Right Wing GOP Has Been Promoting Abortions for 35 yrs

You said taxpayers didn't have to fund abortion. The taxes that fund Medicaid are mot optional or voluntary. Abortions for women on Medicaid are funded by taxpayers whether they like it or not.

 

Wrong. Taxes fund Medicaid which will pay for a woman's abortion.

 

We were discussing PP before you joined in......

 

Throughout this whole thread I maintained that the government defund Planned Parenthood. Someone asked me if all birth control services should be on the chopping block despite circumstances and I said yes. My position was even said to be evil. I acknowledged the government paying for birth control and am advocating that it stop.

 

If you are a female on Medicaid, you have kids on Medicaid. Taxpayers are funding your inability to take care of yourself and your offspring. If you are on Medicaid, you get food stamps too. You probably get other tax funded benefits. Aborting a baby is cost effective.
When you demand your government to take care of you and clean your mess up, you relinquish your choices and freedom. Inserting an IUD in all high rish teen girls would be economically beneficial.

 

This is the gun-to-the-head argument I addressed upthread. "Fund this abortion or fund the woman and kid indefinitely argument." The government should be doing neither.

 

Regarding evil, notions regarding morality are fluid, changing, culturally, and socially defined.
Moral rules are social norms, inconsistent, aleays evolving.

 

Well they are and it is unlikely to change anytime soon. Federal government has pervaded almost everything.
The interesting thing though is how quickly America is changing and how fast the global economy is shrinking. It will adapt or die.

 

There is no "fund the kid indefinitely" argument....just fund CHILDREN until they are 18. MOD EDIT - Rule 3
Maybe you could tell the country just what you DO approve of taxes being spent on??

 

Sell your computer or smart phone and turn your electricity off and use those funds for the starving in third world countries. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Texas found out the hard way that PP provides more than just abortions.

Their ideology-based idiocy cost them ALOT of money...

You're just continuing to spout complete nonsense. Teen pregnancies have plummeted since the 50s. Of course, naturally the red states lead the nation in teen pregnancies AND STDs... way to go abstinence-only education.

Again you ignore that less than 3% of the services provided by PP are related to abortions.

How much do you think a pregnancy including birth cost? Who do you think picks up the bill when the mother is indigent? Providing comprehensive sex education and contraceptives is infinitely more cost effective.

A unsubstantiated statement born out of ignorance.

Your whole premise rides on the idea that since abortion still exists, PP doesn't reduce abortions per capita. Unfortunately for you ideologues, reality shows otherwise.

Again, providing comprehensive sex education and easily available contraceptives DRAMATICALLY effects unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions.

 

Great post!

A good summation from your link that applies beyond Texas Republicans to all Republicans :

""" at the heart of all of these struggles over reproductive rights in Texas. Texas Republicans are deeply, obsessively worried that people, especially young people, aren’t abstaining from sex, and they really, really want them to. They can’t make them stop screwing, so they’re going to move to the next best option: make the consequences of sex as painful and hard to avoid as possible. That means cutting contraception funding, eliminating sex education, and, of course, making sure that, once young women are pregnant, there’s no safe way out of their dilemma. To satisfy their moralizing obsession with sex, everyone else will just have to suffer."""

 

There is no "supposedly" about it, federal funding is not used for elective abortions, it is used for some very specific types of abortion including rape, incest and life threats to the female . .so I ask you would you remove that funding for those reasons, would you let a female die simply because there is no funding?

Plenty of alternatives to PP, name them and then post the prices they charge.

There are people working who pay no tax and they still don't have enough . .what do you intend to do about them .. ignore them.

Which is exactly what PP does.

They could not cope with the numbers should federal funding be stopped, 15.1 percent of the US population live in poverty, that equates to 48,710,034 (48.7 million) people (population of US in 2014 = 322,583,006 (322.6 Million))

Number of people in poverty - http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/
US population - http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/

are you seriously suggesting that religious organizations could cope with 48.7 million people?

So you are suggesting that 48.7 million people live in poverty due to "individual decisions" are you?

What magic wand do you intend to wave in order for those 48.7 million people to suddenly have enough money to support themselves, because there are certainly not enough jobs, paying a wage good enough to live on .. in fact there are not enough jobs even to offer full employment to the people of working age regardless of the wage.

5.4 million jobs available as of 1st May 2015, with 8.3 million people unemployed

Job openings - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf
Unemployment - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Now let us for just one moment of fantasy suppose that full employment on a liveable wage could be achieved, how long do you think it would last for, probably no more than 5 years simply because organizations would increase the cost of their services etc because there is no way the share holders, executives etc are going to take a drop in their earnings, especially with the right-wingers fighting tooth and nail to stop any extra tax burdens on them, ergo in 5 years time the situation is going to be no different than it is now .. except it's going to cost more, what right-wingers are suggesting will do nothing but fuel inflation.

you cannot own another human being, belong means "the property of", children do not belong to their parents.

