House votes to defund Planned Parenthood

[muzicman0]

I have no idea of the statistics on those situations, either. I do know there are gray area situations which preclude a discussion of legal/illegal, though. We cannot and should not say "You can NEVER have a legal abortion." That doesn't mean I like it, though.

 

 

Actually, as I type this I remember that when our friends had their first child the mother's womb "ripped" or something like that. She hemorrhaged VERY badly and the doctors were having the discussion of what to do because the baby was in the birth canal, and surgery was tricky/dangerous/something. Everything ended up OK, but our friend was within minutes of bleeding out. Today their girl is seven years old, mom is fine (and they have two more children) and my wife and I are that girl's godparents - but it's possible they could have had to make a decision that would have killed the mother or the child during birth. So it's not impossible that these situations could arise. That's why I say there's an icky gray area.

I hear what you are saying, I really do. I guess I look at this like any other life and death decision. Doctors and patients make choices, and sometimes those choices cause a death. and that is OK (well, not OK, but you know what I mean), I get that. But that is different than saying that abortion is legal. If a danger arises, deal with it, however the doctor and patient decides. But just because there is a possible danger, in my opinion, doesn't make it OK to murder the child. Again, I get what you are saying,

[bennychico11]

so, you admit it's a child, with that in mind, what possible circumstance would it be OK to kill that child? Even if your life is in danger, would that justify murdering a child?

 

okay, let me restate that then...

It's your body, your "growth", your life decision (or non-decision is some cases)

 

IMO, it all depends on what stage the growth is in. But yes, I would define a child being the human stage after birth.

However, again, I'm pro-life for myself...or rather whoever happens to be carrying my child (which is no one, lol)

[knapplc]

@Benny - when do you believe life begins? What stage in the womb? Or is it only after the child is born?

 

 

 

 

 

@muzicman0 - the hang-up on the term "legal" has to be hammered out by society, because if there is that situation where you have to make a choice, and it's "illegal" to abort the child, what does the doctor do? You have to define those points via well-written laws. You also have to define when it's a "life" or "human," too. These are the things society struggles with.

 

I don't envy the decision-makers. The older I get, the less black-and-white I see it. It's a tough question.

[muzicman0]

@muzicman0 - the hang-up on the term "legal" has to be hammered out by society, because if there is that situation where you have to make a choice, and it's "illegal" to abort the child, what does the doctor do? You have to define those points via well-written laws. You also have to define when it's a "life" or "human," too. These are the things society struggles with.

 

I don't envy the decision-makers. The older I get, the less black-and-white I see it. It's a tough question.

I think we agree 98%, and I'll just leave it at that.

[bennychico11]

@Benny - when do you believe life begins? What stage in the womb? Or is it only after the child is born?

 

I don't know.

That's a question I'm not sure I've ever been able to answer for myself. I however, don't think life begins at conception. Conception offers the potential of life. At a very minimum, I'd say life doesn't start to form until the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus wall. After that, I don't know enough about what happens at every stage to make a decision.

[gobiggergoredder]

 

However the recent issue isn't whether abortion is right or not. It's whether defunding this health organization is justified. I think calling this a bill of attainder is fair. Especially if you're specifically targeting them in hopes they won't do abortions anymore.

 

If someone thinks that defunding abortions will result in the elimination of abortions then I agree with you. I am pro life, but also believe that abortions are here to stay. I don't believe that legislating morality works. That doesn't mean I am willing to stand back and support the use of our 'funds' for 'health organizations'. Your original thread has 'Planned Parenthood' in the title and you now say 'Health Organizations'. I understand that they advertise other services, but lets not be naive. I actually doubt this ever changes anything. They will find a way to fund this one way or another.

 

I think there are probably many other unnecessary funds going to places that we could cut first.

 

Our government is out of control and we could start just about anywhere.

 

I'm ripping off one of my favorite commentators, but I would support my tax dollars going to any women with a child and on welfare to receive mandatory Norplant.

[strigori]

 

However the recent issue isn't whether abortion is right or not. It's whether defunding this health organization is justified. I think calling this a bill of attainder is fair. Especially if you're specifically targeting them in hopes they won't do abortions anymore.

