"not intended to be a factual statement"

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

5114/6000 = 85%. Was this a case of rounding, either of 85 of a number that became 6000 and 11000?

I do not know... You would have to ask those that claim the 90% number as fact for that answer.

[pirana 0]

  Quote

Funny stuff indeed. I'm happy to see legislation that defunds Planned Parenthood......Because this is ANOTHER function taxes shouldn't pay for. And I believe the parents should have the right to choose----and be responsible for that decision. This is just one program of a huge list that should be canceled.

I'm with you on the desire to see people pay for their own abortions, but so many of them don't have the money, and studies I've seen indicate it is probably the best crime prevention program going.

So it's pay for an abortion now, or count on paying far more later to deal with a big chunk of them. Fiscally speaking - public funding for abortions is a very good deal for all taxpayers.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

  Quote

When confronted with these facts, Kyl replied that his "remark was not intended to be a factual statement" but that he just used it to demonstrate how bad they were.

Typical style of speech from people who are emotionally rather than intellectually centered. Kinda like:

"You do that all the time." Really means you did it at least once and I don't like it.

"You never do that." Really means I like it and you don't do it enough.

It was just his way of saying he doesn't like them; and we are all supposed to know that based on his personality profile.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[wmw999 2,583]

Thanks for the information.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,102]

>I do not see how thinking that conception starts life and that the most innocent
>human is an unborn baby equals anything near "anti-woman".

I agree; it's not strictly anti-woman. But it is anti-woman's-rights, since it is taking away a right they have now.

It would be akin to claiming that a gun control advocate who wants longer waiting periods was was anti-gun. He's not; he is fine with guns once the new, stricter policy is followed. But it would be accurate to say that he was anti-gun-rights.

[LyraM45 0]

  Quote

I just found a great chart that illustrates his point

That said, facts is facts; how you present them can color the picture very, very differently.

According to their annual report PP saw over 10 million people in 2008-2009; 3% of those received abortions. Whether that, or the number of dollars spent, is the more important is up to interpretation.

My single data point is that I've been to Planned Parenthood, and never for an abortion. They gave me basic well-woman exams when I was young and in college, as well as birth control, all for income-adjusted cost.

The report also covers their expenses (other than investment-related, and I don't think there's a lot of debate over that). According to the annual report, 56% of their expenses were medical-care related. I'm sure some of that was for abortions (although I believe that a number of PP locations will only refer for abortions, and not perform them themselves). I'm equally sure that some of it was for the kinds of services I received.

As a by-the-by, only 5% of their expenses were for fundraising, which is considered to be a very good ratio. This is for the tax-exempt branch of PP, so it won't include lobbying.

Wendy P.

Great post! And I'll piggy back this. If 90% of all PP services are abortions, then proportionally the college town I lived in and college I went to should be representative of this national number, right? Guess what, it wasn't. Not even close. And recently I've asked friends who went to college in other parts of the country how their PP experiences were, and they said the same thing. Most said they didn't even know of anybody who had an abortion (doesn't mean that people weren't getting abortions-- private matter that people kept, well... private.).

In my own experience and the experience of people I've talked to, PP was the source for women's yearly physical. It's where all us poor college kids got our pap's done, our blood work done, STD testing done, and our birth control needs met. Oh, and I thnk it was mentioned upthread about PP not doing mammograms-- they do. I know a girl in college who unfortunately found a lump and used that service. Most PP's bring mobile mammogram units once or twice a month to the facility. Some facilities have them permanently.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

>I do not see how thinking that conception starts life and that the most innocent
>human is an unborn baby equals anything near "anti-woman".

I agree; it's not strictly anti-woman. But it is anti-woman's-rights, since it is taking away a right they have now

If the baby is female it is PRO-Woman's rights.

  Quote

It would be akin to claiming that a gun control advocate who wants longer waiting periods was was anti-gun. He's not; he is fine with guns once the new, stricter policy is followed. But it would be accurate to say that he was anti-gun-rights.