Really, I have never seen an advert for sex on TV in the US.. have you?

and I never said it would stop, what would happen is there would be a increase in illegal clinics run by criminals, is that what Americans want, to line the pockets of criminals and increase maternal mortality rates.

Of course they can, it is the policies they have passed that make getting an abortion more difficult, usually under the false impression that they are about the health and safety of the female.

Tell me how can PP be blamed when what they want to do in sex education and contraceptive coverage is blocked by GOP representatives?
How can PP be blamed when it is GOP representatives that place un-required restrictions on clinics aimed purely at shutting them down?

 

Taxes should be spent on things that all citizens have access to. This includes national security/wartime, infrastructure, national or high-level emergencies, civil services (e.g. police, fire-fighters), environment, trade, education & PSAs.

The article linked in this post is simply an anti-Christian hit piece. The so-called baby boom is a 'prediction' and not something that actually occurred. Fear-mongering at best. Moreover, Texas didn't lose money or have some ideology cost them money. What the article says is that they rejected the Medicaid funding.

The rest of the post can be addressed by bringing up bus tickets. Poor people can get on buses to go to other places to get birth control.

Yes, I would still remove the funding despite consequences. For women who would like abortion services, they can go to www.abortion.com, select a location and go from there. They'll find that PP is outnumbered in many states and in some states there are no PP locations, but still abortion providers. For women who have no money for birth control services, they need to be more careful.

The line about Christians not being able to cope if federal funding stopped is bogus. 48.7 million people don't need federal help for birth control. Defunding PP will have little impact because half of their income is from donations and fundraisers. Religious institutions would better serve the community. It would just be a matter of citizen oversight of tithes and outsiders not constantly attacking the services religious institutions provide. Also, members are likely to pressure one another to improve their own situation because of limited funds.

The rest about the poor is also bogus. If the government actually cared about the poor in this country, it would have reversed NAFTA and sealed the southern border. Having America's poor compete with third-worlders just shows that the poor, poor, poor talk is bogus.

 

All citizens have access to Welfare.

 

That is false. A citizen must meet certain criteria to get it, which makes it exclusionary. For all the other things I listed for taxes, pretty much any citizen can use/benefit from those services if they need/want.

 

They all have ACCESS to it IF they need it....

 

Thanks for proving the point that money is more important than lives to you.

Now post the prices they charge.

So you just want to restrict choice then.

Always about the woman being more careful, nothing about the men also being more careful. why am I not surprised.

My mistake, I assumed you meant all Federal funding based on the following comment - "No, it is not the place of government to bail out individual decisions." or do you think individual decisions are only taken about birth control and abortion?

It would have a huge impact .. 2.7 million people use PP's services, a removal of Federal funding would decimate the services (not including abortion) that they offer, and tell me where are those people going to go because if you de-fund PP then you would have to de-fund all the other organisations that offer the same or similar services that they do, or is it that you only want the organisations offering abortion to be de-funded?

Really, why should their federal funding be maintained after all you don't believe it is the "place of government to bail out individual decisions" or do religious institutions get a "free pass"

Will religious institutions offer unbiased birth control advice, or give away free contraception, or administer emergency contraception, will they source PAP tests?

What unbiased services do they provide, please do list them.

ergo "go get a job", "don't have sex" or in other words judgemental.

Now you are attempting to go off topic, what we are discussing has nothing to do with the above.

Are you suggesting that the "third-worlders" are being paid less than the minimum wage, if you are then that is the fault of the organizations that are breaking the law, not the government, add to that-that some Republicans are advocating getting rid of the minimum wage and how does that help the poor better themselves exactly?

 

Responses above

 

OR using vasgel on all males, would be more cost effective still. - http://www.newmalecontraception.org/vasalgel/

 

firstly can I ask that you respond to each item separately please.

nope, it is exactly what you stated in your reply to my question

Do you deny that a consequence of removing all federal funding would be women dying, if you reply yes then you are more concerned about money than lives, if you reply no then you are contradicting yourself.

The cost of those other options concerning abortion is a very relevant factor, unless of course you are happy to allow higher insurance coverage to cover any extra costs involved.

Just not the ones you disagree with ie PP

Hmm.. so are you then saying that men are not being careful of additional risk that comes with responsibility and freedom, are you implying the that the responsibility of men and women should be unequal?

Then why did you attempt to draw the issue down to birth control only, to dispute the 48.7 million people who would require help in the event of all federal funding being withdrawn?

Based on your above response my question requires a response;

So you are suggesting that 48.7 million people live in poverty due to "individual decisions" are you?

Again no reference to the cost involved of those other organizations and whether you would support increases in insurance payments to cover it.

