Texsox Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 I would be really uncormfortable telling poor people they should not reproduce or that if they are pregnant, they should consider an abortion. Seems like it creates two classes of babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 I feel uncomfortable running a nation where we'll put our heads in the sands and act like people don't have sex out of marriage, and just forcing young, uneducated women (uneducated in the 'what is happening to my body and what should I do' sense) be forced into the shadows. If you've never been to planned parenthood, please shut up about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 9, 2011 Author Share Posted April 9, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 9, 2011 -> 06:22 AM) I would be really uncormfortable telling poor people they should not reproduce or that if they are pregnant, they should consider an abortion. Seems like it creates two classes of babies. Those who live in the District of Columbia and those who don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 So bmags you do believe that poor people should have abortions because they can't afford their children? I believe poor people should have the same choices that every other person has. The right to have children. Suggesting that it is an advantage to society that poor mothers have abortion while wealthier people have their children makes me uncomfortable. I am not uncomfortable with Planned Parenthood, their annual shrimp boil fundraiser is actually a nice event that I have supported several times. But supporting choice, IMNSHO is also supporting the choice to have children, not just the choice to abort their baby. Again, suggesting somehow that poor women should abort for financial reasons makes me uncomfortable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 And I have been to planned parenthood, so I guess I can talk. They have a very nice building here, about five or six years old. Built just for them. Also, they have some wonderful, dedicated, people working there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 raising the debt ceiling fight will be even better than this past one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 This is just f***ing funny to me. They are arguing about 30 billion in the context of a trillion and then these losers are beating their chests like they actually accomplished something. Talking about the budget there's 4 parts, revenue, entitlements, defense, and discretionary. They didn't touch three of those four and who knows if they ever will. Anyone who is unwilling to talk about ALL FOUR cannot and should not be taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 So bmags you do believe that poor people should have abortions because they can't afford their children? I believe poor people should have the same choices that every other person has. I cant speak for Bmags, but my position is that definitely anyone who wants to have children can have them. Buy my position is also that anyone who wants an abortion can have one as well. My point was about people who want to remove the choice of abortions from underprivileged people while at the same time not wanting to pay more taxes to support the children that they are forcing people to have. I personally have not seen anyone suggesting that underprivileged people must have abortions, just that they should have the same choices as me, that they can have an abortion if they choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 10, 2011 -> 03:12 PM) I cant speak for Bmags, but my position is that definitely anyone who wants to have children can have them. Buy my position is also that anyone who wants an abortion can have one as well. My point was about people who want to remove the choice of abortions from underprivileged people while at the same time not wanting to pay more taxes to support the children that they are forcing people to have. I personally have not seen anyone suggesting that underprivileged people must have abortions, just that they should have the same choices as me, that they can have an abortion if they choose. Isn't it just removing some funding for abortions? How much is the missing subsidy? like $100 per abortion? times are tough and the abortion subsidy was something that was in the budget cuts. personally, i think there should be way more cuts. Defense cuts, close tax loop holes, medicare cuts, medicaid cuts, ect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 9, 2011 -> 09:09 PM) So bmags you do believe that poor people should have abortions because they can't afford their children? Nowhere stated. Nowhere. PP isn't just abortions as stated a billion times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Was this in response to my post immediately above it? I said I was uncomfortable telling poor women to have abortions because they are on public aid. I thought this was in response to that post. So who should shut up about it? I'm confused. QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 9, 2011 -> 10:45 AM) I feel uncomfortable running a nation where we'll put our heads in the sands and act like people don't have sex out of marriage, and just forcing young, uneducated women (uneducated in the 'what is happening to my body and what should I do' sense) be forced into the shadows. If you've never been to planned parenthood, please shut up about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 10, 2011 -> 06:59 PM) Isn't it just removing some funding for abortions? How much is the missing subsidy? like $100 per abortion? Which part? The "Closing Planned Parenthood" part? That would remove $0 funding towards abortions and billions of dollars towards other women's health issues. Costs that would of course wind up being paid 10 times over when those same women wind up at the hospital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 07:37 AM) Which part? The "Closing Planned Parenthood" part? That would remove $0 funding towards abortions and billions of dollars towards other women's health issues. Costs that would of course wind up being paid 10 times over when those same women wind up at the hospital. So you believe that given the choice of funding abortions or other women's health issues, PP will choose to find abortions with their available funding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 01:38 PM) So you believe that given the choice of funding abortions or other women's health issues, PP will choose to find abortions with their available funding? I think if you banned them from raising private funds for that medical procedure then they'd have to shut down completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 12:40 PM) I think if you banned them from raising private funds for that medical procedure then they'd have to shut down completely. That basically confirms the GOP pov that PP has abortions as their primary focus and not woman's health education and prevention. That the public money allows them to provide abortions by allowing them to channel their private money away from education and prevention over to abortions. I know that isn't the message that PP sends out, but you are probably correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 01:46 PM) That basically confirms the GOP pov that PP has abortions as their primary focus and not woman's health education and prevention. That the public money allows them to provide abortions by allowing them to channel their private money away from education and prevention over to abortions. I know that isn't the message that PP sends out, but you are probably correct. You missed the underlying point. Under what law does the government have the right to tell a private organization that it can't raise private funds to perform a fully legal medical procedure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 07:37 AM) Which part? The "Closing Planned Parenthood" part? That would remove $0 funding towards abortions and billions of dollars towards other women's health issues. Costs that would of course wind up being paid 10 times over when those same women wind up at the hospital. they can only get health care at planned parenthood? that's weird. honestly, you will get more people on your side without the exaggerations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 06:16 PM) they can only get health care at planned parenthood? that's weird. honestly, you will get more people on your side without the exaggerations. Well, they could also get health care through the newly enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 once that is mostly in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 05:17 PM) Well, they could also get health care through the newly enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 once that is mostly in place. sounds affordable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 06:20 PM) sounds affordable Compared to what happens now (Planned Parenthood) or what happens with neither (no prenatal/preventative care and hospitalizations when things go wrong), yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 05:33 PM) Compared to what happens now (Planned Parenthood) or what happens with neither (no prenatal/preventative care and hospitalizations when things go wrong), yes. affordable like medicare and medicaid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 06:40 PM) affordable like medicare and medicaid? Compared to the private market, yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 06:18 PM) Compared to the private market, yeah. for the person on the program. not so much for everyone else (taxpayer). all health care in the US is just overpriced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 07:23 PM) for the person on the program. not so much for everyone else (taxpayer). all health care in the US is just overpriced. Actually, since the taxpayer also winds up on Medicare eventually, it's quite a bit of savings for the taxpayer...the taxpayer is able to get Health Care after age 65, which prior to Medicare, was only happening for a sliver of the population. I will 100% agree with you on the 2nd part. Content with that? 100% agreement. Couldn't agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 06:25 PM) Actually, since the taxpayer also winds up on Medicare eventually, it's quite a bit of savings for the taxpayer... time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts