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.
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.
So in your mind getting pregnant a woman loses her individual rights....doesn't sound fair to women if you ask me, but then again I support a woman's right to choose.
1. Not loses her individual rights, but rather merely becomes unable to exercise them. And not in all cases (I do make an exception for rape).
2. Well, killing a prenatal human being and thus depriving him/her/it of decades of life doesn't sound fair to this prenatal human being.
3. I already knew this, but franks for restating your position here.
Unable to use her individual rights is a loss of individual rights. You are against a pregnant woman's individual rights, plan and simple.
Forcing a woman to have a child that she doesn't want isn't fair to her or the future child. Who wants to grow up knowing their mother didn't want them?
1. Unable to use her individual rights is a loss of individual rights. You are against a pregnant woman's individual rights, plan and simple.
2. Forcing a woman to have a child that she doesn't want isn't fair to her or the future child. Who wants to grow up knowing their mother didn't want them?
1. If you want to characterize it that way, then go ahead.
2. Children whose fathers wanted them and/or who found an adoptive family who was willing to take care of them.
Also, if this child is unhappy, then this child should be able to end his or her own life himself/herself later on.
1. If you want to characterize it that way, then go ahead.
2. Children whose fathers wanted them and/or who found an adoptive family who was willing to take care of them.
Also, if this child is unhappy, then this child should be able to end his or her own life himself/herself later on.
That doesn't change the fact that the child's mother did not want them and you want to force that woman to give birth to her unwanted child. Whatever helps you justify taking away the rights of a pregnant woman, lets just hope you never impregnate a woman, I would hate for you to tell her now that she is pregnant she has no individual rights.
You truly are ignorant. Abortions make up just 0.1% of Planned Parenthood's business.
BTW this same study says that right wing restrictions on abortion isn't the reason for the drop and instead it is 1) Demographics as the population ages and 2) because of groups like Planned Parenthood which are teaching sex ed and safe sex methods. In other words, Planned Parenthood has done more to reduce the number of abortions than anyone else yet you wing nuts never are able to understand that basic fact.
As of 2010, abortions make up 3% of PP's business. You don't get to make up statistics to suit your agenda.
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).
As I said earlier.....can you point me to any business (PP is a business) that seeks to have 3% of its business dry up? What would make you think that PP wants 3% (an entire segment) of its business to disappear?
None of your liberal colleagues can answer this question. Maybe you can.
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.
Oncology is a profession, not a business. A business has a bottom line to maintain. An oncologist who is a business owner does in fact hope to keep their business going. Otherwise, they'd do it for free.
Intellectual dishonesty at its finest right here folks. Get your fill!
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.