And yet when people like me want parental consent for abortions, people like you claim I am against them and are OK with parents abusing their children for getting pregnant.

[billvon 3,102]

>If the baby is female it is PRO-Woman's rights.

No, it removes a right that women currently have. That is an action that is opposed to women's rights.

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

>If the baby is female it is PRO-Woman's rights.

No, it removes a right that women currently have. That is an action that is opposed to women's rights.

That is the only angle you can have to support your postion

the unborn is nothing or you cant defend yourself

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

  Quote

(Disclaimer - the above was used for effect only and was not intended to be a factual statement.)

(Disclaimer - the above was used for effect only and was not intended to be a factual statement.)

Number of abortions, 2009: 332,278 (Link)

Average cost of abortion: $350-$650 (at abortion clinic, dependent on how far along the pregnancy is)(Link)

PP health center income, 2009 (Link): $404.9 million

At $350/abortion: 28.7% of health clinic total

At $650/abortion: 53.3% of health clinic total

Average: 41%

Enjoy your foot - make sure you chew well before swallowing.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

No, it removes a right that women currently have. That is an action that is opposed to women's rights.

Yet you support removing the innocents right to drive without an interlock device.... Huh... How do you justify:

1. Taking an innocent life, yet claiming the moral high ground based on woman's rights.

2. Forcing innocents to comply with your wishes on interlocks, yet still taking the moral high ground.

[champu 1]

  Quote

  Quote

"Pro-Life" is code for "Anti-Woman."

I call bullshit.

I do not see how thinking that conception starts life and that the most innocent human is an unborn baby equals anything near "anti-woman".

We have groups that think capital punishment is wrong... would you call those people "Pro-criminal" or "Anti-Victim"?

First off, life started long before any conceptions, abortions, or births taking place in the present day. Secondly, thinking that a life begins and, more to the point, immediately earns any rights at conception is not in touch with the reality of how the reproductive process works.

Even if you draw a more defensible but also more ambiguous line in the sand at quickening or viability, you are still placing the rights of an organism that has neither created nor consumed any unique information above the rights of a woman who has a name, family, friends, enemies, and actually exists in a meaningful way as an individual. That is what I consider to be "anti-woman" about the "pro-life" movement.

Couple with that attempts to downplay the other services provided to women by planned parenthood, attempts to allow medical service professionals to not only withhold birth control but also information about birth control, and attempts at parental notification laws and it would seem that, at best, the movement is just indifferent about women and their rights.

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

Secondly, thinking that a life begins and, more to the point, immediately earns any rights at conception is not in touch with the reality of how the reproductive process works.

So, if I do not agree with you, I don't know anything? Fact is that cells start to divide pretty much after conception. At the very basic level that is considered "life"

  Quote

Even if you draw a more defensible but also more ambiguous line in the sand at quickening or viability, you are still placing the rights of an organism that has neither created nor consumed any unique information above the rights of a woman who has a name, family, friends, enemies, and actually exists in a meaningful way as an individual.

And an hour old baby could be in the exact same position... would it be ok to just drop them in a bucket of water?

  Quote

Couple with that attempts to downplay the other services provided to women by planned parenthood, attempts to allow medical service professionals to not only withhold birth control but also information about birth control, and attempts at parental notification laws and it would seem that, at best, the movement is just indifferent about women and their rights.

Again, Bullshit.

You have to tell parents to get a tooth pulled, but not an abortion?

Your position makes no sense....

[kallend 2,146]

  Quote

  Quote

Secondly, thinking that a life begins and, more to the point, immediately earns any rights at conception is not in touch with the reality of how the reproductive process works.

So, if I do not agree with you, I don't know anything? Fact is that cells start to divide pretty much after conception. At the very basic level that is considered "life"

  Quote

Even if you draw a more defensible but also more ambiguous line in the sand at quickening or viability, you are still placing the rights of an organism that has neither created nor consumed any unique information above the rights of a woman who has a name, family, friends, enemies, and actually exists in a meaningful way as an individual.

