Planned Parenthood and Republican Propaganda page 2 (locked)

56 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Then “they” can create a blog with the comments closed, if they wish to state an opinion without having it challenged. This is not the place to state opinions that you cannot tolerate a logical challenge being raised against. This entire forum was designed as a discussion forum to discuss differing points of views, and differing stances.

Vika, if a person didn’t like mustard, and you wanted to know why they didn’t eat mustard chips, and I told you it was because they didn’t like mustard, it would not be appropriate to start arguing that you like mustard. Be critical of the pro life position all you want. My point is to say “the pro-life position doesn’t like PP because they perform abortions, regardless of what they use federal funds for”, and it is completely beside the point and argumentative for EPR to then explain to me that a baby before birth isn’t a baby. Does this make sense to you?

 
Flag Post

So I cannot point out that this movement – that apparently has enough influence to be relevant in federal decision making – is using wrong definitions? Wrong definitions that apparently are represented – maybe even put forward in the debates – in certain places that are actually involved in the decision making processes themselves, as stated by the OP?

How is this beside the point?

I mean, you are using the same wrong definitions.
Example:

Originally posted by MyTie:

I understand that PP provides good services, and that many people feel that a fetus is not a human being, and that it has a lot of differences from a baby after birth.

See? No one says that a fetus is not a human being. It certainly is.
It’s not a person.

Seems like this propaganda is pretty effective.



We know the pro-life arguments. People like you make sure that we don’t get out of touch. They are obviously flawed. So I really don’t see what else there is to do then to point out those flaws.

What do you want us to do?
You write your post.
We then all go: “Uhu. That’s certainly how it is.”
The thread then gets closed because everything that could be said has been said.

Well, sorry, but the Serious Statement forum has to be created first.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Then “they” can create a blog with the comments closed, if they wish to state an opinion without having it challenged. This is not the place to state opinions that you cannot tolerate a logical challenge being raised against. This entire forum was designed as a discussion forum to discuss differing points of views, and differing stances.

Vika, if a person didn’t like mustard, and you wanted to know why they didn’t eat mustard chips, and I told you it was because they didn’t like mustard, it would not be appropriate to start arguing that you like mustard. Be critical of the pro life position all you want. My point is to say “the pro-life position doesn’t like PP because they perform abortions, regardless of what they use federal funds for”, and it is completely beside the point and argumentative for EPR to then explain to me that a baby before birth isn’t a baby. Does this make sense to you?

Then maybe some ppl should NOT “like” America because it contains ppl such as YOU…eh?

After all, such is exaclty what YOU are saying here.
PP does a whooooole lot of other things besides abortions,,,,
many of which are to PREVENT A NEED FOR AN ABORTION….get it?
NOW, are ya STILL gonna "hate all because only a small part doesn’t fit YOUR “agenda”?

BTW….YOU really ought to stop w/ the analogy thingy….
ya suck at it.

As for EPR’s point….YOU can say what ya want about it.
BUT, his point certainly IS germane to the issue since to call a fetus a baby is nothing more than “stacking the emotional deck” in favor of YOUR positon on abortion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:Then maybe some ppl should NOT “like” America because it contains ppl such as YOU…eh?
After all, such is exaclty what YOU are saying here.

Yes, karma, that’s exactly what I’m saying. If someone didn’t like America because of me, I might not agree with that position, but I would understand that position. I’m glad you got it.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:YOU really ought to stop w/ the analogy thingy….
ya such at it.

If that’s the case, you should stop using the English language entirely. You “such” at it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
it is completely beside the point and argumentative for EPR to then explain to me that a baby before birth isn’t a baby. Does this make sense to you?

No. Because a fetus not being the same as a baby is central to the pro-life stance. They equate it as being the same as one, when it is very definitely not – its not sentient, not self-aware, not capable of surviving using its own organs.

so we show the science to the pro-life people, who then disagree that the science is actually relevant to the issue – just as you are doing here. If facts are not relevant to you, why should we consider your position seriously? You are going on hopefuls, and make-believe.

