• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2009 - 98% of Pregnant Women Who Went To PP get Abortions

Using Planned Parenthood for contraception and condoms?

Better idea - if you can't afford rubbers or the pill, don't have sex anyway. We can't afford the chance of you procreating.

It's usually a bad sign when the people that shouldn't be having kids are the ones who are.
 
Gipper said:
Using Planned Parenthood for contraception and condoms?

Better idea - if you can't afford rubbers or the pill, don't have sex anyway. We can't afford the chance of you procreating.

It's usually a bad sign when the people that shouldn't be having kids are the ones who are.
Click to expand...

If there was any one person on the planet who could actually convince all people to set aside their natural instinct to have sex...and /or enforce YOUR BELIEFS regarding sexual behaviors...who would be that person? If there is a group of people who can convince everybody on the planet to refrain from sex unless they are prepared to pay the piper...who would they be?

I think you're being extremely unrealistic about human sexual behavior. Having sex is ingrained in every person, man or woman. It's an innate behavior. Sex is, by far, engaged in for pleasure.

Does that mean we (every human being) foregoes the attempt to have responsible sex...hell no! Sure we should. But who has the power to ensure every person in the world will do that?

Now...if there were ZERO organizations who provide contraceptive (free or sliding scale fees), which is funded in part by government. You wouldn't be in the conversation. If you're honest about it...it's not about sexual behaviors that you're taking issue with... Your rub is that public money being dispensed for reasons related to reproduction.

So just call it for what it is. Forget about the sinners. For you, its about who pays for the sins. Right?

How many people get drunk, drive and kill other people or cause serious damage. When that happens...WE ALL PAY. Why? Because our insurance companies are going to spread the cost of the liabilities among all of their policy holders. So what's the difference. Somebody is gonna pay via government or private companies.

If people smoke, get lung cancer because of it. Their hospital bill could been near 1 million dollars ...or even more. Whether or not they have insurance... in the long run...who pays. WE ALL DO.

Gipper...the reality is. No matter where we go...there WE are. Let's just hope like hell we can survive long enough as a species...and evolution continues in a more rapid and positive manner that...We...will figure out how to rid ourselves of our sinful, irresponsible ways...and the cost of living won't be so burdensome on everybody.
 
Removable Mind said:
If there was any one person on the planet who could actually convince all people to set aside their natural instinct to have sex...and /or enforce YOUR BELIEFS regarding sexual behaviors...who would be that person? If there is a group of people who can convince everybody on the planet to refrain from sex unless they are prepared to pay the piper...who would they be?

I think you're being extremely unrealistic about human sexual behavior. Having sex is ingrained in every person, man or woman. It's an innate behavior. Sex is, by far, engaged in for pleasure.

Does that mean we (every human being) foregoes the attempt to have responsible sex...hell no! Sure we should. But who has the power to ensure every person in the world will do that?

Now...if there were ZERO organizations who provide contraceptive (free or sliding scale fees), which is funded in part by government. You wouldn't be in the conversation. If you're honest about it...it's not about sexual behaviors that you're taking issue with... Your rub is that public money being dispensed for reasons related to reproduction.

So just call it for what it is. Forget about the sinners. For you, its about who pays for the sins. Right?

How many people get drunk, drive and kill other people or cause serious damage. When that happens...WE ALL PAY. Why? Because our insurance companies are going to spread the cost of the liabilities among all of their policy holders. So what's the difference. Somebody is gonna pay via government or private companies.

If people smoke, get lung cancer because of it. Their hospital bill could been near 1 million dollars ...or even more. Whether or not they have insurance... in the long run...who pays. WE ALL DO.

Gipper...the reality is. No matter where we go...there WE are. Let's just hope like hell we can survive long enough as a species...and evolution continues in a more rapid and positive manner that...We...will figure out how to rid ourselves of our sinful, irresponsible ways...and the cost of living won't be so burdensome on everybody.
Click to expand...

Jerk off then. It's free, it's fun, and you can't knock your hand up.

Problem solved.

If you just have to involve someone else...get head.
 
Gipper said:
Jerk off then. It's free, it's fun, and you can't knock your hand up.

Problem solved.

If you just have to involve someone else...get head.
Click to expand...

Really...it's that simple? Don't know why I would expect any other esponse from you.