 

If someone thinks that defunding abortions will result in the elimination of abortions then I agree with you. I am pro life, but also believe that abortions are here to stay. I don't believe that legislating morality works. That doesn't mean I am willing to stand back and support the use of our 'funds' for 'health organizations'. Your original thread has 'Planned Parenthood' in the title and you now say 'Health Organizations'. I understand that they advertise other services, but lets not be naive. I actually doubt this ever changes anything. They will find a way to fund this one way or another.

 

I think there are probably many other unnecessary funds going to places that we could cut first.

 

Our government is out of control and we could start just about anywhere.

 

I'm ripping off one of my favorite commentators, but I would support my tax dollars going to any women with a child and on welfare to receive mandatory Norplant.

The money they send to Planed Parenthood amounts to the change you have under your driver's seat in the car.

 

Something like 80-85% of all federal spending goes to social security, welfare, defense and other entitlements like military pensions and so on. And that 15-20% is where they try to cut all of the spending from. Old people rail against SS spending cuts, the conservatives want nothing to do with military cutbacks so we end up in a pickle. And other sensible issues that could have massive effects on tax revenue and spending don't see the light of day. Everyone need to pull their heads out if they ever want to see things fixed, but the political gamesmanship is preventing it.

[krill]

Our government is out of control and we could start just about anywhere.

 

There are two basic arguments in regard to spending cuts. The Republican position is that in lieu of massive entitlement cuts (political suicide) something is better than nothing. Democrats don't have a unified position but the general feeling is that the Republican proposal is a token effort that will have an extremely negative effect on people that are most vulnerable.

 

So while we're busy patting ourselves on the back over defunding planned parenthood and public broadcasting (which won't ever go through) nobody is talking about the actual problems that have led us to record deficits with no end in sight.

 

 

Because of tax cuts for the people with most of the wealth, tax credits that have record numbers paying no taxes at all and a period of economic contraction, tax revenue as a share of GDP has plummeted to the lowest levels since the 1930's (the chart doesn't go that far back). Defense spending has surged to the highest level since the Cold War and Medicare spending is growing far faster than inflation. Social Security is often lopped in there too but it's a very different kind of entitlement than Medicare with relatively predictable future benefits.

 

Anyway that's the problem; attempting to defend planned parenthood is entirely political and abortion the most reliable issue Republicans can squeeze for campaign donations. They know that legal precedent will not change in the foreseeable and instead have began a campaign to limit access and intimate providers. Right now there are bills in Nebraska, South Dakota and Iowa being floated that would justify the killing of a provider, as though the militant pro-life crowd needs any more encouragement. There's a bill in Georgia that would criminalize miscarriages. In one of the first bills of the new congress they tried to narrow the definition of rape to practically being strapped down and raped at gunpoint, as well as easing incest provisions.

 

What's going on here is beyond insane.

[bennychico11]

Your original thread has 'Planned Parenthood' in the title and you now say 'Health Organizations'. I understand that they advertise other services, but lets not be naive. I actually doubt this ever changes anything. They will find a way to fund this one way or another.

 

Are you saying you think Planned Parenthood isn't a health organization? Just a front for abortions?

[gobiggergoredder]

Your original thread has 'Planned Parenthood' in the title and you now say 'Health Organizations'. I understand that they advertise other services, but lets not be naive. I actually doubt this ever changes anything. They will find a way to fund this one way or another.

 

Are you saying you think Planned Parenthood isn't a health organization? Just a front for abortions?

 

 

You can call it whatever you want. Planned parenthood does more abortions then any other provider in this country.

 

Several years ago, the guy who sells me my life insurance expanded into doing annuities, mutual funds and other financial items. It was being pushed by the huge company that he worked for. He had been selling mainly life insurance for several decades and he was really good at. I would guess that he called himself a life insurance salesman. About the time they started adding all the stuff to his offerings I noticed in the standard mailings that were sent to my house that he was now called a "Financial Service Representative". Although I like and respect the guy, I never plan on going to him for anything other than my life insurance.