 
Flag Post

I read MyTie’s post differently. I saw it as a support for the Planned Parenthood position, because what they do with federal funding is completely unrelated to what they’re doing with their own time and money. If Planned Parenthood wanted to split into two entities, one abortiony and one not, it would be no different than if the Neo Nazi group decided to split into two entities, one killing jews and one screening breast cancer.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:Then maybe some ppl should NOT “like” America because it contains ppl such as YOU…eh?
After all, such is exactly what YOU are saying here.

Yes, karma, that’s exactly what I’m saying. If someone didn’t like America because of me, I might not agree with that position, but I would understand that position. I’m glad you got it.

Yes…of course I “get it”.
THAT is why I say it stinks to high heaven.
ANYONE who let’s the “tail wag the dog” like that really doesn’t have all four paws on the ground. PERIOD.
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:YOU really ought to stop w/ the analogy thingy….
ya such at it.

If that’s the case, you should stop using the English language entirely. You “such” at it.

LOL,,,impugned by the Typo-Nazi.
AND, in lieu of actually responding to the statement….how droll.

Originally posted by MyTie:

This feeling that their {conservatives} opposition to PP funding is irrational would be true, if taken from your {EPR’s} point of view, but not theirs. That is why there is so much difficulty in this conversation, and so much hateful insulting. It’s because you guys refuse to even consider where other people are coming from.

JUST WHAT makes YOU so sure that anyone has “refused to even consider where other ppl are coming from”? WHY? Is it because theirs is simply “anti”? Have YOU even taken the time//effort to consider just what the pro-choice ppl are saying and realize that they are actually listening to, understanding, and arguing against those very points the pro-lifers make?

 
Flag Post

The ironic thing is that PP would likely receive far more funding if the feds eliminated their funding. All of the bleeding-hearts would donate far more to PP than anything the feds have given. It would really be a blessing in disguise.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ivan62300:

If Planned Parenthood wanted to split into two entities, one abortiony and one not, it would be no different than if the Neo Nazi group decided to split into two entities, one killing jews and one screening breast cancer.

Only that it’s not.
Planned Parenthood deals with topics related to reproductive health, sex education and how to deal with situations related to that. Abortion is a way to deal with such a situation. It is in the right category there with all the related topics in the same place.
If it was somewhere else it would be comparable to you having all your forks, spoons and plates in your kitchen, but the knives in the attic, even though they are useful in certain situations related to the rest.

That Nazi group deals with hating and killing Jews and, for some reason, breast cancer screening, which is totally unrelated to hating and killing Jews.
This would be like you having all your forks, spoons, plates and knives in one place and all your childhood photos in your room.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:

The ironic thing is that PP would likely receive far more funding if the feds eliminated their funding. All of the bleeding-hearts would donate far more to PP than anything the feds have given. It would really be a blessing in disguise.

Yes, of course such would be a very interesting proposition.

Of even more interest would be that the pro-life advocates would actually see that PLANNED parenthood is a sure-fire way of drastically cutting down on unwanted pregnancies—which result in either a lot of abortions and/or more ppl on welfare,,,,both of which “conservatives” are very strongly against.

SO, wouldn’t it make—at least “SOME SENSE” that even the staunch conservative "cold, heartLESS ppl would make at least some donation to PP?

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

To be fair, MyTie didn’t claim that Planned Parenthood uses federal funding to perform abortions.

 
Flag Post

In japan the Yakuza are considered a legitimate organization and receive contracts and business from the government and citizens. They also dabble in kidnapping, human trafficking, prostitution, etc.

When the government spends money on them for their legal purposes it allows them more finances from their own funds to use on their illegal venues. You aren’t giving them money for specifically murder and mayhem but you are still helping it happen in that case.

Sooooooooooooooooo public funds being used to pay for all services except abortion so PP main accounts can be used for abortion is ok right? Its like happily paying for the warehouse, the air conditioning, the cafeteria, and the medical care for a group of nazi’s because they build cakes and just so happen to be genocidal but paying their salaries with public funds would be “wrong.” Why not just give those funds to pay for a warehouse, the air conditioning, etc for another organization that makes cakes without the genocide?

