Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I said before, "non-profit" does not mean "no profit." They have a bottom line to maintain just like any other business.
Also, your assertion is that they'd prefer to never again provide abortion services to women. Considering the ongoing fight to provide abortion access to women, and their vociferous response to claims of using taxpayer dollars to do so, I'd reconcile that you are wrong in every conceivable way.
Planned Parenthood is an advocate of abortion, not an entity that seeks to see it disappear.
And do you know what % of their money goes to abortion services?
In 2009 it was reported to be THREE PERCENT of their work/funding.
We received several questions on this topic during the recent budget debate in Congress, after Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl claimed this month on the Senate floor that "well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does" is provide abortion services. That figure was wildly incorrect. Planned Parenthood says only 3 percent of its total services in 2009 were abortions. The other 97 percent of services were for contraception, treatment and tests for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screenings, and other women’s health services.
Oops. Guess if the "abortion business" dried up, they'd STILL have their hands full dealing with routine sexual health issues. But all some people think when they see Planned Parenthood is ABORTION!!!!!!!
(Oh yeah, men, they also provide lower cost STD screening and treatment for you too).
1. Not quite--I am against violating individual rights. Your forced abortion scenario would violate both the woman's right to bodily autonomy and the right to life/right not to be killed which the embryo/fetus should have. Your forced abortion scenario is not going to protect anyone's rights.
In contrast, in scenarios where the government forces a woman to remain pregnant and to give birth, the government is protecting the right to life/right not to be killed which the embryo/fetus should have.
2. Not quite. My position here actually appears to be rather consistent.
So you are for violating a woman's individual rights is what you are saying. Very hypocritical of you.
Because like any other business, money talks. Do you think that they are hopeful that 3% of their business will dry up? Can you name me any other business on the planet that hopes that 3% of their business dries up?
Oncologists? Do you think doctors who specialize in helping cancer patients are secretly hoping that cancer therapies don't work?
Smart people are adaptable. They get into a career that will help them solve problems. If the problem is solved, they move onto something else.
So basically you wouldn't want the government intervening with a mother's right to choose. You can't have it both ways, you either support a woman's right to choose or you support the government's right to legislate what a woman can and cannot do with her body.
Most choicers do support choice And the government's right to legislate what a woman can do with her body. The line for most is called 'viability.'
So you are for violating a woman's individual rights is what you are saying. Very hypocritical of you.
I am in favor of violating individual rights (or rather, reducing the scope of/curtailing individual rights) when there is (or should be) a conflict-of-rights situation where someone's rights would need to be violated or curtailed. If one supports prenatal personhood and prenatal rights, then such a situation should occur during a pregnancy.
I don't see how my position here is hypocritical. Sometimes one has to pick whose rights are superior and whose rights should be abkle to be exercised during a conflict-of-rights situation.
With abortion rates falling in almost all states, our study did not find evidence that the national decline in abortions during this period was the result of new state abortion restrictions. We also found no evidence that the decline was linked to a drop in the number of abortion providers during this period...
The decline in abortions coincided with a drop in overall pregnancy and birth rates, and contraceptive use and methods improved during the period ... The recent recession also led many women and couples to want to avoid or delay pregnancy and childbearing.
So the decline is at least partially attributable to fewer women becoming pregnant.
I am in favor of violating individual rights (or rather, reducing the scope of/curtailing individual rights) when there is (or should be) a conflict-of-rights situation where someone's rights would need to be violated or curtailed. If one supports prenatal personhood and prenatal rights, then such a situation should occur during a pregnancy.
I don't see how my position here is hypocritical. Sometimes one has to pick whose rights are superior and whose rights should be abkle to be exercised during a conflict-of-rights situation.
Well it is good to know that you are willing to violate a woman's individual rights...do you use that as a pick up line with the ladies?
1. In order to protect the rights which prenatal human beings should have.
2. LOL No!
No that is fine, you obviously only see women as something that men can control and force to produce a baby against their will. Hopefully that baby is a male so it doesn't lose it's individual rights that you are so adamant about protecting.
1. No that is fine, you obviously only see women as something that men can control and force to produce a baby against their will.
2. Hopefully that baby is a male so it doesn't lose it's individual rights that you are so adamant about protecting.
1. LOL! This is a misrepresentation of my views, considering that I would apply the same principle to males if they ever got pregnant (also, it is worth looking at Thomas Beattie's case, if you consider him to be a male).
2. You are aware that there are cases whered I support violating/curtailing males' individual rights, correct?
Anyway, I don't care what the gender of this prenatal offspring is, considering that I don't see it as being relevant here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
