Page 1 of 4
#2
We should help people, which ever answer does that
One of the third friendliest users
Stratkat's pet


Quote by Momentosis
Void is a wanker that's why

#4
Defended. Federal funds don't go to abortions (although some sources have qualified saying they do in cases of rape and incest*). Most federal funds go to public health concerns like STI/STD tests and birth control. The latter is a preventative measure against abortion. If you cut federal funding, you're not making a dent in the privately funded abortions that make up for 3% of their total services. You're making a dent in the one-third of their resources they put toward birth control. You'd arguably be causing more abortions by cutting their funding.

EDIT:
Quote by *
Title X does not allow federal funds to be used for abortions. Medicaid, however, does allow government money to be spent on them — in very restricted cases.

The 1977 Hyde Amendment dictated that federal Medicaid funds could only be used to fund abortions in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother. However, some states have expanded cases in which they will provide funds. Currently, 17 states allow funds to be used for "medically necessary" abortions. In those cases that these states count as medically necessary but that are not permitted by the federal guidelines, states cover the cost alone.


http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money
#DTWD
Last edited by primusfan at Aug 5, 2015,
#5
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/07/_3_percent_of_planned_parenthood_s_services_are_abortion_but_what_about.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_bot

It’s been so long since I’ve seen a reference to the claim that abortions make up only 3 percent of the services that Planned Parenthood provides that I thought maybe they’d stopped trying. It might not be a technically incorrect number, but it is meaningless—to the point of being downright silly— for several reasons. Not the least of which being that Planned Parenthood “unbundles” all of its services so that a pack of pills, an STD test and an exam are three separate services.

Undoubtedly, some of those services are cheaper than others: To illustrate this, let’s make a comparison with an actual business. Say I open a watch store. I sell lots of those cheap plastic digital ones that you can get at discount stores. And I sell some Timex and Casio, and also some nicer designer watches. But then I also keep a few superexpensive Brightlings and Patek Phillipes in stock. And maybe those only make up 3 percent of my sales. But selling only a handful of fancy watches brings in far more than 3 percent of my REVENUES. And so it is with abortion.

It’s impossible to know how much money Planned Parenthood brings in for abortion. Because as specific as the annual report is about the number of services it provides, it’s far less detailed when talking about where its revenue comes from (They are within their rights, so whatever). But it’s easy to calculate, as the Weekly Standard did, that Planned Parenthood gets at least a third of its clinic income—and more than 10 percent of all its revenue, government funding included—from its abortion procedures.

Ask anyone who runs a for-profit business or nonprofit charity if something that brings in one-third of their revenue is “central” to their endeavor, and the answer is likely to be yes. So yes, abortion is central to what Planned Parenthood does. There ARE a few things that aren’t central to their purpose though. As compared with the nearly 334,000 abortions that Planned Parenthood provided in 2011, 28,674 women received prenatal services. And 2,300 were referred to adoption agencies.
#6
Planned Parenthood is a good idea. I have no idea about its execution.
My God, it's full of stars!
#7
Typical republican bullshit if they defund it."supreme court allows THING? Well then we'll just make it as difficult as possible for people to exercise their right to THING."
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#8
Quote by Neo Evil11
Typical republican bullshit if they defund it."supreme court allows THING? Well then we'll just make it as difficult as possible for people to exercise their right to THING."


The supreme court is not the supreme branch of the government. It is checked by the other two, and vice versa.
#10
Quote by Stuck_nomore
Better than unplanned.




I'm weary of most institutional entities but that's another conversation entirely.
Quote by Arthur Curry
it's official, vintage x metal is the saving grace of this board and/or the antichrist




e-married to
theguitarist
minterman22
tateandlyle
& alaskan_ninja

#11
How anyone can argue that it should be defunded is beyond me. Even if 100% of their revenue came from abortions, well....GOOD. Most people shouldn't be having kids, period, especially not those who can barely earn a living for themselves.