Thanks...you've solved the worlds sexual problems.
 
Gipper said:
Care to share the complexities of "either jerk off or get head"?
Click to expand...

LOL

Getting head involves female counterpart . . . which are in short supply out your way, these days.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
LOL

Getting head involves female counterpart . . . which are in short supply out your way, these days.
Click to expand...

Oh there's always a willing "purdy mouf".

And as I mentioned above, when that well runs dry, dig one with your hand. There are other receptacles for a man's seed that don't result in a societal burden brought about by stupid people.
 
Gipper said:
Using Planned Parenthood for contraception and condoms?

Better idea - if you can't afford rubbers or the pill, don't have sex anyway. We can't afford the chance of you procreating.

It's usually a bad sign when the people that shouldn't be having kids are the ones who are.
Click to expand...
That just means those of us who "should be" ought to strive towards the supreme and ultimate goal of having more kids than those who "shouldn't be". And I don't mean make the "shouldn't be's" have less kids.
 
The Mark said:
That just means those of us who "should be" ought to strive towards the supreme and ultimate goal of having more kids than those who "shouldn't be". And I don't mean make the "shouldn't be's" have less kids.
Click to expand...

If the "should be"s have more kids, that's fine. I'm just counting on the "shouldn't be"s not.

It'll help the gene pool from not needing skimmed as much.
 
Gipper said:
Oh there's always a willing "purdy mouf".

And as I mentioned above, when that well runs dry, dig one with your hand. There are other receptacles for a man's seed that don't result in a societal burden brought about by stupid people.
Click to expand...

*takes notes*
 
Gipper said:
You don't need notes, babe. You already made it public that you love the taste of creamy snake. :D
Click to expand...

Mobious loops is mobious.

You were discussing alternatives to the alternative.
 
Gipper said:
If the "should be"s have more kids, that's fine. I'm just counting on the "shouldn't be"s not.

It'll help the gene pool from not needing skimmed as much.
Click to expand...
But as you should be aware, people who "shouldn't have kids" (which is a nice way of saying "stupid people, and those I disagree with/don't like, which is the same thing, really") are generally more likely to HAVE children, for various reasons which are probably inherently related to the reasons you don't think they SHOULD.

So they WILL, no question. Thus the ONLY options that remain are:
  • Remove the freedom to reproduce, and limit reproduction as you and the "should have's" see fit.
  • Have more kids and convince like-minded persons to have more kids, so the "should have kids" persons don't get overwhelmed by the "shouldn't have kids".

WTF, this is a ridiculous line of discussion...neither one of those options is going to happen -the first, because you yourself don't agree with it (unless that libertarian tag is an outright lie), and the second because people who "should have kids" are currently (and for the foreseeable future) disinclined to have lots of kids.
 
sangha said:
He dishonestly made it up by counting only the # of abortions and adding it to the # of prenatal care clients and adoption referrals.

As if pregnant woman can't get STD tests, breast exams, HIV tests, etc
Click to expand...

Exactly

...or pregnancy tests so they can access a doctor for pre natal care.
Or an ultrasound so they know how far along in a pregnancy they are.
 
Gipper said:
Care to share the complexities of "either jerk off or get head"?
Click to expand...

Perhaps in your experience this is an acceptable substitute. But that speaks more to your hand and less to your partner(s).
 
Gipper said:
You don't need notes, babe. You already made it public that you love the taste of creamy snake. :D
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Knock it off, Gipper.
 
I am going to give my perspective.

I do not have a hard time believing that most pregnant women who go to PP are there to seek abortions. It is not like PP is talking them into it, I will bet that most go in there almost certain what they want to do.

Also, if you go clinic by clinic, you will find that most PP clinics do going comprehensive prenatal care. So if you get pregnant, look up your nearest PP office and find out they do not give prenatal care, why would you go? My guess is that if you called PP, they could direct you to a program set up to give women PN care and through deliver. States may have Medicaid or if the woman is not poor enough for Medicaid, but still poor - states may have a Medicaid for pregnancy policy. The state may have an independent program for the poor (again too rich for Medicaid, too poor to self insure)

PP prenatal care is probably in areas that are underserved for prenatal care. SO when they offer it, it likely fills a community void.

So can I believe that most pregnant women who come to PP get abortions - sure.