My 2 cents. Btw I’m not a republican. I can’t stand the idea of how 2 somehow democrats and republicans all have the same cookie cutter stances on such complicated issues enough to form hardline stances on everything. i.e. why every republican or democrat have to choose separate sides on everything from schooling to yard grooming and fall in lockstep.

personally I don’t care if you are shooting live babies from a cannon on a popular Tru TV show. I just care if you use public funds to do it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

Here ya go Keg:

Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:Prove Planned Parenthood uses federal funding for abortions. You cannot.

I can’t, you’re right. That’s why I never asserted that they did.
That’s actually IN THE VERY POST that you quoted. Can’t you read?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Cranbaby79:

Please elaborate on that Yakuza example. Because I don’t see how it is related to the problem here (if there even is one).

The funding Planned Parenthood gets from the state must not be used for abortions.
It’s pretty simple.
And since they probably need to document how they use the money it’s also pretty simple to check where the money goes.

Totally different point: why does everyone form unfitting analogies with Nazis? Can’t you make them… I don’t know… Baby seals or stuff like that? That way they would at lest be cute and not just embarrassingly bad.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:Totally different point: why does everyone form unfitting analogies with Nazis? Can’t you make them… I don’t know… Baby seals or stuff like that? That way they would at lest be cute and not just embarrassingly bad.

Ok. The national baby seal killing foundation clubs hundreds of baby seals to death every day. They also use federal funding to screen women for breast cancer. Do you support the funding? It doesn’t matter what example you use.

And for those of you arguing that “baby seal killing has nothing to do with screening for breast cancer”, I’d retort that murdering unborn babies has nothing to do with screening for breast cancer either. Killing children is not reproductive health. Call the unborn baby a “fetus” doesn’t make it any less heinous, before you try.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by EPR89:Totally different point: why does everyone form unfitting analogies with Nazis? Can’t you make them… I don’t know… Baby seals or stuff like that? That way they would at lest be cute and not just embarrassingly bad.

Ok. The national baby seal killing foundation clubs hundreds of baby seals to death every day. They also use federal funding to screen women for breast cancer. Do you support the funding? It doesn’t matter what example you use.

And for those of you arguing that “baby seal killing has nothing to do with screening for breast cancer”, I’d retort that murdering unborn babies has nothing to do with screening for breast cancer either. Killing children is not reproductive health. Call the unborn baby a “fetus” doesn’t make it any less heinous, before you try.

OH, for fuck’s sake…

YOU still suck at analogies…..
ya’re trying to compare baseball diamonds to ball-busting bitches.

Killing baby seals IS NOT ANYWHERE close to doing breast exams.
HOWEVER, abortion AND breast exams ARE BOTH PART OF WOMEN’S HEALTH CONCERNS,,,whether or not YOU opt to believe it. Deal w/ it.

And, YES…I will support a “whole” if any PART of it is MOSTLY doing things I find positive.
MyTie….IT IS CALLED: COMPROMISE
Few things in life exist for ppl who don’t have to do it.

If YOU or your “conservative” allies want to make a STAND-ON-PRINCIPLE….fine.
After all, THAT is all ya’re agruing for here.
Just say it that way: Since they do abortions…Pro-Life advocates hate PP’s ENTIRE OPERATIONS.

AND, what did we tell YOU about making emotional appeals w/ the baby//fetus thing?

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:
Why a group that has preformed no illegal actions can not be banned from gaining such Money while other groups do get the money?

Just because someone doesn’t break a law doesn’t mean they deserve federal funding. If the taxpayers don’t want a person or organization to get money, then their elected representatives have the power to block funding.

A. But the group is not getting federal funding because they don´t break the law. B. They are getting federal funding because they provide services that are federal funded and they get the federal funding only for such acts.

B. Means they deserve federal funding according to law. A. Means there is no legal excuse to discriminate against this group.

