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.
All I know is, if I were vehemently anti-abortion, I'd be pushing for funding free long-acting reversible birth control for everyone who wanted it. I'd push the government to make OTC birth control as cheap and available as possible and hand it out on street corners.
If anyone claims to be anti-abortion but won't make BC cheap and easy to get, they're liars who don't give a damn about preventing abortion.
I'm totally with you on this.
I hate that abortions happen, and I hate that children are born to parents who don't want them or are unable to care for them.
So the only thing that solves both problems is promoting and encouraging birth control for all who aren't ready to be parents - regardless of income, citizenship, or age.
Also, promote adoption like it's never been promoted before! Make adoption for ANYONE (with a clean background and sufficient income, that is) as EASY as possible. Discourage adoption agencies from discriminating based on family structure, race, or religion.
If adoption was easier, maybe more pregnant women would feel confident that their offspring wouldn't rot indefinitely in group homes and foster care - and would be more inclined to carry the pregnancy to term.
That doesn't mean that birth control never meant anything to them, but we aren't talking birth control as PP could have remained open providing women's health services which included birth control, but they insisted on stopping the beating heart of the pre-born, and even PP agreed that abortion stopped a beating heart! You can get birth control at the grocery store, big box store, drug store, numerous websites and those on Medicaid and some other insurance plans provide that to include sterilization for those that do not want to have children or additional children.
It was an odd question.
And crazy left wingers tend to be young or 70+.
Agree. Respect for the lives of all and preserving them should be a human position.
Exactly. And, again, PP wouldn't give up the abortion business feeling that was more critical than actually offering women's health service, which doesn't include ripping a baby from their womb! Birth control starts before conception.
In past decades, couples were able to control the size of their families without abortion, of course, they weren't having drunk and drugged sex which I suspect is a big problem.
What do you suppose would happen if every abortion clinic were closed.
I hate that abortions happen, and I hate that children are born to parents who don't want them or are unable to care for them.
So the only thing that solves both problems is promoting and encouraging birth control for all who aren't ready to be parents - regardless of income, citizenship, or age.
Also, promote adoption like it's never been promoted before! Make adoption for ANYONE (with a clean background and sufficient income, that is) as EASY as possible. Discourage adoption agencies from discriminating based on family structure, race, or religion.
If adoption was easier, maybe more pregnant women would feel confident that their offspring wouldn't rot indefinitely in group homes and foster care - and would be more inclined to carry the pregnancy to term.
I don't see adoption as superior to abortion, necessarily. You're still dumping a kid onto society and sending the mother through a great deal of person anguish. All that could be avoided.
Your baby is now the length of a pea pod, about 7.4cm (2.9in) from head to bottom (crown to rump). He weighs nearly 23g (0.8oz). His head makes up a third of his body length. This week, the part of his brain responsible for complex thoughts, such as problem-solving and memory, starts to form. https://www.babycentre.co.uk/13-week...#ixzz4ii2czoVZ
And to everyone who wants to outlaw abortions done even before that 13 week point...shame on you. You are guilty of the greatest of sins: causing harm to others for no reason at all.
I don't see adoption as superior to abortion, necessarily. You're still dumping a kid onto society and sending the mother through a great deal of person anguish. All that could be avoided.
Your baby is now the length of a pea pod, about 7.4cm (2.9in) from head to bottom (crown to rump). He weighs nearly 23g (0.8oz). His head makes up a third of his body length. This week, the part of his brain responsible for complex thoughts, such as problem-solving and memory, starts to form. https://www.babycentre.co.uk/13-week...#ixzz4ii2czoVZ
Just get an abortion before that 13 week mark.
If someone is opposed to an abortion for beliefs that it is taking a life, this is an acceptable "out" for them. Plus, there are people who would love to adopt for various reasons, but can't afford the high initial fees, esp. with multiple kids.
The federal government has no business providing taxpayer funds to a private organization like Planned Parenthood.
The federal government contracts with thousands of private organizations like Planned Parenthood. You're saying the federal government should no longer do this?
Does that include women who use Medicaid going to private doctors for health care that they can no longer get through Planned Parenthood? Doctors' private practices are private organizations (for-profit to boot!), and even the local inner city health clinic is a private organization. And I guess that would include hospitals, too, since they're all private organizations.
What a fascinating idea ... And then what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones
There are a ton more places to go..PP isn't the only place. I don't know a single female that has EVER gone to PP.
*raising hand*
I used Planned Parenthood for my annual exams when I was in my 20s - no health insurance and no money, and Planned Parenthood used an income-based sliding scale to determine how much I paid for my exam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
It is about The federal government has no business providing taxpayer funds to a private organization like Planned Parenthood. If they want to keep it open, it will be fairly easy to find donors to fund such an organization. Matter of fact, I'd make one time donation because I do believe birth control will help all of us.