And an hour old baby could be in the exact same position... would it be ok to just drop them in a bucket of water?

  Quote

Couple with that attempts to downplay the other services provided to women by planned parenthood, attempts to allow medical service professionals to not only withhold birth control but also information about birth control, and attempts at parental notification laws and it would seem that, at best, the movement is just indifferent about women and their rights.

Again, Bullshit.

You have to tell parents to get a tooth pulled, but not an abortion?

Your position makes no sense....

It is absolutely none of your business what any woman does with her own body. Your attempts at any influence are nothing more than busybodying.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

It is absolutely none of your business what any woman does with her own body. Your attempts at any influence are nothing more than busybodying.

So if I saw a man beating a woman.... I have no duty to do anything in your world?

Some see the unborn as the most innocent life.

Funny, you are OK with killing the unborn, but get your knickers in a twist over capital punishment.

So it is OK to kill innocent children but not a convicted murderer in your world?

[billvon 3,102]

>Yet you support removing the innocents right to drive without an interlock device . .

No, I don't. You're 0 for 5 on this.

[mnealtx 0]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

Secondly, thinking that a life begins and, more to the point, immediately earns any rights at conception is not in touch with the reality of how the reproductive process works.

So, if I do not agree with you, I don't know anything? Fact is that cells start to divide pretty much after conception. At the very basic level that is considered "life"

  Quote

Even if you draw a more defensible but also more ambiguous line in the sand at quickening or viability, you are still placing the rights of an organism that has neither created nor consumed any unique information above the rights of a woman who has a name, family, friends, enemies, and actually exists in a meaningful way as an individual.

And an hour old baby could be in the exact same position... would it be ok to just drop them in a bucket of water?

  Quote

Couple with that attempts to downplay the other services provided to women by planned parenthood, attempts to allow medical service professionals to not only withhold birth control but also information about birth control, and attempts at parental notification laws and it would seem that, at best, the movement is just indifferent about women and their rights.

Again, Bullshit.

You have to tell parents to get a tooth pulled, but not an abortion?

Your position makes no sense....

It is absolutely none of your business what any woman does with her own body. Your attempts at any influence are nothing more than busybodying.

I was unaware that adults had to have their parents notified of medical procedures. Maybe you should have actually read what he wrote before galloping into the conversation on your gleaming white charger, Outrage.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

  Quote

gleaming white charger,

[champu 1]

  Quote

  Quote

Secondly, thinking that a life begins and, more to the point, immediately earns any rights at conception is not in touch with the reality of how the reproductive process works.

So, if I do not agree with you, I don't know anything? Fact is that cells start to divide pretty much after conception. At the very basic level that is considered "life"

I didn't say you didn't know anything, I said you're not in touch with reality. There's a difference between "life" and "a life." Trying to argue for the rights of something that is "life" but not "a life" is absurd.

  Quote

  Quote

Even if you draw a more defensible but also more ambiguous line in the sand at quickening or viability, you are still placing the rights of an organism that has neither created nor consumed any unique information above the rights of a woman who has a name, family, friends, enemies, and actually exists in a meaningful way as an individual.

And an hour old baby could be in the exact same position... would it be ok to just drop them in a bucket of water?

It could be in that exact same position in a contrived example, but that's never the case.

  Quote

  Quote

Couple with that attempts to downplay the other services provided to women by planned parenthood, attempts to allow medical service professionals to not only withhold birth control but also information about birth control, and attempts at parental notification laws and it would seem that, at best, the movement is just indifferent about women and their rights.

Again, Bullshit.

You have to tell parents to get a tooth pulled, but not an abortion?

Like I said, at best indifferent. You care more about the organism with no identity than about what risk such laws put teenage girls in.

  Quote

Your position makes no sense....

And yours makes perfect sense.

[lummy 4]

nice charger!! I'd go with a challenger tho

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

I didn't say you didn't know anything, I said you're not in touch with reality.

The best you can do is insults?

  Quote

There's a difference between "life" and "a life." Trying to argue for the rights of something that is "life" but not "a life" is absurd.