A and B together mean that taxpayers and their representatives have no fucking right/power to block them getting Money without denying all other groups that qualify for A and B funding. At least not without pissing all over the constitution and basic human rights(the ones about about being treating equally).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by EPR89:Totally different point: why does everyone form unfitting analogies with Nazis? Can’t you make them… I don’t know… Baby seals or stuff like that? That way they would at lest be cute and not just embarrassingly bad.

Ok. The national baby seal killing foundation clubs hundreds of baby seals to death every day. They also use federal funding to screen women for breast cancer. Do you support the funding? It doesn’t matter what example you use.

And for those of you arguing that “baby seal killing has nothing to do with screening for breast cancer”, I’d retort that murdering unborn babies has nothing to do with screening for breast cancer either. Killing children is not reproductive health. Call the unborn baby a “fetus” doesn’t make it any less heinous, before you try.

Thank you.

See, guys? It is absolutely possible to make a horribly flawed analogy and even try to make excuses for it being so horrible by basically saying that you don’t care about the stuff other people have explained to you numerous times without ever bringing up Nazis.



More precisely:
The very beginning of your analogy is flawed again. Your Baby Seal killing Organisation is dedicated to killing baby seals. The breast cancer screening is absolutely unrelated to what the group wants to achieve.
As to how Planned Parenthood differs from that, I already gave my own analogy to that. Abortion is clearly a topic that falls in the same category as reproductive health and pregnancy related issues.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by MyTie:

vika, it was just a parody on the lib’s claims of a GOP war on women.

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:
Why a group that has preformed no illegal actions can not be banned from gaining such Money while other groups do get the money?

Just because someone doesn’t break a law doesn’t mean they deserve federal funding. If the taxpayers don’t want a person or organization to get money, then their elected representatives have the power to block funding.


A. But the group is not getting federal funding because they don´t break the law. B. They are getting federal funding because they provide services that are federal funded and they get the federal funding only for such acts.


B. Means they deserve federal funding according to law. A. Means there is no legal excuse to discriminate against this group.


A and B together mean that taxpayers and their representatives have no fucking right/power to block them getting Money without denying all other groups that qualify for A and B funding. At least not without pissing all over the constitution and basic human rights(the ones about about being treating equally).

Well, actually, the taxpayers do have a right to discriminate between organizations, and decide who will receive federal funding. It happens all the time. Some companies get subsidies, some don’t. Often, like Obama’s choice of Solyndra, it has to do with who is funding their campaign. Haven’t you ever heard of a “lobbyist”? Anyway, there is no law that says all companies must be funded as fairly and equally as all other companies. This idea of “fairness” permeates liberalism, even to the point of ignoring reality.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Well, actually, the taxpayers do have a right to discriminate between organizations, and decide who will receive federal funding. It happens all the time. Some companies get subsidies, some don’t. Often, like Obama’s choice of Solyndra, it has to do with who is funding their campaign. Haven’t you ever heard of a “lobbyist”? Anyway, there is no law that says all companies must be funded as fairly and equally as all other companies. This idea of “fairness” permeates liberalism, even to the point of ignoring reality.

Sigh. No they don´t have the right to discriminate between companies (except to a limited extent in the case of where a company is from) they have the right to a limited extent to discriminate what(not who) activities should be federally funded and which should not.
For example they can decide to fund green energy. Then companies involved in green energy can apply for the funds, but are bound to use the funds they get for green energy. Its not possible to ban company X involved in green energy from getting such funds, just because you disagree with their other business ventures and their political agenda. At least as long as they do nothing illegal.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

I have absolutely no problem with giving any group money to fund smear testing, MyTie. I don’t care what their ideology is, so long as they’re improving public health.

I’ll have to agree with this. Do I have to pull out all the studies concluding that legalised abortion leads to less crime (again), and consequently less deaths?

If there is no response on the conservatives’ side, we can conclude that legalised abortion leads to less crime, less deaths, and thusly is better for society.