Posted by genghisxcon on 4/13/2011 12:14:00 AM (view original):

swamphawk makes sense.*









* not intended to be a factual statement

This.

I realize that the left needs to keep the sacred Cow of Abortion alive. Like Racism it helps keep people voting Democratic who might not toherwise do so.

Just so we're clear: all the single-issue abortion voters are on the right, but it's the left that needs to keep abortion alive for electoral purposes.

**** off, liar.

What most of you seem to fail to realize is that anti-abortion folk are sickened by the fact that non-medical emergency abortions are performed.  Sickened.  Who the hell are you to say "Well, they just need to get over it and deal"?    Federal funds are given to PP.   The anti-abortion people pay taxes to the federal government.  Although ted thinks, thru some magical voodoo accounting, that none of that tax money goes to abortions, it does.  3% of it(if that's a correct number).   Just like you arguing that we need to cut defense spending by getting the hell out of the Middle East, they can argue that funding a program that provides abortions can be cut.

What, exactly, is the difference?    Sounds like you're the narrow-minded individuals.

And, for those who are forgetful, I'm pro-choice.  I don't care one bit about Planned Parenthood.  In fact, I think the government should FORCE abortions on some people.   I'd fund as much of that program as I could by myself.

May I assume those forced abortions are for those women who could not afford to support their child?

That's a reasonable assumption.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/12/2011 11:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tedco on 4/12/2011 7:36:00 PM (view original):
Abortions count for about 3% of everything they do. Even if you're pro-life, an objective look at what they do would show that the "good" would far outweigh the "bad".

PP prevents unwanted pregnancies. And provides women's health to low income populations that have no other options. THAT is what is important about the organization, not the small number of abortions that they perform.

That 3% number isnt really valid. Abortions are a main part of their business.

PP is the largest single abortion provider in America. They performed over 324,000 abortions last year. If you figure that times the avarage cost of an abortion you get about 15% of PPs total budget.

Remember this isnt part of the government. This is an independent orginization. We fund about 1/3 of their budget,

There are people that would like to see other things done with that money.

And "other things" are done with that money - women's health exams and birth control primarily.

None of the federal money goes to abortions.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/13/2011 3:54:00 AM (view original):
I realize that the left needs to keep the sacred Cow of Abortion alive. Like Racism it helps keep people voting Democratic who might not toherwise do so.

And when you say things like this you only ensure that you have zero credibility in an objective discussion on the issue.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2011 8:38:00 AM (view original):
What most of you seem to fail to realize is that anti-abortion folk are sickened by the fact that non-medical emergency abortions are performed.  Sickened.  Who the hell are you to say "Well, they just need to get over it and deal"?    Federal funds are given to PP.   The anti-abortion people pay taxes to the federal government.  Although ted thinks, thru some magical voodoo accounting, that none of that tax money goes to abortions, it does.  3% of it(if that's a correct number).   Just like you arguing that we need to cut defense spending by getting the hell out of the Middle East, they can argue that funding a program that provides abortions can be cut.

What, exactly, is the difference?    Sounds like you're the narrow-minded individuals.

There's nothing "voodoo" about it. It is against federal law to spend that money on abortions, so they don't.

And yes, they do need to just get over it. Abortion is legal, and people who are qualified to provide them can do so. Without federal money, as they already do.

You're stupid for believing that.  There's really nothing more to add.

Yeah, I think that people who depend on that money might actually follow the laws that regulate how they get it. That's just CRAZY, ain't it?

Hey, you are the one that thinks that organizations who receive federal funding treat it like lunch money from mommy and daddy. You said that yourself.

Now tell me, do you really expect anyone to take you seriously on the subject when you say things like that?

You're too stupid for me to care if you take me seriously.

A business needs funds to run itself.   I can say "I'll only use income from Customer A to pay rent" but, if Customer A had an off week/month and rent is due, I'll move some funds around by whatever means required to pay my rent.   It's just utterly stupid to believe that money received from the goverment doesn't fund, in part, PP abortions.   Stupid beyond belief.

So my argument is there are laws and regulations that must be followed to continue receiving funds.

Your argument is based on what you did with your lunch money or how you pay your rent...

'nuff said.

It's as if you have no understanding of cash flow.   Since you're stupid, that isn't surprising.

If 3% of PP's budget goes to abortions, 3% of government funding goes to abortions.