Why go to PP for prenatal care when most clinics do not offer it?! When states have health care programs that cover women who wish to keep their babies they likely would go there.

In the proper perspective the stats are hardly surprising or meaningful.
 
aberrant85 said:
Yeah, you're burying the headline. Conservatives think Planned Parenthood is nothing but an assembly line of abortion performing Feminazibots.

The same report shows:
4.5 Million instances of STD detection and treatment
3.4 Million contraception services
1.3 Million cancer screening and prevention
1.2 Million pregnancy tests

All in all 10.9 Million services performed. That's equal to, you got it, 3% of all services being abortions.

My girlfriend uses PP to get contraception so she won't get pregnant. That's how you reduce abortions.

Unless you're opposed to contraception?
Click to expand...

run run here comes the evil Planned Parenthood!!!!:scared:

oh wait, they are just a health clinic that overall does very little abortions percentage wise to the rest of their services and nobody educated and honest is fooled by any fear tactics.

The funny part is, what if PP only did abortions? Would it change how i feel about a medical facility that allows women access to reliable and affordable healthcare? nope they would still be doing a great service for people IE making medical services easily accessible and affordable, i mean how evil

lies and witch hunt exposed and failed again
 
year2late said:
I am going to give my perspective.

I do not have a hard time believing that most pregnant women who go to PP are there to seek abortions. It is not like PP is talking them into it, I will bet that most go in there almost certain what they want to do.

Also, if you go clinic by clinic, you will find that most PP clinics do going comprehensive prenatal care. So if you get pregnant, look up your nearest PP office and find out they do not give prenatal care, why would you go? My guess is that if you called PP, they could direct you to a program set up to give women PN care and through deliver. States may have Medicaid or if the woman is not poor enough for Medicaid, but still poor - states may have a Medicaid for pregnancy policy. The state may have an independent program for the poor (again too rich for Medicaid, too poor to self insure)

PP prenatal care is probably in areas that are underserved for prenatal care. SO when they offer it, it likely fills a community void.

So can I believe that most pregnant women who come to PP get abortions - sure.

Why go to PP for prenatal care when most clinics do not offer it?! When states have health care programs that cover women who wish to keep their babies they likely would go there.

In the proper perspective the stats are hardly surprising or meaningful.
Click to expand...

I think the bolded should read "most PP clinics do not do ongoing comprehensive prenatal care"
 
aberrant85 said:
And if more contraceptive services were available and conservatives stopped stigmatizing PP that number would go down.
Click to expand...
Is that profiling, generalizing or plain ol' stereotyping. It's kind of a fine line.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I can only imagine every male on earth wanting to gouge out his eyeballs if they couldn't have sex unless they were trying to knock someone up.
Click to expand...
Is that profiling, generalizing or plain ol' stereotyping. It's kind of a fine line.
 
sangha said:
Your #'s assume that no pregnant woman went to PP to have an STD test, or HPV shot, breast exam, UTI, etc

IOW, once again the Moral Fascists who want to ban abortion, and their enablers, are trying to argue that their position is morally superior using lies.
Click to expand...

You've been begging for these numbers, claiming they don't exist, calling me a liar.
I asked you several times to go to the link and you wouldn't do it, you simply continued to make your erroneous claims.
Now here they are, I even pasted them for you and you have nothing to say about them.
I saw this coming.

And to use the word fascist improperly minimizes the sacrifice made by those who actually had to suffer through it.
 
americanwoman said:
I am asking where you got the number of pregnant women who were treated by planned parenthood as 340,276. I cannot find that statistic anywhere.
Click to expand...
It's in the link.
Something apparently went bad with the 2009 link so just look at the 2012 link since the same method was used.

Link, page 2:
Green category: Prenatal Services
+
Gray category: Abortion Procedures
+
Red category: Adoption Referrals = 340,276.

It's all in the link
 
sangha said:
He dishonestly made it up by counting only the # of abortions and adding it to the # of prenatal care clients and adoption referrals.
As if pregnant woman can't get STD tests, breast exams, HIV tests, etc
Click to expand...
Women going in for STD tests and breast exams aren't there for a pregnancy related issue which is probably why Planned Parenthood doesn't list them in that way.
If you think the pregnant women getting an STD test should be culled from the non-pregnant women getting an STD test you should let PP know.
But at this point they don't think it's relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom