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.

 

Planned Parenthood only offers Abortions?

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2017 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE




Why does PP get so much while other, just as valid and helpful organizations get next to nothing?


what other organizations are you talking about and just what are they getting so much more of??

I say it again...
they are getting reimbursements for the healthcare they provide to medicaid and title x patients!!!

just like all the other healthcare providers out there that treat medicaid and title x patients...
of which, trinity health is one!!

you can find their financial statements here for 2012 and 2013:

emma.msrb.org...

on page 13 there is this little tidbit...




Unpaid cost of Medicaid and other public programs 181,020 211,104


those numbers are in thousands by the way, so that would be more like a loss of 181,020,000.

later in the document it tells us what they mean by the phrase unpaid cost of medicaid and other public programs...




Unpaid cost of Medicaid and other public programs represents the cost (determined using a cost to charge ratio) of providing services to beneficiaries of public programs, including state Medicaid and indigent care programs, in excess of governmental and managed care contract payments.


first point I would like to make that if the unpaid costs of the care they provided was 181,020,000, then the money they received was a little more than next to nothing!

the second thing I want to point out is that it's not spreading the wealth around more you want..
but to spread the loss around better....
here's an idea, how about we just force all the healthcare providers to take on this loss instead of letting them opt out of participating in the program!!! at least then all those medicaid patients that you want to block from planned parenthood services might actually have a viable alternative available to provide that care!






edit on 4-5-2017 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 4 2017 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Nobody cares about Margaret Sanger anymore. Only anti-abortion people care about her. You guys pretend like she's this evil and magical witch that taints all of PP just because. Never mind that she is dead and different people with different philosophies are running PP now.


Then why do they still hand out awards with her name on it.

Current Year arguments are weak.

Maybe because, like you mentioned, she founded the organization. Common sense, bro.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I used to live across the street from what back then was just called an "abortion clinic". They didn't try to hide their purpose, except the low building looked like an office, had no sign out front. I would never have known except...

Drew plenty of protest back then, had full on riots a couple times with police barricades and horseback mounted officers to keep the pro lifers and abortionists apart. They were even fire bombed a couple times and pipe bombs found at the entrance.

People used to care more about these things. Now we just hurl insults on the interwebz...


really???
people used to care more - they would show just how much they cared about life
and how vehemently they were against murder
by firebombing buildings
and leaving explosive devices on doorsteps

yep, sounds like a really well thought through belief system you're extolling here



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: continuousThunder

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I used to live across the street from what back then was just called an "abortion clinic". They didn't try to hide their purpose, except the low building looked like an office, had no sign out front. I would never have known except...

Drew plenty of protest back then, had full on riots a couple times with police barricades and horseback mounted officers to keep the pro lifers and abortionists apart. They were even fire bombed a couple times and pipe bombs found at the entrance.

People used to care more about these things. Now we just hurl insults on the interwebz...


really???
people used to care more - they would show just how much they cared about life
and how vehemently they were against murder
by firebombing buildings
and leaving explosive devices on doorsteps

yep, sounds like a really well thought through belief system you're extolling here

Like I said:

people just hurl insults on inter webs now...



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Nobody cares about Margaret Sanger anymore. Only anti-abortion people care about her. You guys pretend like she's this evil and magical witch that taints all of PP just because. Never mind that she is dead and different people with different philosophies are running PP now.


Then why do they still hand out awards with her name on it.

Current Year arguments are weak.

Maybe because, like you mentioned, she founded the organization. Common sense, bro.


This was always a weird argument by anti abortion to me. Ms Sanger didnt want abortions and couldnt have done them if she wanted to. At this point they were illegal and her being a protestant she woudnt have believed in them. The country at that time was highly christian and abortions were outlawed what she decides to create was the American Birth Control League. Her goal was to try to give women another option than becoming pregnant. She saw women getting pregnant having multiple kids to the point it damaged their body. She thought women should be able to have sex without having kids
edit on 5/4/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I view someone bringing Margaret Sanger up in an anti-abortion debate the same as someone invoking Darwin's name in an anti-evolution debate. A red herring and sloppy appeal to authority fallacy.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: dfnj2015

Okay, so rip 8.75 month old infants out of wombs and chop them up and turn them into compost because 'its a womans body'.

