RE: President Trump privately signs anti-Planned Parenthood law
Hers the difference Blah. If someone wants to have a child I would be right there fighting tooth and nail for that right. It's when we force someone to have a child that they don't clearly want. Think about that. Let's say it's a child with drastic needs like my daughter. She came from a two parent family surrounded by a well funded community that loved her. It's s tremendous difference. What if you had a single parent already with two kids. She already can't afford the two kids she has now and becomes pregnant with a special needs child. Every single one in that scenario is now worse off. Love is absolutely the most important thing in that scenario. You force people to have children they will grow up unloved. The worst possible upbringing I can think of. And yes that is much much much worse than not being born at all.
(This post was last modified: 04-15-2017 06:57 PM by Machiavelli.)
04-15-2017 06:55 PM
Machiavelli
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
RE: President Trump privately signs anti-Planned Parenthood law
Here's the problem with those of you that think you know better than the parents having the kid. Kyra wasn't the first child that I buried. My first child had the EXACT same disorder. Autosomal recessive. 1 out of 4 kids that I have would be effected. That is the difference and it's huge. I had a CHOICE. You don't think that calculus went threw my head. Do we abort knowing the pain that is ahead? We decided to give it our best. No regrets. (Actually I have a lot and I have continual nightmares and her birthday was yesterday). Think about her every single day. I have danced with demons. Now imagine a scenario where it is forced upon you. Your accountant wife quits her high 5 figure job. She's now a shell of her former self but you carry on because you had a choice. You guys don't know what you think you know.
RE: President Trump privately signs anti-Planned Parenthood law
(04-15-2017 06:55 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: Hers the difference Blah. If someone wants to have a child I would be right there fighting tooth and nail for that right. It's when we force someone to have a child that they don't clearly want. Think about that. Let's say it's a child with drastic needs like my daughter. She came from a two parent family surrounded by a well funded community that loved her. It's s tremendous difference. What if you had a single parent already with two kids. She already can't afford the two kids she has now and becomes pregnant with a special needs child. Every single one in that scenario is now worse off. Love is absolutely the most important thing in that scenario. You force people to have children they will grow up unloved. The worst possible upbringing I can think of. And yes that is much much much worse than not being born at all.
Mach, I'd be lying if I said I don't see any point to what you are saying.... But at the end of the day a baby, is a baby, is a baby.
The kid conceived when a single mother was raped is no lesser a being than kids conceived in love.
And a child born with only 4 years to live is no less a human than a kid who will see the next century.
RE: President Trump privately signs anti-Planned Parenthood law
(04-15-2017 07:07 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: Here's the problem with those of you that think you know better than the parents having the kid. Kyra wasn't the first child that I buried. My first child had the EXACT same disorder. Autosomal recessive. 1 out of 4 kids that I have would be effected. That is the difference and it's huge. I had a CHOICE. You don't think that calculus went threw my head. Do we abort knowing the pain that is ahead? We decided to give it our best. No regrets. (Actually I have a lot and I have continual nightmares and her birthday was yesterday). Think about her every single day. I have danced with demons. Now imagine a scenario where it is forced upon you. Your accountant wife quits her high 5 figure job. She's now a shell of her former self but you carry on because you had a choice. You guys don't know what you think you know.
I'm not talking about the parents. I'm talking about the child. With a 25% chance of your child having a terrible condition, you still chose to have that child. Is there a 25% chance that the child that a single mom decides she doesn't want turns out to be a valuable part of society. Doesn't everyone deserve this opportunity? Why would you fight so hard for someone who clearly was never going to make it, but you have no problem discarding someone that might? If there was anyone in this world that I would think would be against abortion, it would be you, but you aren't and that boggles my mind.
RE: President Trump privately signs anti-Planned Parenthood law
(04-15-2017 07:08 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:
(04-15-2017 03:19 PM)blah Wrote:
(04-13-2017 02:14 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: Terrible. Just what we need is more kids flooding social services. Morons.