Or trying to discount something as your only defenses shows how weak your position is.... Remember, not long ago people wanted to discount a black man by claiming he was not a "full" person.

You are doing the same type of thing here. Fact is a embryo is alive.

  Quote

It could be in that exact same position in a contrived example, but that's never the case.

In that case you claim it would be fine to kill something that was 20 years old. So now you claim that only a person with *experiences* should be protected... Next you will try to limit WHAT experiences should provide protection. This is the road that takes us to killing mentally ill people just because they are not 'real' humans.

  Quote

Like I said, at best indifferent. You care more about the organism with no identity than about what risk such laws put teenage girls in.

Yes, having a tooth pulled is less mentally damaging than having an abortion.... Yet you don't think a child should have to notify a parent to get an abortion.

  Quote

And yours makes perfect sense.

Yes, I think a life is a life.

Yes, I think that if it requires parental consent to get a tooth pulled, then other medical procedures should as well. It is called CONSISTENCY. You have none.

[Southern_Man 0]

Newt says, Quoting me is false! http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/18/gingrich-any-ad-which-quotes-what-i-said/

He will pull a hamstring backpedaling that quickly.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[shah269 0]

After further thought and deep contemplation
I have decided I will date women who weigh more than me...after all they need loving as well as anyone! And why should this deep passionate loving not come from a guy as good looking and as smart and sexy as myself!

"not intended to be a factual statement"

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[champu 1]

Sorry, I didn't see this reply until the thread was re-bumped.

  Quote

  Quote

I didn't say you didn't know anything, I said you're not in touch with reality.

The best you can do is insults?

That wasn't meant as an insult, hence the clarification.

  Quote

  Quote

There's a difference between "life" and "a life." Trying to argue for the rights of something that is "life" but not "a life" is absurd.

Or trying to discount something as your only defenses shows how weak your position is.... Remember, not long ago people wanted to discount a black man by claiming he was not a "full" person.

You are doing the same type of thing here. Fact is a embryo is alive.

Embryos are literally not a full person. About of quarter of embryos don't even make it to week six, and most of the time no one even knows they ever existed. Trying to define and protect rights of something at that stage of life is absurd.

  Quote

  Quote

It could be in that exact same position in a contrived example, but that's never the case.

In that case you claim it would be fine to kill something that was 20 years old. So now you claim that only a person with *experiences* should be protected... Next you will try to limit WHAT experiences should provide protection. This is the road that takes us to killing mentally ill people just because they are not 'real' humans.

I explicitly said that example was contrived. Nobody can make it through birth and still meet the "no information" criterion. I'll thank you not to make predictions about what I will next try to do or my opinions on the mentally ill as you're not very good at it.

  Quote

  Quote

Like I said, at best indifferent. You care more about the organism with no identity than about what risk such laws put teenage girls in.

Yes, having a tooth pulled is less mentally damaging than having an abortion.... Yet you don't think a child should have to notify a parent to get an abortion.

Don't get me wrong, I think they should discuss it with their parents and I hope most would, but my concern about this law is one of unintended consequences of making it illegal not to. You ostensibly want to make sure the parents have a chance to either talk her out of it or otherwise prevent her from having the procedure. Unfortunately, there are even worse situations a girl can get herself into trying to avoid that whether there's a real or perceived reason to do so.

As I've said before, if you want your daughter to come to you if she's pregnant, all you need is her respect, not a law mandating it.

  Quote

  Quote

And yours makes perfect sense.

Yes, I think a life is a life.

Yes, I think that if it requires parental consent to get a tooth pulled, then other medical procedures should as well. It is called CONSISTENCY. You have none.

I would gain no satisfaction from having both abortions and tooth extractions treated with a blanket policy despite their differences.

I don't think the unborn have added or consumed any information to the universe but I don't wish to kill the mentally ill.

I don't consider an embryo to have human rights, but I think black people are whole people.

By those measures you're right, I have no consistency. By those measures I'm okay with that.