Holy crap, Republicans are idiots!

[Svartalf]

Meaning they all are schizophrenic and ought to be confined to the bin.

[Tyrannical]

They also forgot to include increased prison costs when they cut funding.

Roe v Wade was in '73, and 17-18 years later crime rates start to drop

img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... es.svg.png[/img]

[Gerald McGrew]

They didn't cut PP funding to save money, they cut it because they see no moral difference between abortion and infanticide

As I said, ideology over reality.

Their action was purely ideology-driven, and even though they were specifically warned of the real-world consequences, the did it anyways and are now acting surprised when those consequences become reality.

They're idiots.

[Robert_S]

Nice bunch of lies you got there. Raise them yourself?

Nope, heard the tapes made by an undercover client posing as an underage pregnant teen at several different PP abortion clinics. Read their denials, which are lies. Seen the videos of PP workers violating mandatory reporting laws.

All public domain, go look it up.

They've all been debunked. Look it up.

[Seth]

Nice bunch of lies you got there. Raise them yourself?

Nope, heard the tapes made by an undercover client posing as an underage pregnant teen at several different PP abortion clinics. Read their denials, which are lies. Seen the videos of PP workers violating mandatory reporting laws.

All public domain, go look it up.

They've all been debunked. Look it up.

No they haven't, they've been dismissed, denied and minimized and PP employees have been quickly thrown under the bus for doing what they have been told to do when they get caught by people like Lila Rose. Fact is that Planned Parenthood, an organization formed by Margaret Sanger, a well-known racist and eugenicist, disproportionately locates its facilities mostly in minority neighborhoods so as to offer abortion services conveniently to minorities, routinely ignores mandatory reporting laws enacted to prevent juveniles from being sexually victimized by adults, and provides abortions to minors without the required parental notification or consent in some states, and illegally uses government funds to provide abortions through accounting tricks and the fungibility of money.

[Seth]

Seth.
I really don't get why you are against this? We all have mothers and most of us have either/all sisters, daughters, nieces, aunts and wives or girlfriends of course. The health of everyone is important but child bearing adds another issue in all this, so unless you have a religious objection to paying for the health care of 50% of any countries population then I don't see where you are coming form?

My objection is not religious, it's political and economic. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why I should be forced to pay for some woman's abortion or contraception services merely because the woman chooses to be sexually irresponsible.

Although I frequently argue the "a new human being comes into existence at the formation of the zygote" position as a counterpoise and interlocutory interjection to stimulate reasoned debate in response to the factually and biologically incorrect "it's not a baby, it's a lump of cells" pro-abortion canard, my position on abortion is the same as it is on religion. I am a Tolerist™ and therefore so long as you act in a peaceable manner and do no harm to others, I leave all your decisions up to you.

The question of when or if abortion should be allowed, regulated or prohibited is a complex one that almost all pro-abortionists (likewise most anti-abortionists) try to resolve with simplistic, dogmatic and fallacy-based reasoning usually consisting of "Yes, it is. No, it's not" quality.

But as a Tolerist™, I deem the taking of my money, paid through taxes which are supposed to fund government actions that are directly beneficial to ME in some way (which is also a Libertarian argument) to provide free or subsidized birth control and abortion services to ANYONE, under ANY circumstances, to be a non-peaceable action and a theft of my labor and goods which must therefore be prohibited.

I do not object to Planned Parenthood offering contraception and abortion services. I'm actually in favor of such services being available. What I object to is their deliberately and knowingly violating duly-established law for no better reason that that it conflicts with their ability to make money and forward their absolutist ideology and their expectation that the public is obliged to support this agenda.

Planned Parenthood can do any lawful thing it wants and I will sit back and not complain, but when it receives public money for any reason at all it becomes subject to the will of the People as regards the use of the public's money, and if the public in a community, or state, or nation do not wish to fund abortions or contraception and express that will through their elected representatives, then Planned Parenthood must stop taking public money and find private funding sources to replace it.

That's how our system works. States get to set their own fiscal policies and Texas happens not to wish to provide public funding for abortion services. Because Planned Parenthood provides abortions, it is impossible to give public money to Planned Parenthood without funding abortion services. This is because money is fungible, and even if the funds from government are "earmarked" for some other service, let's say women's cancer screenings, the fact that Planned Parenthood no longer has to find voluntary private funding for that service because public funds are available means that they can divert money from other sources to their abortion services and the upshot is that the public ends up funding abortion services, albeit indirectly.

If Planned Parenthood stopped offering abortions, it would be a different story. But they won't, and therefore it's the right of the public to deny that organization public funds.