Got it!

Drugs that give people pleasure though, BAN EM LOCK PEOPLE UP FOR HAVING THEM YEAH!!!!!



That last bit there, you can claim to not support the War On Drugs but until the liberals go full foaming at the mouth over it (like they ALWAYS have for pro-choice/pro-abortion), until they refuse to vote for Democrat's that maintain it just the same as the Republicant's, I declare their "support" to be a FARCE.


I'm not a Supreme court justice. It's not my ruling. It may be immoral, but a woman's rights over her own body is settled law.


I cant believe you bought into that troll comment FFS.

What you should have replied with is that in the third trimester it is illegal in most states to abort a pregnancy. Three states currently ban abortions in the third trimester and 15 states ban it about 20 weeks post-fertilization, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Nineteen other states determine whether or not to ban (illegal) based upon whether there is a Doctors concession that the fetus can survive outside the womb or viable. In that case the abortion is ruled illegal to perform.

So no one in this country is ripping anything out of anyone's womb at 8 and three quarters months.
edit on 4-5-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: bender151

they are the largest provider because they are capable of providing these services within the amount that the gov't is willing to pay for the services they provide...
how about doing a little research..... call around to the gynecologists in your area, see how many are willing to take on new medicaid patients or work on a sliding scale for those of low income who aren't insured but yet, not eligible for medicaid!


I want to add that here in Texas, where they've chopped Planned Parenthood and tried to force it out, we now have a mother-and-child mortality rate of a third world country.

And this is the problem as these free clinics and clinics that take medicare/medicaid go away - more families are burying young mothers (and babies) than in the past. Texas also does not participate in Obamacare supplements ... which means that only those who are middle class and up can afford doctor care for pregnancies [url=http://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/more-texas-moms-dying-why]Source[/url

So if your income is not high and you would like your wife and children to be healthy, realize that Planned Parenthood services can help save lives in your family (they also do screenings for cancer, etc, no matter your age.)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
What happens when a species takes all their assets and uses it to "help" those who can't or won't help themselves? I guess the in the human mind, that is doing a good thing. In theory, you are being nice and helping others that can't or won't help themselves. You diminish the masses for the minority. If this were intelligence...you are dumbing down the masses to make the minority feel better. If income...you are making the rich poorer to help the poor. Or taking food from the mouths of the dominate to feed the failures.

You may think we are different from other creatures...but we are not. When you take from the successful of the species, bringing them down a few notches...to benefit the weak, poor or failures you diminish the entire species. You end up with a weakened species and follow a path. That path is that the failures will breed more failures and the successful will breed less successful. The species will eventually die. It is called natural selection. It is the biggest law of nature. The strong and successful survive...the weak and the failures die and the species succeeds and thrives.

When the weak and failures are allowed to breed out of their nature...it eventually destroys the species. These are simple facts that can't be denied. While this may sound harsh, you have a simple choice. Prop up the failures and destine humanity to death...or follow the law of nature and save the human race.

Your choice...die or thrive. I don't like it anymore than you do...but it is the way it is.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

and they say that Margaret Sanger was an eugenicist!!!



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

This sounds like eugenics.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Call it what you will. It is simply nature, natural selection and survival of the fittest...which keeps any species strong and viable. I'm not implying that I believe we should always look at human life, etc. in this manner...I'm simply stating the root base for any animal species. The more any group or species devotes to the weak, injured, etc., the weaker they make the group or species. If you wanted to make the human race as strong as possible...you would discard the weak. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the goal of solely strengthening the species, that would be it.

I believe in understanding facts and logic, as cold as they may be. Then incorporating morals and values and making a logical decision on how far you wish to go. If you wish to go all out...the species will die a much quicker death.


edit on 5/4/2017 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I believe in understanding facts and logic

Well facts and logic say that you are describing eugenics, a scientific concept that lost favor among the scientific community thanks to WWII and that dude named Hitler.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I believe in understanding facts and logic

Well facts and logic say that you are describing eugenics, a scientific concept that lost favor among the scientific community thanks to WWII and that dude named Hitler.

