Posted by silentpadna on 4/27/2011 9:58:00 AM (view original):

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.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/27/2011 8:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 4/27/2011 9:58:00 AM (view original):

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.

I thought the debate was going nicely.

Can you explain what you think happened?

I am really curious as to where you think the old discussion was going and where it is now?

Posted by silentpadna on 4/28/2011 10:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/27/2011 8:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 4/27/2011 9:58:00 AM (view original):

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.

I thought the debate was going nicely.

Can you explain what you think happened?

I am really curious as to where you think the old discussion was going and where it is now?

Sure I'll tell you why I think that.  The crux of the original post lay in the title and the original thought:

-The GOP are "whackos" for holding the government to hostage over Planned Parenthood
-Feds don't fund abortions
-GOP shouldn't shut down Gov't due to that issue
-3% of PP is abortions

Counter arguments
-Fed funds indirectly fund abortion (though Medicaid block grants and affecting overhead for PP operations)
-Abortion is immoral (subtext debate within the thread),
-Funds comingle (not legally, but practically)
-3% not necessarily true due to counting means

Counter-counters
-Against the law to directly fund abortion
-Women's own body, etc.

More counters
-Business models show how influx of funds for on operation affect others, etc.

None of the stuff above is irrational (except IMO perhaps the implication with the term "whacko" and attaching that to legitimate concerns about issues).

Rabbit trails:

Attacks on swamp.  Swamp defends. Kyl's quotes discredited.  Someone else's quotes are worse than Kyl's.  These issues turn out to be more about you than the issue.  We go back to what the real % is, despite the fact that it's been demonstrated fairly clearly earlier in the thread.  Soon the discussion is completely away from where the merits were and more about how the media persecutes your positions and liberal poster persecute you and you engaging in defense against the attacks on you.  If you want to defend in every single thread, knock yourself out.  But when you do that, you keep bringing it on yourself and pushing the very ideas you want to espouse into the background.  Is that what you want to do?  It could be.  It also could be that your debate opponents want to make it about you too.  But when that happens the discussions go away.

Stick to proveable facts or reasonable opinions and don't engage in the rest.  The rabbit trails are a waste of time and get people off of the salient points of the debate(s).

Let's for a moment get off the subject of fetal rights and back to the topic suggested by the thread title.

Measure would impact infant feeding program to target Planned Parenthood

Among the headlines, one doesn't ever expect to read in the local newspaper: "Lawmakers take food out of the mouths of babies."

Unbelievably, something like that occurred last week in the Oklahoma House. Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie, moved to amend a senior nutrition bill so that it prohibits independent contractors from distributing federal funds for a program that feeds mothers, babies and small children.

Why would Murphey do such a thing? Because Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma, based in Tulsa, is among the nine independent contractors that administer the federal Women, Infants and Children feeding program.

Debate over the amendment made it clear Planned Parenthood was the target, observers say. Planned Parenthood has become a favorite target of the right wing lately over the abortion issue, even though Planned Parenthood in Tulsa doesn't perform abortions.

Murphey may not have known that. And apparently he and the other House members who approved the amendment also didn't know they were cutting off eight other contractors. The measure also prohibits Margaret Hudson and Morton Health Services in Tulsa from participating in the WIC program. In Oklahoma City, six independent contractors were knocked off the WIC list by the amendment.

And how many women and children do these independent contractors serve? In the case of Planned Parenthood, the agency provides more than 42,000 caseload contacts a year - a figure representing about 9,300 unduplicated individuals. Collectively, the three Tulsa sites serve almost 16,000 individuals through about 76,000 site visits a year.

*******************************************

I think this counts as at least anecdotal evidence of a GOP obsession with Planned Parenthood...

Senate panel cuts Planned Parenthood from health program

A Senate subcommittee has voted to ban Planned Parenthood from participating in a health program that focuses on family planning and disease screening for low-income Texas women.

The bill by Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, includes a poison pill that would scrap the Women’s Health Program — credited with saving lives as well as Medicaid money — if Planned Parenthood or another abortion provider successfully sues to overturn the ban.