Uh, you do realize you have to use birth control more than once, don't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
No, but your suggestion that Planned Parenthood should provide public health services but be denied funds that the federal government sets aside for those public health services is an argument that the poor and indigent should go to other providers. It ignores that those other providers are already over-burdened. It ignores that the poor and indigent would have to seek out select providers that accept government funds, and then wait in long lines all day, along with other patients that are there with a myriad of other conditions, some communicable, because some ignorant people want to shut down Planned Parenthood.
It also ignores the fact that the federal government is trying to discriminate against a single organization by denying payment for the same services provided by other health care organizations, which are not being singled out. The day the federal government favors one organization over another for health care is the day we take one step closer to fascism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
I understand your post, and the repercussions of it. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization. Their purpose is to provide reproductive healthcare to people who need it. Any funding that Planned Parenthood gets is to provide reproductive healthcare (excluding abortion) to people who might not otherwise be able to afford it. Are you suggesting that every healthcare provider who receives funding from the government should have that funding removed? Is it your position that the government should not help fund any healthcare programs for the poor?
That's what I'm wondering! And then I give up trying to wrap my head around all the illogic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
Nonprofits can and do utilize the following sources of income to help them fulfill their missions:
Fees for goods and/or services.
Individual donations and major gifts.
Bequests.
Corporate contributions.
Foundation grants.
Government grants and contracts.
Interest from investments.
Loans/program-related investments (PRIs)
Ooh, wait a minute -- government grants and contracts?
I thought you said the government shouldn't be giving any money to private organizations?
How hypocritical can you be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
No, it is not. Something is telling me you are only interested in speaking the last words. I have never made such a suggestion, you did. (third time)
But it is my position that ALL non-profit organizations find donors to fund their own organizations.
Just for your information,
Nonprofits can and do utilize the following sources of income to help them fulfill their missions:
Fees for goods and/or services.
Individual donations and major gifts.
Bequests.
Corporate contributions.
Foundation grants.
Government grants and contracts.
Interest from investments.
Loans/program-related investments (PRIs)
Are you saying planned parenthood is not a non-profit organization?
Bwah hahaha, you just go right ahead digging yourself even deeper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
I'm pointing out that Planned Parenthood is being discriminated against, because one of the services they provide is abortion. That denying them payment for the services they provide to the poor and indigent which the government provides funding for, to Planned Parenthood and others, while still paying the other "private", non-profit organizations to provide those services is discriminatory.
Agreed. It's amazing that some people don't get that.
Quote:
You are an intelligent poster who recognizes that, which is why you have taken the consistent position that you don't want any non-profit organizations to receive federal funds, but instead those organizations should seek donors.
That would be great, wouldn't it? But the reason government funds these safety net services is because private charity fell short, and so many people fell through the cracks.
As for "private organizations" not receiving federal funds ... well. There goes Head Start, Section 8 housing vouchers (payments go to private landlords and non-profit organizations), charter schools (the darling du jour of the ruling party), mental health care for Armed Forces veterans, English as a Second Language classes for immigrants and refugees, supportive housing for adults with developmental disabilities (funded via Medicaid reimbursements, just like Planned Parenthood), alternative education programs for kids who aren't succeeding in traditional schools ... The list goes on.
The federal government contracts with thousands of private organizations like Planned Parenthood. You're saying the federal government should no longer do this?
Does that include women who use Medicaid going to private doctors for health care that they can no longer get through Planned Parenthood? Doctors' private practices are private organizations (for-profit to boot!), and even the local inner city health clinic is a private organization. And I guess that would include hospitals, too, since they're all private organizations.
What a fascinating idea ... And then what?
*raising hand*
I used Planned Parenthood for my annual exams when I was in my 20s - no health insurance and no money, and Planned Parenthood used an income-based sliding scale to determine how much I paid for my exam.
Uh, you do realize you have to use birth control more than once, don't you?
It also ignores the fact that the federal government is trying to discriminate against a single organization by denying payment for the same services provided by other health care organizations, which are not being singled out. The day the federal government favors one organization over another for health care is the day we take one step closer to fascism.
That's what I'm wondering! And then I give up trying to wrap my head around all the illogic.
Ooh, wait a minute -- government grants and contracts?
I thought you said the government shouldn't be giving any money to private organizations?
How hypocritical can you be?
Bwah hahaha, you just go right ahead digging yourself even deeper.
Agreed. It's amazing that some people don't get that.
That would be great, wouldn't it? But the reason government funds these safety net services is because private charity fell short, and so many people fell through the cracks.
As for "private organizations" not receiving federal funds ... well. There goes Head Start, Section 8 housing vouchers (payments go to private landlords and non-profit organizations), charter schools (the darling du jour of the ruling party), mental health care for Armed Forces veterans, English as a Second Language classes for immigrants and refugees, supportive housing for adults with developmental disabilities (funded via Medicaid reimbursements, just like Planned Parenthood), alternative education programs for kids who aren't succeeding in traditional schools ... The list goes on.
Not any doctor accepts Medicaid.
Your argument has even less merit.
I think you need to calm down.
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.