Granted they offer those things which has nothing to do with the services PP offer, what religious organization will offer unbiased advice etc on those things .. what advice would they give to a 19 year old single women who is 10 weeks pregnant, would they offer her advice on all her options or just the ones that suit their ideology?

This is not in context of what we are discussing, we are discussing PP and the services they offer, so again what unbiased services do they provide please?

Except that is not the advice they hand out is it?

Who is blaming only Republicans, certainly not me, so your response means nothing when directed at me .. please read what I write, I said "and the reasons for that can be laid squarely at the feet of the right-wingers, republicans and religious people who stop the measures required to make abortion a rare event.

In fact they help to keep the abortion rate where it is. " - Do you think that all right-wingers and religious people are Republicans?

I thought you didn't want "Big" government?

I see, so you are ok with Americans being exploited, so long as there are no illegals around.

 

False Dichotomy. People can still fund their own birth control, get assistance through low cost health insurance, work with clinics that service no to low income women, work with charity organizations, secure resources another way, etc. When the government backs off, the world won't come to an immediate end.

Aside from rape, abortions are preventable scenarios.

If PP can't be self-sufficient like every other clinic, then it should close.

Men have absolutely no risks in having an abortion or carrying a baby. The risks for men are limited to STDs/STIs. In reproduction cases, the risk is solely on the women to mitigate.

48.7 million people don't need federal funding. They need to be able to secure resources for themselves and their families, which leads me to...

Nope. 48.7 people live in poverty because the government failed to secure the borders and have allowed too many jobs to go overseas. Undoing these would significantly reduce the amount of people in poverty.

I would let the insurance companies decide. Many insurance companies already have plans for low-income people. No need for government interference.

Give her/her family guidance and point them to the nearest clinic.

I'm not aware of any birth control services religious institutions provide, but fortunately they can always give family guidance and point the members of the community towards clinics that specialize in family planning.

They can help out with basic necessities charity while the clinics take care of the health needs.

The OP's title specifically calls out "Right Wing GOP" so that's why I mentioned them.

I don't. I don't see how national security equates to big government.

Nope. I prefer Americans not have to rely on the federal government to make ends meet, to provide sustenance, to be in every inch of their daily activities because they can't afford to be autonomous. Having Americans compete with other countries' poor people keeps the people here poor.

 

birth control is not the question, the question is would you allow a woman to die because there was no funding for her to have a life saving abortion.

You are assuming that all people will have insurance whether it is low cost or not
You are assuming that once PP is de funded that other organisations will not be targeted.
You are assuming that charity organizations will help in abortion situations
You are assuming that resources can be secured in other ways

I never said it would.

Yet you would still remove funding for abortions due to rape?

Yes they are preventable via comprehensive sex education and free at source contraception, including the most reliable ones, as has been proven by numerous studies

Same goes for religious organisations, colleges and any other organisation receiving federal funding then.

and yet you want men to have a say in whether abortion is legal or not, if it is solely the woman's risk what right do men have to have a say?

how?

Poverty has been an issue in the US since it was formed, are you suggesting that-that is purely down to the government failing to secure the borders and jobs going over seas .. explain exactly how the government can stop a company moving its manufacturing base to another country please. How does that stack up against keeping the government out of peoples lives?

So you are ok with your insurance company increasing your payments in order to subsidize insurance for low-income people?

Except of course they don't do that, CPC's (Crisis Pregnancy Centres) which are federal funded and primarily religious organizations have been found out in the biased, un-scientific and misleading advice they give. - http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2...nters-exposes-moral-rot-anti-choice-movement/

See above

doesn't answer the question.

But you are corresponding with me and not the OP author.

How is illegal immigration a national security issue?

you just advocated for the removal of the minimum wage, under the condition of all illegals being removed, how does giving businesses the right to pay as little as they want help Americas poor people?

 

Yes, why wouldn't I allow a woman to die. People die all the time from much less.

You gave me an either or choice. My response was my recognition of the question being an over exaggeration of the "If PP won't get funded, women will die type insinuation."

Yes I would remove the funding.

PP is not the only provider in reproductive health.

None of these should be propped up.

No, I don't and men should not have a say. They're not risking their own bodies so...

How people secure resources is through work, savings, etc.

Poverty is largely due to government mismanagement and need to keep up with materialistic lifestyles. The current issues we have is the same government failure, but manifested from a failure to keep its citizens from competing with slave-wage earners. Government involvment in keeping outsiders out has nothing to do with getting involved in people's everyday lives. It is the duty of government to protect its citizens from economic harm.

No.

Hit piece.

You mentioned right wing and religous in a "Right Wing GOP" thread though.

People who are inside the U.S. here illegally vie with citizens for jobs and resources. The results as we see present day are half the people live in poverty.

They can demand more because those [illegal workers] who would work for lower wages won't be available for businesses to pass over the citizens for.

 

Or we could sterilize.