So you are implying that we are different from every other living creature on Earth and somehow, we are logically better off by supporting the weak and failures of genetics with our efforts, assets and dollars?

I understand it is a moral issue and I would never go that extreme, but there is a time when the benefit outweighs the expense. Otherwise, we would spend every single dollar and resource trying to cure cancer even if it broke our society, destroyed our economy, etc. We COULD do that! We could sequester the greatest minds in the world into a huge complex and devote every single resource to curing cancer. We don't. Why? Same reason...there comes a point when the expense of saving the weak isn't productive.

Sorry...that is life.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Evolution of humans is more cerebral and not as genetic at this point, so yes your argument is wrong, the same-ish genetics that picked up spears could have driven tanks if given just opportunity. That same will apply for Star Lord as he cruises space. Our bodies are 'done'.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
So you are implying that we are different from every other living creature on Earth and somehow, we are logically better off by supporting the weak and failures of genetics with our efforts, assets and dollars?

I understand it is a moral issue and I would never go that extreme, but there is a time when the benefit outweighs the expense. Otherwise, we would spend every single dollar and resource trying to cure cancer even if it broke our society, destroyed our economy, etc. We COULD do that! We could sequester the greatest minds in the world into a huge complex and devote every single resource to curing cancer. We don't. Why? Same reason...there comes a point when the expense of saving the weak isn't productive.

Sorry...that is life.

Why are you apologizing to me? Your crazy idea is the one that is out of favor in the world. You are the one making up excuses to circumvent your lack of compassion for those less fortunate than yourself. Not me.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Hell...I'm going to go out on a limb here. I have recently been diagnosed with "problems". Problems that will shorten or end my life. I have a wife, two daughters and a thriving business. I have choices to make. I could take everything we have saved, all our assets, close the business and maybe...maybe...extend my life a few years or a decade. Or...I can leave these for my family and business and die sooner.

Guess what...emotionally and I'm sure if I asked my family and friends, I should do just that. But logically...that would be a selfish and stupid decision. I have decided that for the benefit of my family and business I won't do that. I won't take from others or make them weaker, poorer for my personal issues.

To me...that is being a man...being a logical and caring person. I will die sooner and allow my loved ones to continue more comfortably. Maybe others, sometimes, should consider the same.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Great anecdote, but no one is striping you of your own right to play your hand how you want. But just because you don't mind not fighting to live longer doesn't mean that others should be deprived of that right. In your story, you SPECIFICALLY noted that you made a decision not to carry on. A decision that under eugenics would be denied people.
edit on 4-5-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

oh, so when you are old and can't take care of yourself, you're gonna just walk into the desert and accept death so you don't weaken the race???

you speak of the survival of the fittest, tell me, does trump or chaney, or the big wall street bankers strike you as being the fittest among the human race? at least the little old ladies that i worked with earning minimum wage would be able to cloth themselves, preserve and cook, their own food, their homes are probably spotless. some of the most privileged in this society would be the least prepared to survive without an army of maids, cooks, and assistants making sure their every need was taken care of!!!



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Great anecdote, but no one is striping you of your own right to play your hand how you want. But just because you don't mind not fighting to live longer doesn't mean that others should be deprived of that right. In your story, you SPECIFICALLY noted that you made a decision not to carry on. A decision that under eugenics would be denied people.


First of all...not an anecdote. But regardless...if you have enough selfish people to demand everyone give up everything for them, you need to make a decision. That decision will likely be to deny their wishes. Again...we don't sacrifice our economy and livelihood to keep everyone alive longer. We don't have an obligation to destroy ourselves for the desires of a few. We weigh that out and decide what we are willing to do...we don't just ignorantly give up everything to save others.

I'm sure you wouldn't give up everything, your home, family's livelihood, future and live in a box on the street, etc. just because your neighbor can't pay for his cancer treatment.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join