Is he a life insurance salesman or a financial service representative?

 

There was a pizza place that I use to frequent with family for several years. The kids enjoyed it and we went there a couple of times a month. The kids kind of outgrew going to dinner with mom and dad and we stopped going. I noticed one day that they had a new sign out front. It still had the same name and the menu hadn't changed, but the new part of the sign said 'family entertainment center'. My wife and I went in one day and realized what the difference was in the 'Pizza Place vs Family Entertainment Center'. They added 3 video games, a pinball machine and several gumball/sticker vending machines.

Is it a pizza place or a family entertainment center?

 

In the end it is an opinion and to answer your question...no, I don't consider them to be a health organization.

[bennychico11]

You can call it whatever you want. Planned parenthood does more abortions then any other provider in this country.

 

contraception constituted 35% of total services, STI/STD testing and treatment constituted 34%, cancer testing and screening constituted 17%; and other women's health procedures, including pregnancy, prenatal, midlife, and infertility were 10%. 2% to 3% of visits involve abortions.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

[knapplc]

You can call it whatever you want. Planned parenthood does more abortions then any other provider in this country.

 

contraception constituted 35% of total services, STI/STD testing and treatment constituted 34%, cancer testing and screening constituted 17%; and other women's health procedures, including pregnancy, prenatal, midlife, and infertility were 10%. 2% to 3% of visits involve abortions.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

 

To both of you - poTAYto/poTAHto. You're saying the same things. Isn't perspective wonderful?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Our government is out of control and we could start just about anywhere.

 

There are two basic arguments in regard to spending cuts. The Republican position is that in lieu of massive entitlement cuts (political suicide) something is better than nothing. Democrats don't have a unified position but the general feeling is that the Republican proposal is a token effort that will have an extremely negative effect on people that are most vulnerable.

 

So while we're busy patting ourselves on the back over defunding planned parenthood and public broadcasting (which won't ever go through) nobody is talking about the actual problems that have led us to record deficits with no end in sight.

 

 

Because of tax cuts for the people with most of the wealth, tax credits that have record numbers paying no taxes at all and a period of economic contraction, tax revenue as a share of GDP has plummeted to the lowest levels since the 1930's (the chart doesn't go that far back). Defense spending has surged to the highest level since the Cold War and Medicare spending is growing far faster than inflation. Social Security is often lopped in there too but it's a very different kind of entitlement than Medicare with relatively predictable future benefits.

 

Anyway that's the problem; attempting to defend planned parenthood is entirely political and abortion the most reliable issue Republicans can squeeze for campaign donations. They know that legal precedent will not change in the foreseeable and instead have began a campaign to limit access and intimate providers. Right now there are bills in Nebraska, South Dakota and Iowa being floated that would justify the killing of a provider, as though the militant pro-life crowd needs any more encouragement. There's a bill in Georgia that would criminalize miscarriages. In one of the first bills of the new congress they tried to narrow the definition of rape to practically being strapped down and raped at gunpoint, as well as easing incest provisions.

 

What's going on here is beyond insane.

 

How can you criminalize a miscarraige

[bennychico11]

To both of you - poTAYto/poTAHto. You're saying the same things. Isn't perspective wonderful?

 

It's poTAYto!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[krill]

How can you criminalize a miscarraige

 

It's only February, but this year has been a tough one for women's health and reproductive rights. There's a new bill on the block that may have reached the apex (I hope) of woman-hating craziness. Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin—who last year proposed making rape and domestic violence "victims" into "accusers"—has introduced a 10-page bill that would criminalize miscarriages and make abortion in Georgia completely illegal. Both miscarriages and abortions would be potentially punishable by death: any "prenatal murder" in the words of the bill, including "human involvement" in a miscarriage, would be a felony and carry a penalty of life in prison or death. Basically, it's everything an "pro-life" activist could want aside from making all women who've had abortions wear big red "A"s on their chests.

 

Read more

 

Apparently in the Georgia legislature you can propose whatever type of batsh*t crazy bill you like, and frankly Mark Christensen (D44) isn't too far behind here in Nebraska.