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#12
Quote by Rossenrot
The supreme court is not the supreme branch of the government. It is checked by the other two, and vice versa.

So? As long as republicans don't have 2/3 of the senate and congress, they will have to keep allowing abortions and gay marriage. And instead of taking it on the chin they just then try to make it more and more difficult for people to exercise their constitutional rights.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#14
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
Aside from any pro-life arguments, what's wrong with it?

They sell baby parts.


Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#15
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
Aside from any pro-life arguments, what's wrong with it?

Its initials are "PP" which is a phrase too reminiscent of a child pissing for anyone to like it.


It's a tragedy, really. I understand its pain.
Quote by Arthur Curry
it's official, vintage x metal is the saving grace of this board and/or the antichrist




e-married to
theguitarist
minterman22
tateandlyle
& alaskan_ninja

#17
Quote by bradulator
Should it be defended or defunded?


Maybe modified.

Access to women's healthcare and contraception are pretty clear PP benefits. 327,000 unborn children exterminated because they were inconvenient in 2014 (and nearly every year) is a fairly barbaric stain on our "enlightened" society. I suspect we have some room for improvement here. If 327,000 kittens were being drowned by PP it would be shuttered tomorrow. Priorities.
"Your sound is in your hands as much as anything. It's the way you pick, and the way you hold the guitar, more than it is the amp or the guitar you use." -- Stevie Ray Vaughan

"Anybody can play. The note is only 20 percent. The attitude of the motherfucker who plays it is 80 percent." -- Miles Davis

Guthrie on tone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmohdG9lLqY
#18
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
We could just change the name to The Possible Cancer Cure Home.

Better yet, name it after a current-day idol, too.

the Martin Luther King, Jr. Possible Cancer Cure Home
Quote by Arthur Curry
it's official, vintage x metal is the saving grace of this board and/or the antichrist




e-married to
theguitarist
minterman22
tateandlyle
& alaskan_ninja

#19
Quote by Neo Evil11
So? As long as republicans don't have 2/3 of the senate and congress, they will have to keep allowing abortions and gay marriage. And instead of taking it on the chin they just then try to make it more and more difficult for people to exercise their constitutional rights.


Yet we cant find a single word in any article in the constitution that allows the government the power to define marriage or force people to subsidize the sex lives of others. So I'm not sure which constitution you're referring to.

People need to stop treating the supreme court as if it's rulings came from Mt. Sinai. Despite it's reputation it is a political branch, judicial activism is a thing, and it has on several occasions grossly violated the rights of its citizens.
#20
Quote by Neo Evil11
Typical republican bullshit if they defund it."supreme court allows THING? Well then we'll just make it as difficult as possible for people to exercise their right to THING."



Not to turn this into a gun control debate, but how is it any different from restricting access to guns?


Quote by Rossenrot
People need to stop treating the supreme court as if it's rulings came from Mt. Sinai. Despite it's reputation it is a political branch, judicial activism is a thing, and it has on several occasions grossly violated the rights of its citizens.



It's easy to find Constitutional justification for the gay marriage ruling. Don't be a schlong.
Check out my band Disturbed
Last edited by StewieSwan at Aug 6, 2015,
#22
Quote by Rossenrot
Yet we cant find a single word in any article in the constitution that allows the government the power to define marriage or force people to subsidize the sex lives of others. So I'm not sure which constitution you're referring to.

People need to stop treating the supreme court as if it's rulings came from Mt. Sinai. Despite it's reputation it is a political branch, judicial activism is a thing, and it has on several occasions grossly violated the rights of its citizens.

As for gay marriage, there are many passages that don't allowed the government to discriminate between people. Saying betty can marry john, but peter can't, is a form of sex discrimination.

And the 14th amendment was used to allow abortions.