If some woman wants contraceptive or abortion services, then it's my opinion that she can pay for them herself or abstain from having sex until she can afford to do so. I have absolutely no desire or motive for funding anyone's private sexual activities just so they can be free of the natural consequences of having sex. That's their problem to fund, not mine. I paid nearly a thousand dollars of my own money so that my fiancee could obtain an IUD to avoid pregnancy and control her heavy periods. I didn't ask for public fund to do it, and I refuse to cooperate with anyone who can't keep their knees together until they can afford their own contraceptives.

So, in short, you're wrong, there are perfectly valid secular reasons for objecting to Planned Parenthood's actions.

[Robert_S]

Even if that were true, which ample online evidence shows conclusively that it isn't, what's wrong with minors not being parents? Are you against them on PURELY legal grounds?

Quite frankly, I've seen enough of theocracy minded judges to have no problem with the laws being circumvented in some parts of the country to keep little girls out of their small minded, big ego-ed clutches.


You mention that they set up offices in poor areas. There's nothing like being a parent at 16 to help a body escape poverty isn't there?

[laklak]

Fuck it, pile the abortifacients, birth control pills, crack and crank up in the streets, free to all. In a decade the addicts will all be dead and the idiots will stop reproducing. I'm not seeing a down side.

[Robert_S]

Some folks on the right refuse to be in the least bit pragmatic. This ensures that the march to an American Marxist hell will continue.

[MrJonno]

If you don't fund an abortion at £/$1000 you will end up funding an unwanted kid at a million.

Don't need to be the greatest economic to work out what the best way of spending public money is

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Rich people don't need Planned Parenthood. They can fly to Rio to get the little bastard flushed, so they don't even need birth control.

[Seth]

Even if that were true, which ample online evidence shows conclusively that it isn't, what's wrong with minors not being parents? Are you against them on PURELY legal grounds?

Nothing's wrong with minors not being parents, but that decision must not impose a financial obligation on others (taxpayers) to fund contraceptive or abortion services so that the minor may achieve non-parenthood while still being free to enjoy sex with a fertile partner.

This is not really about abortion or contraceptives, it's about personal responsibility for one's sexual organs and full acceptance for the imprudent or improper operation of those organs.

It's really quite ridiculously simple: If you don't want to get knocked up, or end up having to pay child support for 18 years, then keep your dick in your pants, keep your panties on and your knees together and don't have sex.

If you choose to go ahead and have sex, then for fuck's sake don't expect ME to pay for your irresponsible use of your sex organs. That's entirely on YOU, cupcake. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

You mention that they set up offices in poor areas. There's nothing like being a parent at 16 to help a body escape poverty isn't there?

Sarcasm noted. My response is "Quit thinking you can fuck anybody for fun and escape the natural, intended consequences of sexual congress, which is the making of a baby, and then expect others to make your recreational sex convenient and safe." You want to have recreational sex, then get permanently spayed or neutered (that I'll contribute to) and have all the sex you want, but do NOT expect me to bail you out of the consequences of your poor judgment and misuse of your genitals. It's not my problem, and the best way to convince a girl to keep her panties on and her knees together is to keep her in fear of getting "a little bit pregnant" if she surrenders to her sexual desires.

I simply don't think that there is any argument to be made that other people should be responsible for the sexual mistakes or misbehavior of anyone other than their own, ever.

[Seth]

If you don't fund an abortion at £/$1000 you will end up funding an unwanted kid at a million.

Don't need to be the greatest economic to work out what the best way of spending public money is

Strange isn't it how teenage pregnancy rates literally skyrocketed immediately after "The Pill" was released on the market, and prior to that time, getting knocked up outside of wedlock was a matter of shame and humiliation, which public opprobrium convinced most girls to keep their panties on and knees together until they had a ring on their finger and a husband to support their child.

In other words, once again you've got the cart before the horse.

It is the existence of contraceptives and abortions that CAUSE unwanted kids to be born. People think they can just have sex whenever they like if only they have a pill and an abortion available.

Take both away and we'll see a return to much more responsible sexual behavior and therefore fewer unwanted kids.

[aspire1670]

If you don't fund an abortion at £/$1000 you will end up funding an unwanted kid at a million.

Don't need to be the greatest economic to work out what the best way of spending public money is

Strange isn't it how teenage pregnancy rates literally skyrocketed immediately after "The Pill" was released on the market, and prior to that time, getting knocked up outside of wedlock was a matter of shame and humiliation, which public opprobrium convinced most girls to keep their panties on and knees together until they had a ring on their finger and a husband to support their child.

In other words, once again you've got the cart before the horse.

It is the existence of contraceptives and abortions that CAUSE unwanted kids to be born. People think they can just have sex whenever they like if only they have a pill and an abortion available.

Take both away and we'll see a return to much more responsible sexual behavior and therefore fewer unwanted kids.

Or people could follow your example and stick to masturbation, Seth.

[Robert_S]

If sex is a crime to you, then you got deeper issues than I'm qualified to address.