GAO To Launch Nationwide Investigation into Planned Parenthood

reply to post by ButterCookie

referring to the raising of the child or paying for her OWN legal abortion.

There is no tax payer sponsored abortion in the USA. You point is moot.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by butcherguy

 

This is what YOU wrote:

She said "Prepared to handle the consequences", not 'prepared to start a family'. There are options available,

[b[including a legal abortion that do not entail starting a family.

edit on 7-8-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

Do you understand that the word 'including' infers that there are multiple options other than abortion???
That added to the fact that I stated 'options'(plural). What is not to get?
Are you saying that abortion is the only alternative to 'starting a family'???

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

referring to the raising of the child or paying for her OWN legal abortion.

There is no tax payer sponsored abortion in the USA. You point is moot.

In 2011 alone, Planned Parenthood received over $542 million in total taxpayer funding while performing a record 333,964 abortions

blog.heritage.org...

plus there are 'discounts' where women who receive state assistance can have a portion of the abortion paid for.

reply to post by butcherguy


What's your point? Do you want to force women to carry a pregnancy to term and to adopt that child out to some stranger?

reply to post by ButterCookie


There are NO state of tax payer sponsored elective abortions or contributions to partial payments of abortion in the USA. Planned Parenthood receives donations from many other (private) sources to help with the costs of abortions to low income, at risk women.

In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions with exceptions for incest and rape.[1] It is not a permanent law, rather it is a "rider" that, in various forms, has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976. The Hyde Amendment applies only to funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. It primarily affects Medicaid.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by windword


Once again: "Planned Parenthood reported receiving record taxpayer funding in the last reporting year, while also performing a record number of abortions, according to the organization’s new annual report released this week." blog.heritage.org...

reply to post by ButterCookie


Once again:

Planned Parenthood offers an estimated three million women annually with birth control, breast exams, pap tests, cervical cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment and other health services – all which, are services that made readily with the help of taxpayer money. Providing nearly one million pap tests and about 830,000 breast exams each year, de-funding Planned Parenthood may increase the already alarming numbers of women in America that have fallen victim to cervical cancer.

If you do the math, that’s a staggering 1, 860, 413 services to diagnose and prevent cervical cancer. If that isn’t telling enough of Planned Parenthood’s positive impact in America’s health, take into consideration statistics providing by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2007, reports indicated that 12,280 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer.
students.com.miami.edu...

Planned Parenthood uses those funds for things other than abortion.

reply to post by windword

What's your point? Do you want to force women to carry a pregnancy to term and to adopt that child out to some stranger?

Typical.
You force the issue, by making a post that says that there is only one option to having an abortion (that of starting a family) , then you insinuate that I want to 'force women to carry a pregnancy to term and to adopt that child out to some stranger'. I simply stated that there are other options, it doesn't mean I prefer one over another.

I am not against abortion, DO YOU GET THAT YET?

Sorry, it just doesn't seem to be getting through to you.
Feel free to get an abortion.I don't care.
I don't want to pay for their abortions, medical checkups, food, or anything else.

reply to post by windword


And to answer your question to Butcher about wanting women to carry their baby to term or adopting it out...

Yes.

Murder should not be a form of birth control.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by windword

 

And to answer your question to Butcher about wanting women to carry their baby to term or adopting it out...

Yes.

Murder should not be a form of birth control.

All those saying that women should be forced to adopt out unwanted children should be forced by law to adopt those children, especially the ones with birth defects. Forced. By law.

reply to post by kaylaluv

All those saying that women should be forced to adopt out unwanted children

Playing devil's advocate a bit here...

What if a mother decides that she can not handle having a child two days after it is born?
Should she be 'forced' to put it up for adoption, or can she just kill it?
Why should she be 'forced' to put it up for adoption and the difference is only a matter of 48 hours?

reply to post by kaylaluv


You don't get the point that was intended with that.

No one is forcing anyone to adopt out their child. If you don't want a child, don't have a child. Don't murder a baby because you 'changed your mind' and now want to opt out. Don't engage in the activity that results in reproduction.

reply to post by windword


You said, "uses those funds for things OTHER THAN abortions"....

this implies that tax payer funds do indeed get used for abortions.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by windword

 

Murder should not be a form of birth control.

How do you define murder? Is killing a living sperm murder? Is allowing a living unfertilized to egg die murder? Is allowing a living fertilized egg to die murder?

You said, "uses those funds for things OTHER THAN abortions".... this implies that tax payer funds do indeed get used for abortions.

No it doesn't. How do you get there?

reply to post by windword


Wow.

You said, "Tax payers funds are used for things OTHER THAN abortions."

Do you not realize you have included abortion as one of those things? (duhh) Otherwise, you have would have stated, "Planned Parenthood does not use any of that funding for abortions"....

but you can't say that because they actually do.

It was a rebuttal of your prior statement that Planned Parenthood does not use tax payers funds for abortions.

Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by macman

 

How much are you willing to spend on helping the victims of child abuse? Because, there is an alarming number of children getting pregnant or contracting STDs due to this cause. What kind of money are we willing to throw at that?

edit on 6-8-2013 by Philodemus because: (no reason given)

I have a solution that might help....
Change the anti male laws in the family courts, punish females reproducing with all the scums of society, stop bashing responsible fathers in the society......
Mothers are the majority of the child abusers topped by their boyfriends while the biological father is least likely to abuse the child.....
my experience with all the troubled kids especially female teens tells me that most of them have daddy issues.....or absent father....

reply to post by therationalist


Please join in this discussion from a few years back....I brought it back to life while replying to this thread:

Men's Rights Activist Group for Men to Opt out of Parenthood

reply to post by ButterCookie


Is English a second language for you?

Adv. 1. other than - in another and different manner : with the exception of

Please prove to me that Planned Parenthood uses tax payer funds to pay for elective abortions. (not including rape and Incest victims).

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

All those saying that women should be forced to adopt out unwanted children

Playing devil's advocate a bit here...

What if a mother decides that she can not handle having a child two days after it is born?
Should she be 'forced' to put it up for adoption, or can she just kill it?
Why should she be 'forced' to put it up for adoption and the difference is only a matter of 48 hours?

What if the pregnant woman is faced with aborting the child or dying herself? Should she be forced to die so the fetus can live? What if an eight-year-old child is raped and gets pregnant? Should we force that eight-year-old to carry the baby to term? Why is it people are okay with aborting the fetus to save the mother, but the idea of aborting the fetus for any other reason is an abomination? It's either okay to abort a fetus or it's not.

reply to post by windword


OMG.

And by the way, English is my college major.

I really don't know how to explain to you that 'other than' implies inclusion of the article in question.

Anyway, it is a fact that Planned Parenthood uses taxpayers funding for abortion. Surely you don't think they screen the rape or incest cases out with DNA or Police Reports.

reply to post by neo96


Funny how some forget that...

Margaret Sanger/Malthusian Eugenics...

Not exactly a glorious past, and it generally get glossed over...

She was not exactly in the business of providing birth control out of a genuine concern for the welfare of others...now was she?