If you could go back and abort your daughter who struggled so mightily, for a vast majority of her life, would you?
Doesn't everyone deserve a chance? Even if it isn't the most desirable situation?
Dude..... why would you even go there.
Because I can't believe that someone that would fight so hard for his dying daughter would so flippantly deny an unborn child the opportunity to live. It seems so paradoxical to me.
RE: President Trump privately signs anti-Planned Parenthood law
(04-15-2017 06:55 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: Hers the difference Blah. If someone wants to have a child I would be right there fighting tooth and nail for that right. It's when we force someone to have a child that they don't clearly want. Think about that. Let's say it's a child with drastic needs like my daughter. She came from a two parent family surrounded by a well funded community that loved her. It's s tremendous difference. What if you had a single parent already with two kids. She already can't afford the two kids she has now and becomes pregnant with a special needs child. Every single one in that scenario is now worse off. Love is absolutely the most important thing in that scenario. You force people to have children they will grow up unloved. The worst possible upbringing I can think of. And yes that is much much much worse than not being born at all.
what if the single mom used birth control? what if she wasn't having sex out of wedlock? what if the baby ends up curing cancer?
RE: President Trump privately signs anti-Planned Parenthood law
(04-15-2017 04:40 PM)Kronke Wrote:
(04-15-2017 03:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:
(04-14-2017 03:43 PM)Rob Wrote: No, the 3% number they throw out is what you're talking about. About 1/10 patients they serve are for abortions.
No, he's right.
Bingo
That's literally what I just said... I said the 3% number is the one that he was talking about that isn't correct, and about 1/10 women that PP serves get abortions.
RE: President Trump privately signs anti-Planned Parenthood law
(04-16-2017 12:14 AM)Rob Wrote:
(04-15-2017 04:40 PM)Kronke Wrote:
(04-15-2017 03:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:
(04-14-2017 03:43 PM)Rob Wrote: No, the 3% number they throw out is what you're talking about. About 1/10 patients they serve are for abortions.
No, he's right.
Bingo
That's literally what I just said... I said the 3% number is the one that he was talking about that isn't correct, and about 1/10 women that PP serves get abortions.
The 1/10 argument is flawed for obvious reasons.
Only 1/10 new cars explodes after purchase?
Only 1/10 customer pays 99% of our operating costs.
RE: President Trump privately signs anti-Planned Parenthood law
(04-14-2017 08:33 PM)Rob Wrote:
(04-14-2017 04:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:
(04-14-2017 03:43 PM)Rob Wrote: No, the 3% number they throw out is what you're talking about. About 1/10 patients they serve are for abortions.
If PP weren't trying to make a point they would separate the two operations.
Why do you think they choose not to?
Because the law doesn't require them to. If you think they should, I won't argue against that because it would ensure that no tax $ is used for abortion. Let's be honest, Republicans aren't doing this because of tax $, they're doing it to undermine abortion because they don't think it's right. Theses fights would still be happening no matter what PP did because they carry out abortions.
That's a silly response Rob. They don't do something that would remove them from a controversy because the law doesn't require them to?
Why wouldn't they make a VERY simple decision that would (as you note) remove the 'public' interest in their funding and eliminate the risk to their funding? Why would they CHOOSE to remain in the middle of a controversy that they could so easily distance themselves from? FORGET whether they are required to or not... why would they not CHOOSE to?
Sure, Republicans don't force them to under the laws because forcing them to do so would take away THEIR power over PP....
But why don't they choose to themselves?
Perhaps because it would expose the fact that 97% of their 'funding' (the public funds) is for things for which they don't need to solicit donations for or lobby the government for... which would expose them as perhaps the most inefficient large 'charity' in the history of the country?
I'm in favor of choice and I am certainly in favor of people being able to donate to fund them... and I think PP does a lot of good.... but the fact that they won't do this simple thing (i think) exposes a dirty underlying issue that I don't support.
(This post was last modified: 04-17-2017 01:35 PM by Hambone10.)