^You do realize constitutions were around here since the romans right?
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#23
Quote by bradulator
Europeans pretending they know how the constitution works lol


Substitute Americans for Europeans and this statement is just as valid, tbf&h
My God, it's full of stars!
#24
Quote by Xiaoxi
How anyone can argue that it should be defunded is beyond me. Even if 100% of their revenue came from abortions, well....GOOD. Most people shouldn't be having kids, period, especially not those who can barely earn a living for themselves.

yes pls
Quote by Cajundaddy
327,000 unborn children exterminated because they were inconvenient in 2014 (and nearly every year) is a fairly barbaric stain on our "enlightened" society.

It's not that they were "inconvenient." They were potential burdens to their parents, several of whom were single mothers, who would eventually end up growing up in an environment that will not give them a chance in the world.
#25
Have to stiop this discussion. The cake is setting in. Can't even feel my fingers hitting the keboard anymore.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#26
Quote by Neo Evil11
Have to stiop this discussion. The cake is setting in. Can't even feel my fingers hitting the keboard anymore.

lol must be pregnant
Quote by Arthur Curry
it's official, vintage x metal is the saving grace of this board and/or the antichrist




e-married to
theguitarist
minterman22
tateandlyle
& alaskan_ninja

#27
Quote by Neo Evil11
As for gay marriage, there are many passages that don't allowed the government to discriminate between people. Saying betty can marry john, but peter can't, is a form of sex discrimination.

And the 14th amendment was used to allow abortions.


Once again, the constitution does NOT give the federal government the right to define words. As good as it is that gay people can get married in America now, their marriages have as little constitutional basis as straight marriage does.

As for your second comment, the power of congress to wage war was used to justify the internment of Japanese Americans in Korematsu v. United States, but it doesn't make it right. Once again, the Supreme Court is not infallible.

Also, abortions in the US preceded the 14th amendment, and were common throughout the 1800s.
Last edited by Rossenrot at Aug 6, 2015,
#28
Quote by bradulator


This article is stupid. The fact that 3% of PP's services accounts for more than 10% of its revenue doesn't change the fact it's only 3% of the total services rendered. Birth control is cheaper than surgery. Big woop. It's almost like preventative care is a cheap alternative to surgery after the fact. Like healthy food and exercise is probably cheaper than a quadruple bypass surgery. Holy shit, I might be on to something.
#DTWD
#29
Quote by Rossenrot
Once again, the constitution does NOT give the federal government the right to define words. As good as it is that gay people can get married in America now, their marriages have as little constitutional basis as straight marriage does.

As for your second comment, the power of congress to wage war was used to justify the internment of Japanese Americans in Korematsu v. United States, but it doesn't make it right. Once again, the Supreme Court is not infallible.

Also, abortions in the US preceded the 14th amendment, and were common throughout the 1800s.

You're correct. The constitution does not contain straight marriage. But it doesn't allow the government to discriminate against people when it does provide marriage as a service.

And it has nothing to do with defining words. Don't be a republican donkey.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#30
Quote by Neo Evil11
Have to stiop this discussion. The cake is setting in. Can't even feel my fingers hitting the keboard anymore.
Quote by vintage x metal
lol must be pregnant


oh damn

Quote by Pastafarian96
I an evety characyer in this story
Last edited by M00NAGEDAYDREAM at Aug 6, 2015,
#31
Quote by Neo Evil11
You're correct. The constitution does not contain straight marriage. But it doesn't allow the government to discriminate against people when it does provide marriage as a service.

And it has nothing to do with defining words. Don't be a republican donkey.


It also doesn't allow the government to discriminate against people when it provides free jet packs as a service. The point is that the government doesn't have the legal power to provide free jet packs.

