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.

 

Trump expected to cut Planned Parenthood funding

page: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




I have $100. I need to buy groceries for $100 but also want a $100 phone. You give me $100. I say, thanks for buying my groceries, but remember you didn't pay for my phone.
I got my groceries and my phone because you gave me money, regardless of how I account for your gift, you put money towards my phone, in fact, you enabled me to buy it.


it more like you have patients a, b, c, d, and e. one needs a pregnancy test and to be started on prenatal vitamins along with some basic blood tests to make sure there is nothing too unusual going on, another needs to be tested for an std, three are for the annual pap smear that is done before their birth control will be given to them. and then there is patient f, who wants an abortion, who could very well be sent to a planned parenthood facility in another city because the clinic there doesn't provide that service...
so, let's say that patients a through e was provided care that cost planned parenthood... oh, I have no idea really, but let's say $2000, so they put in for reimbursement and they get paid let's say... again, have no idea really, 1800.. and they incur a $200 dollar loss, which their private donations make up. they don't get any reimbursement from patient f, for the abortion because the gov't doesn't cover it. private donations pick that up.
I think what you are hoping for, what you are saying, is that if the gov't was to pull the funds, that planned parenthood would be forced to use even more of their private donated money to provide services to patients a through e which would drain the funding from the abortions....
which... first, wouldn't happen because much of the donated funding for the abortions is coming from from groups like the lilith foundation, which has the specific aim of providing assistance specifically for abortions... don't think they could use that money for patient a through e just like they can't use the gov't funds for the abortions....
all you are doing is jeopardizing patient a through e by eliminating what is a rather large provider and possibly the only provider available to them of the services they need...

and, like I said, your justifications for doing so are rather flimsy and very well could result in those same patients losing access to some of the major university hospitals when they need specialized care and testing that isn't commonly available in your typical doctor's office.




posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So are you saying that the price of abortions would not go up at all if funding for PP was cut? That seems to be the logical assumption for your argument. You didn't answer.
Yes or no?

edit on 17/5/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

it might, it might not, but are you saying that the cost for those who are obtaining those other services that planned parenthood offers won't go up? that those who are relying on title x and medicaid for those services might not have to seek that care elsewhere? or don't you care about that part of the equation??



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So are you saying that the price of abortions would not go up at all if funding for PP was cut? That seems to be the logical assumption for your argument. You didn't answer.
Yes or no?

I'd say no. I'd say that it would do more harm to women looking for preventative services and other feminine health needs. Which is FAR more callous and hateful, but it is easier to feel good about yourself if you argue it as trying to defund abortion costs.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Again. You can say otherwise, but that doesn't make it true.


Yes it does.

Except it doesn't. Hence why PP is allowed to operate as it does.


Except the OP covers the point it won't be 'operating', at least financially, as it does.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well when Planned parenthood is performing 300k+ abortions the argument becomes why are so many abortions being performed and why.

Safe sex and birth control should be permoted far more than pro choice pandering. Im pro choice but I very against late term abortions and abortion used basically as birth control. Sometimes you gotta live with your choices and having an unplanned pregnancy in 2018 isn't an excuse, buy a condom it's like $4 for a three pack and they're 91% effective while other forms are 99% effective



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Yeah you're right. Many women seeking preventative care through Medicaid or Title-X will lose access to care or have to jump through additional hoops through added travel expenses or additional out of pocket expenses for that care. All so Trump and his crony Republicans can pretend like they are fighting abortion. Sad...



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well when Planned parenthood is performing 300k+ abortions the argument becomes why are so many abortions being performed and why.

Why is that an argument? Abortions are legal.


Safe sex and birth control should be permoted far more than pro choice pandering. Im pro choice but I very against late term abortions and abortion used basically as birth control. Sometimes you gotta live with your choices and having an unplanned pregnancy in 2018 isn't an excuse, buy a condom it's like $4 for a three pack and they're 91% effective while other forms are 99% effective

Most of PP's services are for preventative care. Do you even care about reality or just want to argue talking points?



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: UKTruth

it might, it might not, but are you saying that the cost for those who are obtaining those other services that planned parenthood offers won't go up? that those who are relying on title x and medicaid for those services might not have to seek that care elsewhere? or don't you care about that part of the equation??



