and federal tax dollars are limited and should not be used for these types of services. There are plenty of charitable organizations out there who will do this without government involvement.

I don't get why it is so hard for you libs to understand that government does not need to do every freaking thing under the sun. There are plenty of private individuals and benefactors who gladly contribute to these organizations because they see the need. Hell, if I could get you money grubbing libs out of my pocket I might contribute on my own instead of worrying about my annual tax liability to the government.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Bennyzilla


Whereas abortion can only occur post conception where a life now exists. They are separate issues that you want to combine into one.


Wrong, it is conservative politicians who have conflated the two. Since the Catholic Church opposes any birth control, politicians can please fundamentalists of all stripes by opposing Planned Parenthood... even the Church of Fiscal Conservatism.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated


If this issue is important to you, then by all means, please donate your OWN MONEY. State and federal tax dollars are limited and should not be used for these types of services. There are plenty of charitable organizations out there who will do this without government involvement.


The problem is, once fundamentalists begin to gain ground, they start passing laws designed to make it impossible for family planning organizations to function.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Bennyzilla

Again, this thread is about removing contraception options, not abortion.

Other than that, I'll agree to disagree.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

will the taxpayer end up paying for people's chloresterol medication after they eat themselves half to death?
either drop all of it, or quit making judgements as to who is worthy and who isn't! That is what I am saying.
Married couples use contraception also, they would rather have their children spaced further apart, it's easier to raise children that way, it gives them a better headstart on live, and it's easier on the pocketbook.
and or all the griping about how irresponsible they are, how they shouldn't be having sex, well, I can point you to many in the religious community who feel that sexual relations in a marriage is a very important component. I can also point to to some groups that feel that every danged decision that is made in that marriage, well,. the husband should have the final say. so in essence they attempt to convince women that they don't have a god given right to say no!



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
What this boils down to:
Use the same defense in a court of law.....I knew what might happen , but I did it anyway
The least you are going *and I mean the least that will happen* you will be charged with negligence.

Use the same defense in a court of law.....I knew what might happen , but I did it anyway


Once again you are assuming that it was a choice on the woman's part. What part of "some relationships are little better than legalized sex slavery" do you not want to get?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join