RE: President Trump privately signs anti-Planned Parenthood law
(04-17-2017 01:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:
(04-14-2017 08:33 PM)Rob Wrote:
(04-14-2017 04:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:
(04-14-2017 03:43 PM)Rob Wrote: No, the 3% number they throw out is what you're talking about. About 1/10 patients they serve are for abortions.
If PP weren't trying to make a point they would separate the two operations.
Why do you think they choose not to?
Because the law doesn't require them to. If you think they should, I won't argue against that because it would ensure that no tax $ is used for abortion. Let's be honest, Republicans aren't doing this because of tax $, they're doing it to undermine abortion because they don't think it's right. Theses fights would still be happening no matter what PP did because they carry out abortions.
That's a silly response Rob. They don't do something that would remove them from a controversy because the law doesn't require them to?
Why wouldn't they make a VERY simple decision that would (as you note) remove the 'public' interest in their funding and eliminate the risk to their funding? Why would they CHOOSE to remain in the middle of a controversy that they could so easily distance themselves from? FORGET whether they are required to or not... why would they not CHOOSE to?
Sure, Republicans don't force them to under the laws because forcing them to do so would take away THEIR power over PP....
But why don't they choose to themselves?
Perhaps because it would expose the fact that 97% of their 'funding' (the public funds) is for things for which they don't need to solicit donations for or lobby the government for... which would expose them as perhaps the most inefficient large 'charity' in the history of the country?
I'm in favor of choice and I am certainly in favor of people being able to donate to fund them... and I think PP does a lot of good.... but the fact that they won't do this simple thing (i think) exposes a dirty underlying issue that I don't support.
What's silly is to think that this would satisfy Republicans.
RE: President Trump privately signs anti-Planned Parenthood law
(04-17-2017 02:06 PM)Rob Wrote: What's silly is to think that this would satisfy Republicans.
Who said anything about that? You think the left gives a damn about satisfying 'them'?
What I see is you refusing to admit that the simplest answer for PP is to separate the operations and then any time anyone says anything about it... simply point to the fact that the entire entity is 100% funded by private donations instead of having to have a CPA designation in order to tell.
The entity that gets public funds could say without reservation that they do not provide abortion services of any kind... period. The other side could say... no public funds for ANY (even shared) operations. End of discussion. the Christian right would now be left arguing that donations to an entity that funds abortions shouldn't be tax deductible... and almost nobody would support that (for fear of losing their own deduction)
You act like Republicans are all 'Christians'. The fact is that over 70% of them support abortion rights in much the same way as most of the left does.
Eliminate the target and isolate 'the Christian right' who is engaging in a moral debate, not a financial one.
RE: President Trump privately signs anti-Planned Parenthood law
(04-14-2017 08:33 PM)Rob Wrote:
(04-14-2017 04:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:
(04-14-2017 03:43 PM)Rob Wrote: No, the 3% number they throw out is what you're talking about. About 1/10 patients they serve are for abortions.
If PP weren't trying to make a point they would separate the two operations.
Why do you think they choose not to?
Because the law doesn't require them to. If you think they should, I won't argue against that because it would ensure that no tax $ is used for abortion. Let's be honest, Republicans aren't doing this because of tax $, they're doing it to undermine abortion because they don't think it's right. Theses fights would still be happening no matter what PP did because they carry out abortions.
Your first sentence is a bit concerning.
That idea runs contrary to how entities work.
I don't think anybody has ever fought for the idea of changing laws in every state to require the separation of interests into separate entities. I know that I have not.
The simple fact remains that PP purposely keeps these operations under umbrella for their own purposes. They want you to conflate breast screenings with abortions.
If PP cared about things other than abortion they would simply reorganize.
(This post was last modified: 04-17-2017 03:28 PM by HeartOfDixie.)
RE: President Trump privately signs anti-Planned Parenthood law
(04-17-2017 03:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:
(04-17-2017 02:06 PM)Rob Wrote: What's silly is to think that this would satisfy Republicans.