And "defining 'marriage'" has everything to do with defining "marriage."
#32
maybe there will be an abortion prohibition era and we'll all kill our babies in secret clubs and there will be an abortion al capone


or maybe all the old outdated people with power and influence will just die soon and this won't be a constant debate for much longer
Quote by Arthur Curry
it's official, vintage x metal is the saving grace of this board and/or the antichrist




e-married to
theguitarist
minterman22
tateandlyle
& alaskan_ninja

#33
Quote by Rossenrot
It also doesn't allow the government to discriminate against people when it provides free jet packs as a service. The point is that the government doesn't have the legal power to provide free jet packs.

And defining "marriage" has everything to do with defining "marriage."

I bet that the government does have the legal power to provide free jet packs.

Defining marriage has never been the issue. It's what religious idiots try to argue.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#34
Quote by vintage x metal
lol must be pregnant

Must be stoned.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#35
Once Arby gets in here to join brad and Ross, we'll have the Good ol' Boy trifecta
My God, it's full of stars!
#36
Quote by Skullivan
yes pls

It's not that they were "inconvenient." They were potential burdens to their parents, several of whom were single mothers, who would eventually end up growing up in an environment that will not give them a chance in the world.


Ok, how about "inconvenient burden"?

We tend to sugarcoat abortion in the USA but this is just our clinical modern twist on 2000 years of female infanticide as practiced by the Romans, Chinese and many other cultures. We smile and clink our glasses while the human population of Hiroshima is annihilated every year and their body parts are sold for scrap value.

We cherish personal convenience and "choice" over a human child and that is more than a little barbaric. Perhaps one day we will evolve and rise above this practice. We can only hope.
"Your sound is in your hands as much as anything. It's the way you pick, and the way you hold the guitar, more than it is the amp or the guitar you use." -- Stevie Ray Vaughan

"Anybody can play. The note is only 20 percent. The attitude of the motherfucker who plays it is 80 percent." -- Miles Davis

Guthrie on tone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmohdG9lLqY
#37
Quote by Cajundaddy
We cherish personal convenience and "choice" over a human child and that is more than a little barbaric. Perhaps one day we will evolve and rise above this practice. We can only hope.

We have evolved. That's why we are having abortions. Ever seen an animal perform an abortion?
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#38
Quote by Dreadnought
Once Arby gets in here to join brad and Ross, we'll have the Good ol' Boy trifecta


Buddy, I took the topic from abortions to jet packs in under two pages.

That's hard to do.
#39
Quote by Cajundaddy at #33535105
Ok, how about "inconvenient burden"?

We tend to sugarcoat abortion in the USA but this is just our clinical modern twist on 2000 years of female infanticide as practiced by the Romans, Chinese and many other cultures. We smile and clink our glasses while the human population of Hiroshima is annihilated every year and their body parts are sold for scrap value.

We cherish personal convenience and "choice" over a human child and that is more than a little barbaric. Perhaps one day we will evolve and rise above this practice. We can only hope.


Choice- It's in your fingers

Quote by Pastafarian96
I an evety characyer in this story
#40
Quote by Rossenrot
It also doesn't allow the government to discriminate against people when it provides free jet packs as a service. The point is that the government doesn't have the legal power to provide free jet packs.

And "defining 'marriage'" has everything to do with defining "marriage."

Should the government not provide things? That's an interesting opinion. It just seems interesting to sway it as "the government shouldn't provide gay marriage or abortions" instead of "the government shouldn't provide marriage rights, public schooling, emergency aid, veteran's aid, etc."

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you; I am just trying to piece together your argument. The government doesn't really "provide" marriages in the same way they would a jetpack, but they do have legal ramifications for those that are not legally declared married versus those that are legally married, so I am a bit confused. The government could just do away with its involvement in marriage altogether, which seems to be the point you are making, right? Which I would agree with, I don't understand why the government is involved with any family structures at all. But because the government does involve itself in declaration of marriage, it is legally held to not discriminate by gender, right?
Quote by Arthur Curry
it's official, vintage x metal is the saving grace of this board and/or the antichrist




e-married to
theguitarist
minterman22
tateandlyle
& alaskan_ninja

Page 1 of 4