The language banning abortion providers from participating in the program “was the only way I could get this through the House, quite frankly,” Deuell said. “My goal was to stay with the program and not take it away from nonabortion providers.”

But Planned Parenthood called the move shortsighted, noting that its clinics offer birth control counseling, breast and cervical cancer screening and other services to 40,000 of the program’s 90,000 participants.

Daniels Faces Defining Decision On Abortion Bill

The legislation would introduce some of the nation's strictest anti-abortion laws to the Hoosier State, including a provision that outlaws abortions performed after the fetus reaches 20 weeks -- four weeks earlier than under current state law. Indiana would join Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma as the only states that outlaw abortions after 20 weeks.

A potential sticking point for Daniels, however, is the recent inclusion of a provision that cuts off funding for Planned Parenthood, the non-profit agency that provides reproductive health services to millions of women, including many of the state's Medicaid patients. Roughly half of Indiana births are covered by Medicaid, and Planned Parenthood's 28 state offices performed more than 5,500 abortions last year alone. Here's where it gets tricky for Daniels: due to federal statutes that prohibit states from selectively allocating funds to agencies that serve Medicaid recipients, the measure could cost Indiana millions of federal Medicaid dollars if it becomes law.

Posted by antonsirius on 4/30/2011 12:26:00 AM (view original):
Lest you think this is only taking place in cowboy country:

Daniels Faces Defining Decision On Abortion Bill

The Indiana House of Representatives voted 66-32 on Wednesday to approve a controversial bill tightening the state's abortion restrictions and cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood, which now awaits the signature of Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), a potential presidential candidate who has yet to comment publicly on the politically sensitive legislation.

...

The legislation would introduce some of the nation's strictest anti-abortion laws to the Hoosier State, including a provision that outlaws abortions performed after the fetus reaches 20 weeks -- four weeks earlier than under current state law. Indiana would join Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma as the only states that outlaw abortions after 20 weeks.

A potential sticking point for Daniels, however, is the recent inclusion of a provision that cuts off funding for Planned Parenthood, the non-profit agency that provides reproductive health services to millions of women, including many of the state's Medicaid patients. Roughly half of Indiana births are covered by Medicaid, and Planned Parenthood's 28 state offices performed more than 5,500 abortions last year alone. Here's where it gets tricky for Daniels: due to federal statutes that prohibit states from selectively allocating funds to agencies that serve Medicaid recipients, the measure could cost Indiana millions of federal Medicaid dollars if it becomes law.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/30/2011 6:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 4/30/2011 12:26:00 AM (view original):
Lest you think this is only taking place in cowboy country:

Daniels Faces Defining Decision On Abortion Bill

The Indiana House of Representatives voted 66-32 on Wednesday to approve a controversial bill tightening the state's abortion restrictions and cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood, which now awaits the signature of Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), a potential presidential candidate who has yet to comment publicly on the politically sensitive legislation.

...

The legislation would introduce some of the nation's strictest anti-abortion laws to the Hoosier State, including a provision that outlaws abortions performed after the fetus reaches 20 weeks -- four weeks earlier than under current state law. Indiana would join Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma as the only states that outlaw abortions after 20 weeks.

A potential sticking point for Daniels, however, is the recent inclusion of a provision that cuts off funding for Planned Parenthood, the non-profit agency that provides reproductive health services to millions of women, including many of the state's Medicaid patients. Roughly half of Indiana births are covered by Medicaid, and Planned Parenthood's 28 state offices performed more than 5,500 abortions last year alone. Here's where it gets tricky for Daniels: due to federal statutes that prohibit states from selectively allocating funds to agencies that serve Medicaid recipients, the measure could cost Indiana millions of federal Medicaid dollars if it becomes law.

So the Federal Government is telling the states that if through the Democratic process their citizens choose to limit Federal Support for Abortion providers the feds will cut their funding?

Isnt this exactly what we have been saying?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Angry little turd!!!!!!!!!