GOP psychos obsessed with Planned Parenthood Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by tedco on 4/26/2011 10:13:00 AM (view original):
That would only make sense if there were as many abortions as there were condoms.


35% vs 3%.   Do the math.
4/26/2011 10:27 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by antonsirius on 4/26/2011 10:26:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/26/2011 10:08:00 AM (view original):
Sure.  More money goes to abortions than contraception. 
On a per transaction basis, sure. Thanks for contributing.
35% vs, 3%.   Do the math.
4/26/2011 10:28 AM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect

No, 10%. The math is on the previous page.

Insert 'MikeT reading comprehension fail' joke here.

4/26/2011 10:29 AM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
I anxiously await Mike's explanation of how Christianity Today's pro-life sources for that 10% figure have a vested interest in minimizing how important abortions are to PP's bottom line.
4/26/2011 10:31 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Sorry, the graph shows 35% contraception, 3% abortion.   Didn't you post that graph?

You'll be waiting awhile for me to explain anything Christianity Today claims.  Couldn't care less about their figures.
4/26/2011 11:02 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
FWIW, I didn't realize we were discussing revenue sources for PP.  I thought we were still discussing related costs.  An abortion costs more than a pack of condoms.  I thought I'd already said that.
4/26/2011 11:03 AM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
I do not really care if you found some source that says 10%.

The do 400,000 abortions at about $400 per.

So as a percentage of money they receive from clients that is about 25% of total income.
4/26/2011 5:44 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
So then I anxiously await your explanation of how Christianity Today's pro-life sources for that 10% figure have a vested interest in minimizing how important abortions are to PP's bottom line.
4/26/2011 6:14 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
They are probably giving PP the benefit of the doubt. I have no interest in treating them fairly.

If 90% is one of the greatest lies ever, this was discussed on a recent episode of Bill Mahers political discussion show, then 3% is twice as bad!
4/26/2011 7:15 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
In other words, you have nothing. As usual.
4/26/2011 7:31 PM
genghisxcon
Posts: 5894 (0)
Hall of Famer
177 11
Prospect
"I have no interest in treating them fairly."
4/26/2011 7:36 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
I do hope the next First Lady tackles innumeracy instead of obesity in 2016. 
4/26/2011 9:10 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by genghisxcon on 4/26/2011 7:36:00 PM (view original):
"I have no interest in treating them fairly."
I should have said I wil be as fair to PP as the left was to John Kyl!
4/27/2011 12:28 AM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by antonsirius on 4/26/2011 9:10:00 PM (view original):
I do hope the next First Lady tackles innumeracy instead of obesity in 2016. 
I hope she tackles something that she doesnt support a massive government program to fix!
4/27/2011 12:29 AM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect

swamp, at one time this discussion was dealing with the merits of arguments.  You're doing nothing to keep it on course. 

AS, at some point I'll reengage on the morals and rights issue when I have some time, but for now I don't want to get into the current rabbit trail other than to say that the 3% number, while technically true, is misleading - as pointed out earlier.  The 15% number is probably more realistic.  As to Kyl, well his comment was pretty dumb, and it really doesn't represent the views of most pro-lifers who stand on the merits of their arguments (whether one agress with their merits or not). 

There are elements on each side of the debate who don't know why they stand on that side and cannot form coherent arguments in either direction.  That's why most discussions degenerate into name-calling and/or diversions into different issues.  You can't point to me and say Kyl represents my position any more than I can point to the Princeton professor (I forgot his name) who believes you can kill an infant up to certain cognitive age and assign his position to you.

So yeah, at some point, I'll engage again, but I'll leave the name calling and irrelevant diversions alone.

4/27/2011 9:58 AM
◂ Prev 1...18|19|20|21|22...27 Next ▸
GOP psychos obsessed with Planned Parenthood Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.