It's even more simple, really.
PP could not afford to fund abortion services if the govt were to remove their subsidy - not without adding hundreds of millions in new donations.


edit on 17/5/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because it's the main reason why PP should lose funding. 300k abortions try to rationalize that number and imagine the amount and you can't understand why people who don't agree with you have a problem with PP? Do you ever stop stonewalling?

This is how debates work I give my perspective you respond with just a little bit a respect for my perspective and I return the favor. I'm not attacking you relax



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

or, they could just opt not to provide those other services, and still have groups like the lilith foundation giving them funding for the abortions...

here's an idea....
why don't we just get rid of medicaid and title x, the child's health insurance program, medicare, and just tell the healthcare providers that they have to provide free care to those who are too poor to pay!!
not just emergency care, ALL CARE.
it seems that is what you seem to think pp should be doing!!!



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because it's the main reason why PP should lose funding. 300k abortions try to rationalize that number and imagine the amount and you can't understand why people who don't agree with you have a problem with PP? Do you ever stop stonewalling?

But it's a strawman argument since the Hyde Amendment already exists and PP isn't using tax money to fund abortions. Furthermore, the amount of people getting abortions in the country is currently at a low, so you are actually employing the fallacy of large numbers with this argument. Source


This is how debates work I give my perspective you respond with just a little bit a respect for my perspective and I return the favor. I'm not attacking you relax

Thanks Plato. I've never debated before. I'm glad you can give me this tedious lecture on how they work. /s



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI

a cosmetic surgeon might do quite a few facelifts and breast enlargements, but does that mean that the gov't shouldn't provide funding for the horribly burned medicaid patient so their face can be restored to something more normal??



edit on 17-5-2018 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

300k is low? You're right we can do better we need to get that Stat higher so end debate, you win.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Krazysh0t

300k is low? You're right we can do better we need to get that Stat higher so end debate, you win.

Again with the fallacy of large numbers... 300k is low in comparison to what it has been in the past. Furthermore claiming I want it to be higher is a strawman fallacy that you invented out of thin air. The trend graph I showed is showing that abortion in on the decline. Yet you are steadfastly trying to ignore that point. Why is that? You know that abortions occur at a higher rate in countries where the procedure is illegal right? I question if YOU truly want abortions to go down or not.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think 100k is high when it's 2018 and birth control is effective and available to anyone willing to make proper life choices. We can do better and abortion should be plan C not plan A like people who are so far pro choice they use abortion as birth control.

I'm pro choice but I'm not a fool to think if I have sex with a female without protection I could get her pregnant. So Ill go to my local gas station and buy condoms for $4 and if that breaks me financially I probably shouldn't roll the dice and risk getting her pregnant. But still 91% effective so my chances are good. We can do better but we can't compromise.

Set a time you can have an abortion, endorse affordable birth control even government funded, and educate youth about sex and give them free condoms.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I suppose I just fail to understand how much of PP is funded by public money. In that respect, couldn't the money be given under specific legal terms (ie: not contributing to abortions, but still providing other healthcare needs?)

I am personally opposed to abortion but since it is a protected privacy right (according to SCOTUS), I don't see much of a choice but to support each individual's right to seek this procedure.

At the end of the day, folks should be content expressing their opinion and not shoving it down other's throats via legislation/government or de-funding an entire organization. Especially one that, as others have pointed out here, offers a plethora of services outside of lawful abortion
edit on 5/17/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


I suppose I just fail to understand how much of PP is funded by public money. In that respect, couldn't the money be given under specific legal terms (ie: not contributing to abortions, but still providing other healthcare needs?)


That's exactly how it works already. When people talk about federal funding for PP what they're really talking about is the money they get reimbursed through Medicare and Medicaid. This amounts to about $500 million a year which is a little over 1/3 of the funding PP gets each year.

But since Medicare and Medicaid don't cover abortions none of that "funding" is going towards them.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI




Set a time you can have an abortion, endorse affordable birth control even government funded, and educate youth about sex and give them free condoms.


That's socialism pure and simple. No tax dollars for sane options!!



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Fools

I'll do just that. It's really nice and stress free not being scared of my own shadow and not being paranoid of people different than me all the time. I actually pity your types who are scared of everything and are addicted to fear porn.


I wonder what it must be like to be you, so sure of your view of the world that you don't ever have to consider other opinions (and facts) other than your own. I highly doubt that a day will ever come where you might think to yourself for just a moment that you actually are wrong about something.







 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join