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.
Kaiser has no connection to planned parenthood, but predictably when confronted with a fact you don't like you try to create a new narrative.
Comment on the fact I posted. PP is redundant and therefore unnecessary.
Furthermore, lefties could voluntarily fully fund PP themselves if they would just put their money where their mouths are, open their wallets, and donate to PP. Vermont is a blue state. They should have no problem collecting enough in donations to fund PP in their state.
The women do suffer, as stated in your last paragraph. The right wing wants to force them to have the births.
No. The right wing wants them to be more proactive and not get pregnant so the idea of abortion doesn't even have to come up that often.
Do you not hear how ridiculous "force them to give birth" sounds? It conjures images of forced impregnation but what you really are referring to is the natural process AFTER all the decisions have been made by the woman. There are exceptions of course but try to stay focused. Without human intervention birth will happen, it's forcing an unnatural procedure that ends things. Consider this, if nobody was around to perform abortions would you still say people were trying to FORCE women to give birth? Would you support FORCING people to performing them?
So you are saying that OFFERING (not forcing) to pay for them to get "snipped" is cruel? And/or that trying to limit families is also cruel? No one has suggested not allowing anyone to not be allowed to have ANY children -- or at least not on THIS thread, unless I missed it.
Well, we obviously have vastly different ideas as to what constitutes "cruelty", but I am not crazy enough to continue arguing with you.
I must confess I would love to know what your interest is in all this -- not that I expect you to satisfy my curiosity. My interest comes as someone who pays more in taxes than the average person in taxes and who has witnessed firsthand the terrible outcome of women who have children that they have not cared for in ANY way except as a means to satisfy their egos in some way, and to gain some financial advantage and/or to try to force a continued relationship with some man. (And, yes, I do know that these were the reasons in the cases of single moms who I have known. I am not saying that these were the motivation for all unwed mothers!)
Yes, offering to permanently sterilize a poor person in exchange for cash is disgusting and cruel, it ranks right up there with buying organs from the poor and claiming that you are really helping them because even though they lost a kidney they aren't as poor as they once were.
You don't know if someone will always be poor, but you want to ensure that they can never reproduce again, that's sick and given the the largest number of the poor are racial and ethnic minorities I think a policy like that would be seen by historians as genocide.
No. The right wing wants them to be more proactive and not get pregnant so the idea of abortion doesn't even have to come up that often.
Do you not hear how ridiculous "force them to give birth" sounds? It conjures images of forced impregnation but what you really are referring to is the natural process AFTER all the decisions have been made by the woman. There are exceptions of course but try to stay focused. Without human intervention birth will happen, it's forcing an unnatural procedure that ends things. Consider this, if nobody was around to perform abortions would you still say people were trying to FORCE women to give birth? Would you support FORCING people to performing them?
If the right wants them to be more 'proactive' and not get pregnant why is abstinence only taught in conservative right wing states and why do Republicans keep cutting title X funds and passing rules allowing insurance companies to not pay for birth control if it "disturbs their religiosity". That's a lot of talkin out of both sides of your mouth at once there.
If the right wants them to be more 'proactive' and not get pregnant why is abstinence only taught in conservative right wing states and why do Republicans keep cutting title X funds and passing rules allowing insurance companies to not pay for birth control if it "disturbs their religiosity"?
Two Constitutional Amendments: The 10th Amendment (states' rights) and The First Amendment (religious freedom). You can always work to repeal them via a Constitutional Amendment if you don't like them:
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.