Who said anything about that? You think the left gives a damn about satisfying 'them'?
What I see is you refusing to admit that the simplest answer for PP is to separate the operations and then any time anyone says anything about it... simply point to the fact that the entire entity is 100% funded by private donations instead of having to have a CPA designation in order to tell.
The entity that gets public funds could say without reservation that they do not provide abortion services of any kind... period. The other side could say... no public funds for ANY (even shared) operations. End of discussion. the Christian right would now be left arguing that donations to an entity that funds abortions shouldn't be tax deductible... and almost nobody would support that (for fear of losing their own deduction)
You act like Republicans are all 'Christians'. The fact is that over 70% of them support abortion rights in much the same way as most of the left does.
Eliminate the target and isolate 'the Christian right' who is engaging in a moral debate, not a financial one.
There are like 10 of you crusading over the financial stuff. This is just a tactic for Republicans to eat away at something they don't like. I never said anything about the left so I don't know why you brought them up. Republicans are the ones at war with abortion. This whole thing stinks, anyway, because the people whining about this stuff keep voting for big government Republicans. They act like they're being patriots about the budget when it comes to stuff like this, yet watch as we continue to pile on debt and increase the budget again. It's all a show.
RE: President Trump privately signs anti-Planned Parenthood law
(04-17-2017 03:26 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:
(04-14-2017 08:33 PM)Rob Wrote:
(04-14-2017 04:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:
(04-14-2017 03:43 PM)Rob Wrote: No, the 3% number they throw out is what you're talking about. About 1/10 patients they serve are for abortions.
If PP weren't trying to make a point they would separate the two operations.
Why do you think they choose not to?
Because the law doesn't require them to. If you think they should, I won't argue against that because it would ensure that no tax $ is used for abortion. Let's be honest, Republicans aren't doing this because of tax $, they're doing it to undermine abortion because they don't think it's right. Theses fights would still be happening no matter what PP did because they carry out abortions.
Your first sentence is a bit concerning.
That idea runs contrary to how entities work.
I don't think anybody has ever fought for the idea of changing laws in every state to require the separation of interests into separate entities. I know that I have not.
The simple fact remains that PP purposely keeps these operations under umbrella for their own purposes. They want you to conflate breast screenings with abortions.
If PP cared about things other than abortion they would simply reorganize.
This is just a way for y'all to undermine abortion, nothing else. If it wasn't this, it would be something else.
RE: President Trump privately signs anti-Planned Parenthood law
(04-17-2017 09:59 PM)Rob Wrote:
(04-17-2017 03:26 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:
(04-14-2017 08:33 PM)Rob Wrote:
(04-14-2017 04:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:
(04-14-2017 03:43 PM)Rob Wrote: No, the 3% number they throw out is what you're talking about. About 1/10 patients they serve are for abortions.
If PP weren't trying to make a point they would separate the two operations.
Why do you think they choose not to?
Because the law doesn't require them to. If you think they should, I won't argue against that because it would ensure that no tax $ is used for abortion. Let's be honest, Republicans aren't doing this because of tax $, they're doing it to undermine abortion because they don't think it's right. Theses fights would still be happening no matter what PP did because they carry out abortions.
Your first sentence is a bit concerning.
That idea runs contrary to how entities work.
I don't think anybody has ever fought for the idea of changing laws in every state to require the separation of interests into separate entities. I know that I have not.
The simple fact remains that PP purposely keeps these operations under umbrella for their own purposes. They want you to conflate breast screenings with abortions.
If PP cared about things other than abortion they would simply reorganize.
This is just a way for y'all to undermine abortion, nothing else. If it wasn't this, it would be something else.
I'm glad you are here to tell people what they are actually doing/thinking.
RE: President Trump privately signs anti-Planned Parenthood law
Republicans have been undermining abortion for a while now. You really think most people are doing this because they believe it's publicly funded? I doubt you do.